Aligarh: The minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has remained a contentious issue for over four decades, marked by protests and violent crackdowns. Students have endured brutal attacks, particularly during the Dadri Kand, while demanding the restoration of AMU’s minority status, which they believe was lost due to the AMU Act of 1972.
In 1981, following extensive efforts led by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Education Minister Prof. Nurul Hasan, the AMU Amendment Act, 1981 was passed, reinstating the university’s minority status. However, the Allahabad High Court later annulled this status, and the matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
To preserve AMU’s mission of promoting Muslim education and culture, the university established the Centre for Promotion of Education and Cultural Advancement of Muslims under Section 5(2)(c) of its ordinance. The initiative was widely welcomed, and a significant amount of university funding was allocated to the Centre.
A recent RTI application has raised concerns over irregularities in the Centre’s administration and finances. The RTI response, issued by Assistant Director Sabahuddin (a post that does not officially exist in the Centre), stated that Naseem A. Khan, a faculty member from the Department of Chemical Engineering, was appointed as Director in November 2019 as an “alternate arrangement” by the then Vice-Chancellor. However, AMU’s ordinances contain no provision for such an arrangement. The director’s term is meant to be two years with eligibility for reappointment, yet no order for Khan’s reappointment has been provided.
Despite the absence of a valid appointment, funds continued to be allocated to the Centre:
₹10.80 lakh (2021-22)
₹10.60 lakh (2022-23)
₹13.06 lakh (2023-24)
₹11 lakh (2024-25)
This amounts to nearly ₹50 lakh, yet no information has been disclosed regarding how these funds were spent. The RTI application sought expenditure details, but neither the CPIO nor the Director responded. This raises serious concerns about financial accountability and transparency within AMU’s administration.
Some senior faculty members allege that AMU has been operating under the influence of a regional group, and that financial and administrative decisions—including Khan’s prolonged tenure—have been shaped by political favoritism. They argue that such lack of oversight could jeopardize AMU’s struggle for minority status and damage its credibility.
Repeated attempts to seek clarification from AMU’s Finance Officer and MIC PRO—both via phone and WhatsApp—went unanswered at the time of publication.
