Why in news?
The central government has decided to differ with NCMEI order on the minority institution status to Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI).
What is the case?
- The Jamia University was established under the JMI Act by Muslim nationalist leaders in 1920 at Aligarh to boycott all educational institutions supported or run by the colonial regime.
- It was eventually shifted to Delhi and later in 1988, got the status of central university through a central law.
- Until 2011, the university was following the central government’s reservation rules for admitting students of SC/ST and OBC background.
- National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions, in 2011, had said that “Jamia was founded by the Muslims for the benefit of Muslims and it never lost its identity as a Muslim minority educational institution”.
- This freed the institution of its reservation obligations and it started reserving 50 per cent of its for Muslim candidates.
- The present HRD Ministry has decided to file a fresh affidavit in the case differing with NCMEI's order.
What is the rationale?
- The HRD Ministry argues that JMI was never intended to be a minority institution as it was set up by an Act of Parliament, and is funded by the central government.
- It refers to an earlier apex court's order that AMU(Aligarh Muslim University) was not a minority university as it had been set up by the British legislature and not by the Muslim community.
- The heart of the dispute lies in Article 30 (1) of the constitution that gives religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
- The varying interpretation to the article - an anti-discriminatory and protective clause (or) as something which confers special privileges and a greater degree of autonomy - complicates the issue.
What are the concerns in this regard?
- As most cases involving minority institutions become political, even strict legal positions sometimes get complicated.
- In the case of JMI, the NCMEI’s 2011 order impacted the OBC reservation policy for admissions, which had a series of consequences.
- Also, the special rights conferred to certain groups are seen to be conflicting with the fundamental principle of equality.
- As education is a high-stakes game, the autonomy enjoyed by the minority institutions is envied by many non-minority institutions.
- More and more groups within states want to come under the ambit of minority institutions to claim these privileges which is leading to disputes.
- Moreover, the question of whether a group could claim minority status in a state despite being a majority in that state is still unanswered by the courts.
- Also, the differential burden of regulation on different institutions depending on the private universities acts is another point of contention.
What should be done?
- There is a prevalence of over regulation and a projected sectarianism in state policy.
- Clarifying the broader regulatory regime and specifying clearly the rights of non-minorities to set up and administer an educational institution of their choice would help.
- Minority status can be decided with reference to the state instead of considering nationally.
- The AMU and Jamia cases could be decided on the statutes that govern them.
- But the larger communal character of this debate can be settled only by addressing the question of freedom to run educational institutions.
Source: Indian Express
