The Supreme Court witnessed a moment of legal contention when Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, expressed his non-support for a 1981 amendment passed by Parliament.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
In Today’s (24/01/2024) hearing of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) case, the Supreme Court witnessed a moment of legal contention when Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, expressed his non-support for a 1981 amendment passed by Parliament. This amendment had granted minority status to AMU, a decision that has since been a subject of legal debate.
The seven-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, was taken aback by the Solicitor General’s stance.
The Chief Justice questioned the appropriateness of a law officer opposing a parliamentary amendment, stating,
“The Parliament is an indestructible, indivisible and continuous entity. We can’t hear the Govt of India say that they don’t stand by the amendment.”
Despite the bench’s surprise, Solicitor General Mehta stood firm on his position. He referenced the Allahabad High Court’s decision to strike down the 1981 amendment, arguing that as a law officer, he was entitled to agree with the High Court’s view, particularly when addressing a Constitutional issue before a seven-judge bench.
This stance led to further astonishment from the bench, with Chief Justice Chandrachud remarking,
“This is radical, a law officer saying that he won’t abide by what the Parliament has held! Can we hear any organ of the Union say that they won’t support the amendment notwithstanding that it has been passed by the Parliament? The Parliament is an indestructible, indivisible entity. How can you say I don’t accept the validity of the amendment?”
In defense of his position, the Solicitor General drew parallels with the constitutional amendments made during the Emergency period, questioning whether a law officer should automatically validate amendments made by Parliament under such circumstances.
Chief Justice Chandrachud responded, highlighting the 44th Amendment’s role in rectifying the ‘evils’ of the Emergency period, emphasizing that the power to decide lies with the elected body of the people, and Parliament can rectify its past wrongs.
ALSO READ: Shoe Thrown at Judge in Courtroom: MP Lawyer Goes Absconding After Hurling Shoe
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal interjected, pointing out that the then Attorney General Niren De had defended the Emergency. The Solicitor General countered by noting that De was not facing a High Court judgment at the time, unlike the current situation where the Union is entitled to support the High Court’s view. He clarified that his stance represented the Union Government’s view, not his personal opinion.
The 1981 amendment, passed to counter the Supreme Court’s 1967 Azeez Basha case judgment (which declared AMU was not a minority institution), amended the Aligarh Muslim University Act 1920 to confer minority status to the University. However, in 2006, the Allahabad High Court struck down this amendment, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court’s seven-judge bench.
This case continues to be a focal point in discussions about the intersection of legislative action and judicial interpretation, highlighting the complexities of constitutional law in India.
Reports of Previous Hearings
Supreme Court Reexamines AMU’s Minority Status (Day-1)
AMU Minority Status | Day 3- Supreme Court Clarifies Article 30
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
