States’ Response is Deadline Set
In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India, on January 12, 2024, expressed its dissatisfaction with certain state governments for not submitting their affidavits and responses regarding the district-wise identification of minorities. This issue arose during the hearing of a series of public interest litigation (PIL) petitions that sought directives for the Union Government to define ‘minority’ and establish comprehensive guidelines for identifying minorities at the district level.
Also read-Supreme Court Requests Delhi HC’s Response On Judicial Officer’s Plea (lawchakra.in)
The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, was critical of the states’ non-compliance with previous reminders to furnish responses. Justice Khanna, highlighting the seriousness of the matter, stated,
“Which are the states which have not filed a reply or furnished data? We’ll now have to impose costs.”
This statement underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring adherence to its directives.
Despite this firm stance, the bench extended a final opportunity to the non-compliant states, allowing them six weeks to submit their responses. The court warned that failure to comply within this timeframe would result in a fine of Rs 10,000 for each defaulting state government. Additionally, the Union of India has been instructed to file a status report at least two weeks before the next hearing, scheduled for a non-miscellaneous day in April 2024.
This hearing follows a series of developments in the case. In April 2023, the Supreme Court had already given a ‘last opportunity’ to state governments and union territories to submit their responses on this issue. Despite this, some states failed to respond, leading to the current situation. Earlier, in January 2023, the Centre had submitted a report incorporating the views of States and UTs on this matter.
The PILs in question aim to ensure that only those religious and linguistic groups that are socially, economically, politically non-dominant, and numerically inferior receive the benefits and protections guaranteed under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. They also challenge the constitutional validity of Section 2(c) of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, which empowers the Centre to notify minorities.
In a notable affidavit filed in March 2022, the Union Government acknowledged that Hindus in states where they are a numeric minority could be notified as minorities by the concerned state government. However, this stance was later retracted in a subsequent affidavit, with the Centre stating that it retains the power to notify minorities, but a definitive stand would be taken only after extensive consultations with state governments and other stakeholders to avoid future complications.
The Supreme Court has expressed disappointment with the Union Government’s changing stance on this critical issue, directing it to file a report on the consultative process with state governments.
This case, titled Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 836 of 2020), represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse on minority rights and identification in India. The Supreme Court’s decisions and directives in this matter are eagerly awaited, as they will have significant implications for the definition and recognition of minority groups at the district level across the country.
