Supreme Court Pulls Up Solicitor General for Not Endorsing Aligarh Muslim University Amendment

The Supreme Court has issued a strong rebuke to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for his stance on the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority status case. Here's a breakdown of the key points:

Background:

• The Court is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the minority status granted to AMU through an amendment to its Act in 1981.
• Previously, the 1968 Supreme Court judgment in S Azeez Basha vs Union of India held that AMU, being a Central University, cannot be a minority institution.

The Issue:

• During the hearing, Solicitor General Mehta stated that he does not endorse the 1981 amendment granting AMU minority status.
• The Supreme Court took strong objection to this, reminding Mehta that as a government law officer, he cannot disavow a law validly enacted by Parliament.

Court's Observations:

• The Chief Justice emphasized the supremacy of Parliament and stated that a law officer cannot publicly disagree with a law passed by it.
• Mehta's stance was termed "radical" and undermining the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Mehta's Clarification:

• He sought to clarify by asking whether all Emergency-era amendments (widely viewed as unconstitutional) need justification by law officers.
• The Chief Justice acknowledged this issue, highlighting the 44th Amendment that rectified many of those amendments.

Key Arguments:

• The petitioners are defending the 1981 amendment and its basis for granting AMU minority status.
• Mehta, while representing the government, seems to contradict this position.

Next Steps:

• The Court will decide tomorrow whether the validity of the 1981 amendment needs to be examined.
• The hearing will continue on January 30th.

Additional Points:

• The Solicitor General also raised the issue of historical context, mentioning a pre-independence letter allegedly written by AMU members favoring British rule.
• The Chief Justice clarified that pre-constitutional institutions can have rights under Article 30 (minority rights) if they meet specific criteria.

This case raises crucial questions about the interplay between minority rights, educational institutions, and parliamentary authority. The Court's final decision will have significant implications for AMU and potentially other institutions seeking minority status.

(With input from news agency language)
 If you like this law news, share it with a friend!