Yashaswani Chauhan, Pune
The Supreme Court has questioned the Central government’s refusal to accept the 1981 amendment to the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Act, which conferred minority status on the institution. The seven-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, expressed astonishment over the government’s position, emphasizing that parliament’s decisions are enduring and must be upheld regardless of the ruling administration.
The Chief Justice remarked by asking how they cannot accept Parliament’s amendment.
The Allahabad High Court’s 2006 ruling struck down the provision of the AMU (Amendment) Act, 1981, which had granted minority status to the university. However, the Chief Justice expressed concerns about a law officer challenging a decision made by Parliament and suggested that if there are issues, the government can follow the amending route to rectify them.
Mehta continued to support the 2006 High Court verdict, stating, “ I am not arguing a matter of ‘A versus B.’ I am before a seven-judge constitution bench answering constitutional questions.”
The Chief Justice countered by asking how Mehta can say that he doesn’t accept the validity of an amendment. Mehta raised the analogy of constitutional amendments made during the Emergency period which questioned whether a law officer should blindly accept them.
The Chief Justice explained that the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 was enacted to rectify the perceived wrongs perpetrated during the Emergency. He clarified that the power to decide such matters rests with the elected Parliament.
The proceedings also involved senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who represented the AMU Old Boys Association. Sibal referred to historical instances where an attorney general defended Emergency provisions, highlighting the nuanced circumstances.
The background of the case involves the 1981 amendment that restored the minority status of AMU, a decision later challenged and declared unconstitutional by the Allahabad High Court in 2006. The AMU and the UPA government had appealed against the decision, but the NDA government informed the Supreme Court in 2016 that it was withdrawing the appeal filed by the previous government.
As the arguments unfolded, the Chief Justice reiterated the importance of the government standing by the decisions made by Parliament. The court acknowledged that the 1981 amendment had been challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court but emphasized the need for the government to uphold parliamentary decisions. The court adjourned the proceeding, and further discussions on the contentious issue of AMU’s minority status are scheduled to resume on January 30, 2024.