Top court’s "Different Stands" Remark On 'Minorities' Tag For Hindus
10-05-2022
"What I'm unable to grasp is that the Union of India isn't able to decide what to try to do. All this thought should be given before. This creates uncertainty and every one comes into property right before we put our eyes thereon. This creates another problem," the bench said.
The Supreme Court today said the difficulty of identification of minorities, including Hindus, at the state level needs a resolution and observed that taking different stands doesn't help.
In supersession of its earlier stand, the Centre had on Monday told the Supreme Court that the ability to notify minorities is vested with the Union government and any decision during this regard are taken after discussion with states and other stakeholders.
A bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh today said these are matters which require resolution and everything can not be adjudicated.
"What I'm unable to know is that the Union of India isn't able to decide what to try to do. All this thought should be given before. This creates uncertainty and every one comes into property right before we put our eyes thereon. This creates another problem," the bench said.
As the hearing commenced, a junior counsel sought miss saying that law officer Tushar Mehta was busy in another court.
Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for the petitioner, mentioned the affidavit filed by the Centre.
The bench then observed, "If the Centre wants to consult states, we should take a call. Solution cannot be that everything is so complex, we'll do so. This can't be answered by the government of India. you opt what you would like to try and do. If you wish to consult them, do it. Who is stopping you from doing so?"
"These are matters which require resolution. Taking different stands doesn't help. If Consultation is required, it should are done before the affidavit was filed. Let the lawman come here," the bench said.
The matter are obsessed again after it slows down.
The Supreme Court had earlier granted four weeks to the Centre to reply to a plea, which has sought directions for framing of guidelines for the identification of minorities at the state level, contending that Hindus are a minority in 10 states.
In an affidavit filed in response to a plea filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, the Ministry of Minority Affairs said the central government has notified six communities as minority under section 2C of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.
"It is submitted that the question involved within the writ petition has far-reaching ramifications throughout the country and so any stand taken without detailed deliberations with the stakeholders may end in an unintended complication for the country."
"Though the ability is vested with the central government to notify minorities, the stand to be formulated by the central government with reference to issues raised during this group of petitions are going to be finalised after having a good consultation with the state governments and other stakeholders," the Centre said.
The ministry said this may make sure that the central government is ready to put a considered view before the highest court taking into consideration several social, logical, and other aspects obviating any unintended complications within the future concerning such a significant issue.
The Ministry of Minority Affairs had earlier told the Supreme Court that state governments can declare any religious or linguistic community, including Hindus, a minority within the said state.
The ministry had also submitted that matters concerning whether followers of Hinduism, Judaism, and Bahaism can establish and administer educational institutions of their choice within the said states and people associated with their identification as a minority within the state could also be considered at the state level.
Mr Upadhyay had challenged the validity of section 2(f) of the National Commission for Minority Education Institution Act, 2004, alleging that it gives unbridled power to the Centre and termed it "manifestly arbitrary, irrational, and offending".
Section 2(f) of the Act empowers the Centre to spot and notify minority communities in India.
The plea, filed through advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey, said denial of advantages to "real" minorities and "arbitrary and unreasonable" disbursements under schemes meant for them to absolutely the majority infringe upon their fundamental right.
"In the choice, direct and declare that followers of Judaism, Bahaism, and Hinduism, who are minorities in Ladakh, Mizoram, Lakshadweep, Kashmir, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Punjab, and Manipur, can establish and administer educational institutions of their choice within the spirit of the TMA Pai Ruling," the plea said.
The Supreme Court within the TMA Pai Foundation case had held that the state is well within its rights to introduce a regulatory regime within the national interest to produce minority educational institutions with well-qualified teachers for them to attain excellence in education.
Quoting Article 30 of the Constitution, the plea said that minorities whether supported religion or language shall have the proper to determine or administer educational institutions of their choice.
The petition said that denial of minority rights to actual religious and linguistic minorities could be a violation of the rights of minorities enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 (no person shall be bereft of his life or personal liberty except in step with procedure established by law) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court had earlier allowed a plea seeking transfer of cases from several high courts thereto against the Centre's notification to declare five communities - Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Parsis - as minorities and tagged the matter with the most petition.
