AMU minority status: CJI reacts after Centre says it does not stand by 1981 amendment

The Supreme Court seven-judge Constitution Bench on Wednesday expressed its surprise over the statement made by the Centre's top law officer,

The Supreme Court seven-judge Constitution Bench on Wednesday expressed its surprise over the statement made by the Centre's top law officer, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who said he does not support the 1981 amendment by Parliament to confer minority status on Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).

On the fifth day of the hearing on the batch of petitions to examine the validity of the 1968 verdict by a five-judge bench that took away the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said, "The Allahabad High Court had struck down the 1981 amendment on various grounds and the High Court's view appeared to be correct."

At this, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who was part of the seven-judge bench, again questioned SG Mehta, "Mr Solicitor, are you saying that you do not accept the amendment?"

Solicitor General Mehta reiterated, "No, I do not stand by the amendment."

At this, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said, "Parliament is indestructible, and it is a union, it is irrespective of who espouses the Union government. As the Solicitor General, you cannot say that you do not stand by the amendment. This will be a radical when the law officer tells us that he does not stand by what the Parliament has done, as the Parliament can of course bring in another amendment. Parliament is supreme and eternal, indivisible entity under democracy. How can you say you do not accept the validity of the amendment?"

Responding to this, the SG said, "So, can a law officer be expected to say that all amendments during the Emergency were correct?"

This led the CJI to add, "That is why the 44th amendment came into being to remedy all the evils. The elected body, if the Parliament feels that the amendment is invalid, can nullify it by amending."

The CJI further added, "Parliament can take away the basis of the judgment, but you cannot directly overrule a judgment of this court. The amendment only alters the definition of the term university, but would that take away the basis of the judgment in Azeez Basha?"