The anomaly with minority institutions

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