12 Jan 2024 6:31 AM GMT
While hearing a batch of petitions pertaining to the district-wise identification of minorities, the Supreme Court on Friday (January 12) expressed its disapproval over certain state governments' failure to submit affidavits and responses despite previous reminders.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta was hearing a clutch of public interest litigation (PIL) petitions seeking a direction to the union government to define the term 'minority' and lay down comprehensive guidelines for the identification of minorities at the district-level.
During the hearing today, the bench questioned why responses had not yet been furnished by all states despite being reminded on earlier occasions. Justice Khanna remarked that the court would impose costs on states failing to comply. He exclaimed, "Which are the states which have not filed a reply or furnished data? We'll now have to impose costs."
Despite the stern stance, the bench ultimately granted another opportunity for non-compliant state governments to submit responses within six weeks. A failure to comply within the stipulated timeline, it specified, would result in a cost of Rs 10,000 for the respective state governments. The Union of India has also been instructed to file a status report two weeks before the next hearing date. Adjourning the hearing until April, the bench pronounced -
In April last year, the top court had granted a last opportunity to state governments and union territories to submit their responses regarding the identification and notification of religious and linguistic minorities. The court had warned that failure to respond would lead to it presuming that the recalcitrant state government had nothing to say on the matter. Despite the warning, some states failed to file their responses, leading to this recent development.
In January 2023, the Centre had filed a report in the case with the views of the States and UTs.
Background
The public interest litigants in this case has prayed for guidelines for the identification of minorities at the district level, with the stated objective of ensuring that only those religious and linguistic group that are socially, economically, politically non-dominant and numerically inferior get the benefits and protections guaranteed under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. They have also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2(c) of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, which grants the Centre the power to notify minorities.
Notably, in an affidavit filed in March 2022, the union government had admitted that the Hindus in states where they constitute numeric minority may be notified as minorities for the purposes of Articles 29 and 30 by the concerned state government. However, later, it changed its stance and filed a fresh affidavit retracting the earlier one. The Centre said that it has the power to notify minorities, but a stand in this regard can be taken only after "wide consultations with state governments and other stakeholders" to avoid "unintended complications in future".
The Supreme Court was disappointed with the union government's changing stance on the issue. Expressing disappointment with the shifting positions, the top court had directed it to file a report on the consultative process with state governments.
Case Details
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 836 of 2020