New Delhi: A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is set to deliver on Friday its judgment on the issue of minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).
As per the causelist published on the website of the apex court, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud-led Constitution Bench will pronounce its judgment on November 8.
In February this year, the 7-judge Constitution Bench, reserved its decision after finishing hearing the oral arguments advanced by Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the senior law officers representing the Centre and senior advocates Rajiv Dhawan, Kapil Sibal, and others, appearing for the appellants.
The Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and SC Sharma, was dealing with a reference arising out of the 2006 decision passed by the Allahabad High Court, striking down the 1981 amendment conferring minority status on the institution.
The Parliament, by virtue of the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act, 1981 conferred minority status on the institution after a five-judge Constitution Bench in the 1967 Azeez Basha case had laid down that AMU, being a Central university, cannot claim to be a minority institution.
In the course of the hearing, CJI Chandrachud had orally observed that an educational institution could not be deprived of minority status merely because it is being regulated by a statute made by the Centre or a state government.
“Today, in a regulated state, nothing is absolute. Merely because the right to administer is regulated by a statute, does not detract the minority character of the institution,” he had observed.
Further, the SC had expressed surprise over the Centre’s stand that it does not accept the 1981 amendment inserted by the Parliament to confer minority status on the varsity.
Justice Khanna asked SG Mehta: “This is an amendment by Parliament. Is the government accepting the amendment?”
“I am not,” SG Mehta replied.
To this, CJI Chandrachud had said: “This will be radical because a law officer would be then telling us that he does not abide by what the Parliament has done. You ought to stand by what the Parliament has done.”
“Parliament is undoubtedly supreme in its law-making function and can always amend a statute. Can we hear any organ of the Union Government say that it does not accept the amendment brought in by Parliament? Parliament is an eternal, indivisible and indestructible entity under democracy,” the CJI had said.
Responding to the query, Mehta had said: “It is not my stand. There is an affidavit filed by the government.”
(IANS)
