Muslims in India face significant socio-economic and educational backwardness, a condition rooted in institutional discrimination and systemic deprivation. Despite the urgency of addressing these challenges, governmental measures have largely failed to empower the community. Instead of policies that facilitate upward mobility, many decisions have deepened marginalization. Education is the most vital avenue for integrating any disadvantaged community into mainstream society. For Muslims, this means education must be made affordable, accessible, and widely available. However, the ongoing commercialization of education has eroded this possibility. Escalating costs create additional barriers, pushing Muslim students already on the economic, political, and social margins further into exclusion. Against this national backdrop, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has long been a beacon of hope. It has provided affordable education and a path to dignity for average Muslim students often first-generation learners, the children of laborers, farmers, and daily-wage workers many of whom rely on part-time work, tuition, and scholarships to complete their studies. AMU’s affordability has been its greatest strength. But the recently imposed, massive, and unjustified 41% average fee hike threatens to close the university’s doors to these very students, risking a mass discontinuation of academic aspirations.
The Fee Hike and Official Claims
The administration’s official position, repeated by both the AMU Proctor and Vice-Chancellor, is that the Academic Council approved only a 15–20% increase—amounting to roughly Rs1,000 – Rs1,500 and that this revision followed due process. However, a comprehensive report by the Students Islamic Organisation (SIO) AMU directly challenges both claims. The report compares fees from the 2024–25 session with those of 2025–26, drawing on data from six randomly selected faculties and covering all programs for both new admissions and continuations. The findings are stark: the average fee hike across faculties is 41.00%, with increases ranging from 24.63% to 62.82%. Nearly 52.94% of courses have hikes of 40% or more. When including hikes above 35%, 72.41% of all courses are affected. This is not a minor adjustment it is a structural barrier to education, disproportionately harming marginalized students.
Fee Hike Structure Across Faculties
The PhD Example and Partial Rollback
Initially, the hikes were even more extreme. For example, the PhD continuation fee for day scholars in the Faculty of Social Sciences jumped from ■5,500 to ■10,180—an 85% increase. This resulted from an ill-conceived decision to impose a uniform fee structure on both day scholars and hostellers, ignoring differences in services used. Only after widespread student protests and complaints did the administration partially revise the structure, rolling back this uniformity. Yet, the 41% average hike remains and continues to burden students heavily.
Due Process Contested
The SIO AMU report also rejects the administration’s claim of careful adherence to due process. It cites a letter sent to the Vice-Chancellor by three members of the AMU Executive Council—Dr. Musavvir Ali (Mathematics), Dr. Murad A. Khan (Foreign Languages), and Prof. Moinuddin (Biochemistry, JN Medical College)—who raised serious objections to both the scale of the hike and the manner in which it was approved. “As per the rules and statutory structure of the university, any major policy decision—especially one with significant financial and social impact—must be ratified by the Executive Council, the highest decision-making body of AMU. The present decision lacks such approval, rendering it administratively irregular and institutionally unaccountable.” This underscores the core charge: the fee hike is not only unjust and unaffordable, but also procedurally illegitimate.
The imposition of this fee hike represents a betrayal of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s vision of AMU as an inclusive institution for the marginalized. This imposition creates further financial barriers without proper authority, the administration risks eroding the university’s legacy and denying countless students the chance to pursue higher education. Unless reversed, this decision will deepen educational inequity and undermine the very mission that has sustained AMU for generations.
