NEW DELHI, Jan 24: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed surprise over the Centre’s stand that it does not accept the 1981 amendment to the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Act, which effectively accorded minority status to the institution, and said the government has to stand by what Parliament has done.
A seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, which is hearing arguments on the vexed question regarding the minority status of AMU, observed Parliament is an “eternal, indestructible body” under the Indian Union.
“How can you not accept an amendment by Parliament?” the CJI asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was arguing for the Centre.
“Mr Solicitor, Parliament is an eternal, indestructible body under the Indian Union, and irrespective of which government represents the cause of the Union of India, Parliament’s cause is eternal, indivisible and indestructible and we can’t hear the Government of India say that amendment which the Parliament made is something I don’t stand by. You have to stand by it,” Justice Chandrachud observed.The bench, which also comprised Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, said the government has the option of taking the amendment route and amend the law again.
“This is an amendment by the Parliament (in 1981). Is the government accepting the amendment?” Justice Khanna asked.
“I am not,” Mehta responded.
The law officer said he was not arguing a matter of “A versus B” and that he was before a seven-judge constitution bench answering constitutional questions.
“The amendment in question was subjected to challenge before the (Allahabad) high court and there is a judgement declaring that it is unconstitutional for A, B, C, D grounds, and as a law officer, it is my right as well as my entitlement and duty to say that this view appears to be correct,” he asserted.
The Allahabad High Court had in January 2006 struck down the provision of the AMU (Amendment) Act, 1981 by which the varsity was accorded minority status.
The CJI said this would be “radical” because a law officer would be then telling the court that “I don’t abide by what Parliament has done”.
“You have to stand by what Parliament has done. Parliament is supreme. Parliament is undoubtedly supreme in its law making function. Parliament can always amend a statute, in which case a law officer can say I have an amended statute,” Justice Chandrachud observed. Adding Parliament is an eternal, indivisible and indestructible entity under democracy.
Mehta said he was supporting the 2006 high court verdict. “How can you say I don’t accept the validity of an amendment?” the bench asked him.
Responding to the query, the solicitor general said, “Would a law officer be expected to say that whatever amendments were made in the Constitution of India during Emergency were true only because they were made by the Parliament”.The CJI observed that is why the 44th amendment Act, 1978 came in. The arguments remained inconclusive and would resume on January 30. (PTI)
