From Legalities to Realities: A Comprehensive Study of AMU Minority Status

Mohsin-Ul-Mulk, a friend of Sir Syed, remembers the early days of the Aligarh Movement when he met Sir Syed at Banaras to discuss the establishment of a Muslim institution. He says we both had a productive discussion over the education of Muslims till late at night before I slept. At 2:00 am, I awoke to discover Sir Syed missing from his bed. Determined to find him, I left my room and encountered a disheartening scene: Sir Syed, despite attempting to restrain himself, was crying loudly. Hastening towards him, I inquired about the cause, to which he responded, “Dear, the condition of the Muslim community has deteriorated and is continuously deteriorating and no aspect seems to be working for their well-being”.¹

This was the concern that led to the foundation of Aligarh Muslim University but unfortunately, today the same institution has to provide evidence on the fundamental question of who established it and for what purpose so its Minority status could be restored. To discuss the case of Aligarh Muslim University we will be exploring the purpose of its foundation and the struggle of the Muslim community to establish this institution. We will also be discussing the legal history of the AMU Act from the beginning to this day; when a seven-judge constitutional bench is hearing the issue in the Supreme Court. 

Muslims in the 19^th Century and Aligarh Movement

In the 19th century, the political landscape of India witnessed a decline, and colonial power was strengthened. By 1832, the positions of president and Chief Commissioner were abolished, followed in 1835 by the replacement of Mughal-named coinage with the company’s currency. In 1839, the decision was made to bring the Mughal royal title and residency at the Red Fort to an end. The residual remnants met their conclusion with the suppression of the 1857 revolt. Muslim community because of its role in the mutiny of 1857 was the foremost target of colonialist powers. Pandit Nehru writes in his book Discovery of India, “The Revolt of 1857 was a Joint affair, but in its suppression, Moslems felt strongly, and to some extent rightly, that they were the greater sufferers.”²

During this challenging period in Muslim history, marked by subjugation, due to a lack of foresight, Muslims had no plan. Muslims were not only devoid of modern education but were also resistant to embracing it. In 1835, when Lord Macaulay extended an offer of modern education, clerics and leaders rejected the proposition.

By the mid-19th century, various Indian communities had established community colleges with government support, while Muslims lagged. Recognizing this situation, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan took the initiative to raise awareness among Muslims about the need for modern education alongside Islamic one. Despite facing criticism for his unconventional approach, Sir Syed tirelessly visited cities and homes, advocating for modern education and collecting funds to establish an institution. After an intense struggle, he successfully founded Madarsat-ul-Uloom in 1875, later evolving into the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in 1877, modeled after Oxford and Cambridge Universities. Sir Syed emphasized a dual focus on both modern and Islamic education, aiming to cultivate expertise in both fields among his students.

Sir Syed’s Idea of Education

If we look at Sir Syed’s educational aims, it is clear that teaching only a few textbooks and giving degrees through examination was not his ambition. He wanted to spread the real benefits of knowledge and education throughout Muslim society. Character building was the central point of it. Higher education, which he emphasized equally, was the name of such a vision as to glorify scholarly creation as well as character-building, and that educated people would become the begetters of new sciences and that power through the treasures of knowledge. And get glory, which was the distinction of the entire nation at that time.³

While addressing a gathering in Lucknow Sir Syed said, “O friends, my happiness does not lie in the achievement that a Muslim has obtained a degree of B.A. or M.A. rather my happiness is in making Muslims, a Community of dignity and honour.”⁴

The aim of Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College was not to churn out careerist bookworms. The real aim was to bring out students who would work for society. He wanted the young generation to become multi-dimensional, and to have the Quran in one hand and science in the other. The object of the MAO College was to bring about the modernization of the Muslims of India. Its main object was also to make community, play an important role in the socio-political, economic, religious, and cultural life of the society. Amongst other initiatives, the Siddons Union Club, a debating club named after the first Principal of the College was founded after the Cambridge University Union Club for the same purpose. 

Sir Syed, on the foundation day of Madarsat-ul-Uloom or the MAO College, said: “From the seed which we sow today, there may spring up a mighty tree, whose branches, like those of the banyan of the soil, shall in their turn strike firm roots into the earth, and themselves send forth new and vigorous saplings”. One of the great achievements of Sir Syed is, that he correctly diagnosed the weakness of the society of his time and found a cure for it in his own way.⁵

Today, AMU has become more than a university, a symbol of middle-class Muslims, and a beacon of hope for the emancipation of the community’s educational backwardness. Any expansion of AMU will represent the fulfillment of the vision of its founder who had seen AMU’s future not just as one college but as a catalyst for the establishment of the network of different colleges and universities. 

Aligarh Movement and the Quest for a Muslim University 

Sir Syed died in 1898, after his demise now it was on the companions of Sir Syed to take this movement ahead. After his demise, the institution faced many challenges. The strength of students was continuously declining and the institution was in a deep financial crisis. In order to combat these challenges, Aftab Ahmad Khan, an old student who had returned to Aligarh as a barrister from Cambridge, joined with Theodore Beck, Mohsin-ul-Mulk, and Shaukath Ali to establish a scheme for a Sir Syed Memorial Fund. ⁶ On 3rd March 1898, Aftab proposed this to the college’s Board of management, which accepted this proposal.⁷

Though the idea of a Muslim University was the heart of the vision of Sir Syed, however, due to unfavorable circumstances it remained unfulfilled until his death, but now university leadership was clear with this aim. It is important to mention the nature of university in the minds of Muslims. In I898, Maulvi Rafiuddin Ahmad wrote an article in the journal ‘The Nineteenth Century’ and argued that a Muslim university would become a center of learning for all Muslims in the British Empire. The proposed university would be modern, but it would also be Muslim. It would be universal, not parochial.⁸

After a long struggle and negotiation, the government agreed to their demand but with many conditions, one of the most difficult conditions was the sum of Rs 30 lakh to be shown as a reserve fund which is estimated more than 500 crores today.⁹ The leaders of the movement faced formidable challenges in both collecting the necessary funds and tirelessly convincing the government for the establishment of a Muslim University on their conditions. However, this was the time when Sir Syed’s dedicated efforts bore fruit. Importantly, the initiative to establish the university was not an individual endeavor but a collective pursuit of the whole Muslim community. Extensive fundraising campaigns spanned across cities and towns, with dedicated teams visiting mosques and homes to successfully secure the required financial support. On December 1, 1920, the culmination of those efforts finally succeeded with the enactment of the Muslim University Act.

Act of 1920: AMU and its Muslim Character

It is important to mention that the AMU Act was not a new establishment but rather a continuation of the already-established Muhammad Anglo-Oriental College. The preamble of the AMU Act makes it very clear. It says:

 “It is expedient to establish and incorporate a teaching and residential Muslim University at Aligarh, and to dissolve the Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which are respectively known as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh, and the Muslim University Association, and to transfer and vest in the said University all properties and rights of the said Societies and of the Muslim University Foundation Committee”.¹⁰

Furthermore, the subsequent sub-sections make it more clear that all resources, movable and immovable, and all rights, powers, and privileges of the two above-mentioned societies, and of the Muslim University Foundation Committee were transferred and ‘vested in the Aligarh University and were to be applied to the objects and purposes for which the Aligarh University was incorporated. ¹¹

Aligarh Movement leadership knew the importance of this institution and they also anticipated challenges that could arise in the future, which is why they didn’t compromise on the power of administration. AMU court was declared as the supreme governing body of the university and Section 23 of the original Act clearly mentioned that no person other than a Muslim shall be a member of this court. This was the reason that AMU came into existence by the efforts of Muslims for the benefit, primarily, of Muslims. The object of this Act gets more clear while reading Section 5(2) of the Act, which authorizes the promotion of “oriental and Islamic studies in Muslim theology and religion”. 

During the campaign of this Muslim University, the Aligarh leaders agreed that they would not accept a university that assigned less power to the trustees than was the case with the MAO College. Sheikh Abdullah complained that the draft constitution did not give the court sufficient power over appointments promotions and dismissals of staff and convinced the government not to make any compromise in the autonomy of the governing body of the University.¹² The question was not on who would be the member of the court rather it was on autonomy to run the institution for the purpose it was established.

Aligarh Muslim University After Independence

From ‘Madarsat-ul-Uloom’ in 1875 to the University in 1920 under colonial rule, post-1947, AMU had now entered into a new phase. The university suffered a great loss as a result of partition, which ultimately led to a moral, political, and financial catastrophe. The Partition of 1947 caught the AMU at a moment when its finances were already showing considerable signs of strain. The British Government exercised high restraint in its annual grants, and the Princely States were increasingly reluctant to come forward with their contributions. The AMU had already, before 1947, tended to depend heavily on students’ fees and had been admitting students in numbers far beyond its capacity to accommodate them.¹³ Political difficulties led to the withdrawal of Muslim students across India from Aligarh, the number of students in the university (excluding the Schools) had fallen from 5000 to 1000.

Maulana Azad visited the AMU campus in 1949 and expressed his ‘great admiration’ for Sir Syed’s educational and social revivalism. He praised him for fighting against the ‘odd’ of his time and for laying the foundations of modern education for Indian Muslims. In his eyes, Aligarh was the ‘visible embodiment of the victory of the forces of progress’, particularly among Indian Muslims. According to him, it was now the responsibility of students and teachers to revive this glorious legacy and put it at the service of the nation.

By 1950, Zakir Husain, took charge as vice chancellor of AMU and made it clear that he would endeavor to develop the university and secure government assistance as much as possible. He was praised for starting a ‘neo-Aligarh movement’, which was called similar to Sir Syed’s legacy by his followers.¹⁴

Some students and teachers feared that Zakir Husain would use his powers as Vice-Chancellor to erode the institution’s Muslim character, thereby creating a ‘new’ Aligarh controlled by the government. While Zakir Husain, along with some students and teachers, believed that AMU could play an important part in national integration, both as a Muslim and as a national institution, others feared that the institution’s aggiornamento, i.e., modernization, would lead to the erosion, if not the complete disappearance, of Aligarh’s Muslim character.¹⁵

Erosion of Aligarh’s Muslim Status: Amendment of 1951 and 1965

In independent India, Minority communities were assured of their rights. Articles 25 to 28 and 29 to 30 are important pertaining to religious and minority rights.

Section 30(1) protects the right of a lingual or religious minority to establish and administer an institution of their choice whereas Section 30(2) directs the State not to discriminate against such institutions in granting aid, on the grounds of being a minority institution.

There was no remarkable change in the Act till the enactment of the Constitution of India. AMU during this phase has already seen a huge socio-political shift. After independence, there were amendments in almost every existing law to make them consistent with the recently enacted constitution. The first major amendment to the AMU Act took place in 1951. It amended section 8, the proviso of which gave power to the authorities to exempt women from attending tutorial classes and public lectures and power to prescribe to them a special course of Study.  

Furthermore, it amended section 9 to make religious education for Muslim students optional as it was compulsory for them to get religious education before. Another amendment that raised concern amongst Muslims was section 23. The proviso to Sec. 23(1) required only Muslim members to be a part of the court, the highest governing body of the university. After the amendment, now even Non-Muslims could be a part of the court.

The Muslim community was yet to find a way to deal with the above-mentioned changes, another amendment was made to the Act, in 1965, this time reducing the power of the court which was the highest governing body.  The University Court no longer remained the supreme governing body and was left with advisory functions. The composition of the court was also altered and both the court and Executive Council were packed with the nominees of the Visitor i.e. the President of India. This change in the governing power of the institution created more doubts in the minds of the leadership of the community and they found it an encroachment on their rights to govern this Muslim institution. This debate was soon to reach the apex Court of the Nation.

The Aziz Basha Case: Judicial Reimagining of the Establishment

These amendments were challenged in the Supreme Court on the ground that by these amendments Muslims were deprived of administering Aligarh Muslim University. Whereas under Article 30(1) of the Indian constitution all minorities whether based on religion or language have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

In this case, five judges constitutional bench of the Supreme Court had fundamental questions to decide whether the Amendments of 1951 and 1965 were unconstitutional. In order to decide this issue SC delved into the question, “Who established Aligarh Muslim University?” and held:

“The 1920-Act was then passed by the Central Legislature and the University of the Type that was established there under, namely, one, whose degrees would be recognised by Government, came to be established. It was clearly brought into existence by the 1920-Act for it could not have been brought into existence otherwise. It was thus the Central Legislature which brought into existence the Aligarh University and must be held to have established it. It would not be possible for the Muslim minority to establish a university of the kind whose degrees were bound to be recognised by Government and therefore it must be held that the Aligarh University was brought into existence by the Central Legislature and the Government of India. If that is so, the Muslim minority cannot claim to administer it, for it was not brought into existence by it. Art. 30(1),”

While deciding this case, the Supreme Court ignored the fact that Aligarh Muslim University was not a new institution but rather a continuation of Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College as every property that MAO held was transferred to AMU including land and building structures. Moreover, the students who were admitted under MAO were now getting an education in AMU from the same teachers, employees were also transferred, and even the hard-earned reserve fund of Thirty Lakh collected by Muslims was handed over to AMU but the Supreme Court, ignoring these facts, held AMU was established by an Act of parliament thus Muslims do not have rights to claim minority status under Article 30 (1).

This judgment is self-contradictory at many points, the Supreme Court says the Minority has the right to establish and administer an educational institution including a university under article 30(1) but if it is established by an Act of the legislature, it would lose the minority status, technically making it impossible for a Minority community to establish a university with Minority status. There is no proper way to establish a university other than through a Statute, Section 23 of the UGC Act says a university should be established through a statute only.¹⁶ But SC in Aziz Basha held if you establish a university under the statute, you won’t get minority status. This flawed decision of the Supreme Court in 1967 deprived Muslims of administering one of the most important centers of learning in India. 

Struggle to Restore Minority Status

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Aziz Basha, the Muslim community foresaw the challenges arising from this deprivation. Recognizing the potential impact, calls emerged for the restoration of Minority Status through parliamentary intervention. Responding to these concerns, in 1972, an amendment to the AMU Act was enacted based on the recommendations of the Beg Committee.¹⁷ The agitation persisted until 1981 when the government, recognizing the need for corrective measures, introduced another amendment to the AMU Act. This amendment successfully restored the Minority Status of AMU, marking a crucial turning point in the institution’s status and purpose.

Another Challenge to the AMU Minority Status

The AMU Minority Status issue resurfaced when the university administration, using the privileges accorded to Minority institutions allocated 50% of seats for Muslim students in post-graduation courses in the medical field. Against this decision 34 petitioners approached the Allahabad High Court, contending that AMU is not a Minority institution and thus has no right to reserve seats for Muslims.

In this shocking ruling, the Allahabad High Court nullified the decision of the AMU Admission Committee, asserting that AMU lacked the authority to reserve seats for Muslims. Addressing the AMU Amendment Act of 1981, Justice Arun Tandon, presiding over a single-judge bench, held that the amendment fell short of overturning the Supreme Court’s decision in the Aziz Basha case. Furthermore, the High Court reinterpreted (read down) the section restoring AMU’s Minority status, asserting that the 1981 amendment inaccurately portrayed AMU’s history by quoting it as an establishment of Muslims.¹⁸

According to the Allahabad High Court, AMU was not founded by Muslims rather it was established through an Act of Parliament. This decision of the Allahabad High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court of India and is being heard by a seven-judge constitutional bench that would reconsider the ruling of Aziz Basha and follow the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. 

It is surprising to note that the Aziz Basha case approved the AMU (Amendment) Act of 1951 and AMU (Amendment) Act of 1965, which took away the right of the Muslim minority to administer their own educational enterprise. But when the legislature rectified its own anomalies by the AMU (Amendment) Act 1981 and overtly recognized the implicit minority character of AMU, the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in 2005 made an observation that the “power to amend the statutory provisions cannot be extended to such an extent so as to create a situation whereby legislative Act, declared constitutionally valid, could be rendered unconstitutional by subsequent legislative enactment”. ¹⁹

Both the Supreme Court in Aziz Basha and the Allahabad High Court in Naresh Agarwal failed to understand that an Act of parliament was the only way to establish a university, without the parliament, there was no option, and still today there is no option to establish a university. Accepting this argument, no minority can establish an institution to get the rights granted under Article 30(1). 

What constitutes a minority university? The case of AMU

Now that we have discussed, the whole idea of Aligarh Muslim University and its legal history from the Act of 1920 till this ongoing hearing before a seven-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, let’s analyze the claim of Aligarh Muslim University as an institution with Minority Status under essential legal requirements.

Supreme Court of India in 1983 laid down a few requisites in order to claim the benefit of Article 30(1).²⁰ The community that claims an institution to be a minority institution must show:

1. That it is a religious/linguistic minority.
2. That the institution was established by it. 

Further, the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI )while deciding the case of minority status of Jamia Milia Islamia observed that, as per different judgments of the Supreme Court, the following facts are to be proved for grant of minority status certificate to a minority educational institution on the religious basis:

1. That the educational institution was established by a member/members of the religious minority community;
2. That the educational institution was established for the benefit of the minority community; and
3. That the educational institution is being administered by the minority community.

Section 2 (c) of the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) Act, 1992 notifies the Muslim community as a minority community and this is also an admitted fact that the purpose of MAO and AMU was to benefit the Muslim Community. Now on the question of who established MAO College, there is a consensus of both the Muslim Community and the Supreme Court that it was established by Muslims but when it comes to the question of AMU, the Supreme Court denied the fact that AMU was the outcome of the struggle of Muslim community merely on the fact that the tool to establish this University was an Act of parliament. 

So as per this logic, because AMU was established through a statute, all efforts of Sir Syed from 1857 to 1898 and followed by the intense struggle of the whole Muslim Community from demanding a university to the collection of Rs. 30 lakh as a reserve fund, which they collected from door to door, mosque to mosque campaign, literally begging on the roads in the name of the future of the coming generations of Muslim community, to be ignored. 

This is what the Supreme Court held in Aziz Basha that Muslims can establish a Minority University, admitted the fact that Muslims struggled to establish AMU, collected funds, raised infrastructure, hired faculty from beyond regions, started a college, begged to collect required funds, negotiated for more than twenty years to fulfilled their demand of a Muslim University but then shockingly SC remarks that AMU was not established by Muslims because parliament established it. 

On the question of administering an institution, this is a right that a Minority gets in the case of a Minority institution they have established. As discussed above the leaders of the Aligarh Movement never compromised on administering power, they negotiated to include Section 23 in the original AMU Act, according to which no person other than a Muslim shall be a member of the court and the court will be supreme authority.

Even for the sake of argument, if we consider the involvement of non-minority in AMU, it doesn’t fail the purpose of section 30 (1) to administer such an institution by a minority because the power to administer doesn’t mean that the whole administration should include members of Minority community only, rather it means that Minority will decide who would and how to administer such institutions. It would be anomalous if the Supreme Court would take away the minority status of AMU on the grounds that non-minority are involved at some level in the governing body of AMU. 

In St. Stephen Case,²¹ the Supreme Court has relied on the character of even buildings, moto, and religious structures to decide the Minority character of St. Stephen College. In the case of AMU, both the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court did not bother to take a  similar approach to identify the character of AMU whose every corner speaks for itself that AMU is a Muslim minority institution. They ignored the fact that there are more than 30 mosques on the premises of the university, the emblem of AMU contains a Quranic verse as its motto, AMU employs Imam and muezzins, has separate departments for Sunni theology, Shia theology, Islamic studies, Arabic language and literature, Islamic philosophy, and Quranic studies. 

Given the above facts in the light of the history of MAO College and AMU followed by the post-independent legal history, one can easily conclude that AMU was established by Muslims for the benefit of Muslims. Moreover as per the essential requirements laid down by the Supreme Court and NCMEI, if Aligarh Muslim University is not a Minority institution then no institution in India deserves the legal status of being a minority.

Aligarh Movement and its Significance for Present-Day Indian Education

Tara Chand, a famous historian of modern India, remarked, “It will be the falsification of the history of India if it is asserted from any quarter that the Aligarh Muslim University was not established by the Muslims and primarily for the educational advancement of the Muslims of India.”²²

Since independence, the status of Muslim education in India and the condition of Muslims in India as a whole have not been good at all, be it in the economy, education, employment, or any other aspect of life. Aligarh Muslim University is an institution that plays a significant role in the overall development of Muslims in India and has given hope that there is light despite all of the darkness.

In 2005-06, the Government of India constituted the Justice Sachar Committee, a seven-member high-level committee to prepare a report on the social, economic, and educational status of the Muslim Community of India, and the Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission to identify criteria for socially and economically backward classes among religious and linguistic minorities and to suggest various welfare measures for minorities, including reservation.

It has been pointed out that, socially, educationally, and economically, Muslims are among the most backward sections of Indian society. Undoubtedly, the report is immensely useful for understanding the magnitude of minority deprivation and makes it quite clear that Muslims are far behind other communities.

As per the report, the overall literary rate in India has been around 70% for quite some time, and the literary rate of Muslims is around 60%. In general, 26% of those aged 17 years and older have completed matriculation, and this percentage is only 17% among Muslims. The female literacy rate is as low as 50.1%, which is not only much worse than their male counterparts (67.6%) but also lower than the national female literacy rate of 53.2%.²³

The reasons can be exactly predicted, and the need for minority institutions becomes of utmost importance when facts and data from the government reveal the same tribulations. It may be noted that 64.3% of Muslims live in rural areas, while the literacy rate of all Muslims is 59.1%. The situation is worse for the rural Muslims, who are only 52.7% literate, and among them, the rural female literacy rate is much lower. About 50% of urban Muslims with 70% literary rates are much better off than Muslims in rural areas and are also closer to the all-India urban literary rate of 79.9%. 

According to the 61st round of the National Sample Survey, the literacy rate among rural Muslim women was 41%. It is estimated that only one out of 25 students enrolled in an undergraduate program and only one out of fifty students enrolled in a postgraduate program is Muslim. The case has not much changed even now. Muslims are facing the same problems, despite some negligible changes in the facts and the figures.

At a time when the condition of Muslims in India is much more depriving and impoverishing, unfortunately, the minority status of the only minority-centric university in India is being questioned before the Supreme Court. Instead of establishing more and more institutions of minority character where every class of minority may study to compete and make change at the grass-roots level, further subjugation is in process, which will have a long-lasting effect on the minority. 

The Sachar Committee report has brought out the relative educational deprivation of Muslims in India in various dimensions. It says that Muslims are at a double disadvantage with low levels of education combined with low-quality education. The Dalit and Tribal communities across India have utilized the benefits of reservation and have achieved success in educational attainment and social mobility, but Muslims have no such option.

Without higher education or professional education, a community can’t flourish. Higher education-related goals can’t be attained without secondary education and good financial status. Muslims limited attainment of education at the higher secondary stage shows its adverse effect on their higher education.²⁴ This is the reason they are still far behind other communities in the sector of education. While knowing the degrading status, at the same time, the Maulana Azad National Fellowship, which was given to students pursuing higher education, has also been shut down by the central government.

What If Amu Is Deprived Of Minority Status

The lack of AMU minority status will severely hamper the higher education of Muslims in India. AMU has served the very significant purpose of creating an educated Muslim middle class. AMU and the education of Muslims go hand in hand. Students from different parts of the country, from Muslim families come only to AMU. Today, there are numerous universities all over the country, but the composition of AMU is from all over India because of its minority character, that minority identity is relevant and very inclusive to a minority.

The responsibility of bearing the cultural identity, be it a majority or a minority, also falls on women. When it comes to Muslim women’s education, the existence of the minority character of AMU becomes of utmost importance; it’s a very crucial consideration for families sending their women to this institution. If the AMU ceases to be a minority institution, it will hamper the higher education of Muslim women in India to a significant extent.

The absence of minority status could have a detrimental impact on career prospects for the Muslim community. Degrees from universities play a crucial role in enabling individuals to join the workforce. The denial of the reservation to the minority community has already affected it badly in every field, and if AMU is not considered a minority institution, it will result in further denial and deprivation and fewer degrees and job opportunities for the Muslim community as a whole and this will push Muslim community further into the vicious cycle of poverty and illiteracy.

It is important to mention, that in a democratic country, it is the foremost responsibility of the State to educate minorities. Above mentioned data suggests, in the case of the Muslim community, all governments have miserably failed. On the failure of the State, if the Muslim Community had taken this initiative for them, the least people in power could have done, was not to become an obstacle in their way but unfortunately case seems to be otherwise.

References:

1. Khaleeq Ahmed Nizami, Sir Syed and Aligarh Tehreek, p:20
2. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Discovery of India, p:342
3. Quit India To New India, History And Society, Edited By Pratibha, Prof. Dept of History, M.S University Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Khaleeq Ahmed Nizami, Sir Syed and Aligarh Tehreek, p:8
5. Mahavir Prasad Jain, Role Of Aligarh Movement In Freedom Struggle And Post Independence Period.
6. Habibullah Khan, Hayat-e-Aftab (Allahabad, I947)
7. Proceedings of a Meeting of the M A-O College Board of Management held in. Institute, 31 March, I898
8. Rafiuddin Ahmad, ‘The Proposed Muslim University in India’, The Nineteenth Century, XLIV (I898)
9. Report of a meeting between Sir Harcourt Butler and the Muslim University Constitution Committee, Simla, 23 September 1911, Home Educ A February 1912
10. Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, Preamble
11. Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, Section 4
12. Gail Minault, David Lelyveld, The Campaign for a Muslim University, 1898-1920, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1974), pp. 145-189
13. What role for Sir Syed’s Aligarh in post-partition India? Laurence Gautier, O.P. Jindal Global University
14. Imam, Zafar, ‘The role of Aligarh in new India’, Aligarh Magazine (1957-58), pp.75-82.
15. Hameed-ud-Din Khan, ‘Aligarh Muslim University: attitudes and trends of the MAO College and the Aligarh Muslim University since 1909. Personal observations and revelations’ (pamphlet written in 1966, published by the Federation of Aligarh Alumni Association, in Sir Syed Day Magazine (2006), pp.72-73
16. University Grant Commission Act, 1956, Section 23
17. Shahrukh Ahmed, The Minority Status of Aligarh Muslim University, ILI Law Review, 2017
18. Naresh Agarwal vs Union of India, 2005 SCC Online All 1705
19. Special Appeal No.1321 of 2005, The Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh Vs. Malay Shukla and another at Allahabad High Court.
20. S.P. Mittal vs. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 1)
21. St. Stephen’s College vs University Of Delhi1992 AIR 1630
22.  Aligarh’s Long Quest for ‘Minority Status AMU (Amendment) Act, 1981 by  Violette Graff
23. The Sachar Committee Report, at the Ministry of Minority Affairs website
24. Muslim Education in Post-Independent India –Issues, Factors and Prospects by Intakhab Alam Khan