Content:

1. Universities are different from religious institutions
2. India needs a globally recognised public policy school

Universities are Different from Religious Institutions

Context of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and the 2024 Judgment

The Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO) College Origins:

• Founded by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in 1877, M.A.O. College was a significant cultural and educational project for Indian Muslims post-1857.

• Evolved into Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), representing the community’s aspirations for modern education.

Relevance: GS 2 (Polity, Governance)

Practice Question: How did the 2024 Supreme Court judgment on AMU change the understanding of minority rights compared to the 1967 Azeez Basha decision? (150 Words)

1967 Supreme Court Ruling – Azeez Basha:

• This decision denied AMU’s status as a minority institution, ruling that it was neither established nor administered by Muslims.

• The university was not given a chance to present its case.

2024 Supreme Court Decision:

• The recent seven-judge Bench overruled Azeez Basha, aligning with the Supreme Court’s trend towards progressive and liberal judgments on minority rights.
•  

Key Interpretations in the 2024 Ruling

Broad Interpretation of Article 30:

• Article 30 of the Indian Constitution provides minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
• The dissenting judges extended Article 30’s protections to universities, including pre-constitutional and hybrid institutions.

• Consensus on the principle that AMU could maintain its minority character.

Justice Datta’s Unique Position:

• While agreeing broadly with the dissent, Justice Datta had nuanced differences.

• Engaged with both majority and dissenting perspectives, advocating for overruling past positivist interpretations to maintain the Constitution’s transformative essence.

Judicial Precedents:

• References to cases like Maneka Gandhi (1978) and K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) show the Supreme Court is not strictly bound by past decisions, especially when they contradict the spirit of a living Constitution.

Defining Minority Character in the AMU Context

Holistic Test for Minority Status:

• Agreement that minority character should be evaluated through a flexible, broad-based framework.

• The 2024 judgment upheld the principle that the right to administer follows the establishment by the minority community.

Exclusive Communal Character Not a Requirement:

• Concerns were raised regarding the dissenting opinion’s emphasis on near-exclusive communal identity for minority status.

• AMU’s role as a liberal and inclusive institution aligns with Article 30’s broader vision.

Broader Implications for Minority Institutions

Judicial Discipline and Governance:

• The Supreme Court, through judgments in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (2002) and Xaviers (1974), clarified the scope of minority administration.

• AMU’s governance structure should not undermine its minority character.

National Importance and Minority Rights:

• The 2024 ruling underscores that a minority institution can be of national significance.

• Integrating minority contributions into India’s educational landscape and redefining the role of minority institutions in national development.

India Needs a Globally Recognised Public Policy School

Introduction:

• Public Policy Institutions: Organisations dedicated to studying, developing, and evaluating public policy.

• Global Comparison: The United States and Europe have prestigious public policy institutions like Harvard Kennedy School and the London School of Economics.

• India’s Challenge: Despite its complex democratic structure and developmental needs, India sends its finest to be trained abroad.

Relevance: GS2 ( Polity, Governance)

Practice Question: Explain the impact of centralised power in India on its policy-making process. How does it differ from the decentralised system in the United States? (250 Words )

• Centralised Decision-Making: In India, power is concentrated within the executive, particularly among political elites, government officials, and bureaucrats, limiting the influence of the legislature and independent policy professionals.

• Limited Legislative Oversight: The Indian legislature has minimal oversight over the executive, unlike in decentralised democracies where legislative bodies have a more active role in policy-making.

• Contrast with the U.S. System: In the U.S., Congress can independently craft and pass legislation, creating space for a vibrant policy ecosystem with multiple entry points for influence.

• Entry Points in the U.S.: In the U.S., think tanks, advocacy groups, and public representatives provide numerous opportunities for policy influence, fostering robust debate and analysis.

• India’s Policy Disconnect: The centralisation of power in India leads to a disconnect between politics and policy, as decisions are often influenced by political elites rather than through deliberative processes.

• Influence Limited to Political Alignment: Policy professionals in India can only influence policy if they align with top political leadership, unlike in the U.S., where independent analysis has more impact.

• Instability with Power Shifts: In India, influence shifts with political regimes, creating instability in the policy-making process, unlike in more institutionalised systems where think tanks and civil society groups maintain relevance.

• Weak Institutional Framework: India’s weak formalisation of the state further limits policy discourse, relegating it to a secondary role compared to political priorities.

• Lack of Policy Ecosystem Stability: Unlike in decentralised democracies, India lacks a stable policy ecosystem where independent analysis can influence policy decisions consistently.

• Challenges of Centralised Power: India’s policy-making faces challenges due to informal power dynamics, executive dominance, and limited legislative input, requiring tailored solutions to improve the system.