States can grant Hindus minority status if they are a minority in that state; Minority Welfare Schemes Are Not Unconstitutional: Centre to SC

The Central Government told the Supreme Court in a plea seeking minority status for Hindus in Mizoram, Nagaland, Manipur, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Punjab, Lakshadweep, Ladakh, Kashmir, and other states that Hindus in those states can be notified as minorities for the purposes of Articles 29 and 30 by the concerned state governments.

The Centre has told the Court that minorities are determined with reference to the overall population in a State Government, citing precedents in the TMA Pai case and other matters.

According to the counter-affidavit filed in Ashwini Upadhyay’s PIL, states have the authority to proclaim minorities. The example of the Maharashtra government declaring “Jews” as a minority in the state in 2016 is given. In addition, the Karnataka government has designated Urdu, Telugu, Malayalam, Tamil, Marathi, Tulu, and other languages as linguistic minorities in the state.

As a result, the Centre concludes that the petitioner’s contention that adherents of Judaism, Bahaism, and Hinduism, who constitute the true minorities in Ladakh, Mizoram, Lakshadweep, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Punjab, Arunachal Pradesh, and Punjab, are unable to exercise their rights as minorities under Articles 29 and 30 is incorrect.

“In light of the States’ notification of minority communities, the Petitioner’s claim that followers of Judaism, Bahaism, and Hinduism, who are genuine minorities in Ladakh, Mizoram, Lakshadweep, Kashmir, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Punjab, and Manipur, cannot establish and administer educational institutions of their choice is false.

It is proposed that matters such as declaring Judaism, Bahaism, and Hinduism as minorities in Ladakh, Mizoram, Lakshadweep, Kashmir, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur, and establishing guidelines for minority identification at the state level be considered by the concerned State Governments “According to the affidavit filed by the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs.

Parliament also has legislative authority to enact minority legislation

The Centre has also defended its legislative authority in passing the National Commission for Minorities Act of 1992 and the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act of 2004.

It is maintained that the Supreme Court’s decision that states should be the unit for defining minorities does not deprive the Centre and Parliament of their authority to enact laws and regulations pertaining to minorities’ rights. According to Entry 20 of the Seventh Schedule’s Concurrent List, both Parliament and State Legislatures have concurrent power to adopt laws to protect minorities and their interests.

The Centre’s petition further quotes Supreme Court decisions addressing the aim underlying Articles 29 and 30, stating that they were adopted to soothe the apprehensions and worries of religious and linguistic minorities in India by providing them with particular assurances.

Minority welfare programmes are not arbitrary

Minority assistance schemes are intended for poor pupils and economically disadvantaged members of the minority community, not for everyone in the minority community, and so do not suffer from any constitutional flaw, according to the Centre. “These plans are just enabling provisions to achieve inclusion and so cannot be argued to be defective. The assistance provided under these initiatives to disadvantaged/underprivileged children/candidates from minority communities cannot be criticised “, according to the affidavit.

“It is argued that religious minority status does not automatically entitle one to benefits from government programmes. The projects support economically disadvantaged and socially disadvantaged minority “, the Centre continues. Articles 38(2) and 46 of the Constitution are cited to emphasise the constitutional need to protect the interests of minorities’ weaker sections.

As a result, the Centre has debunked the claim that the National Commission for Minorities Act of 1992 is arbitrary or unreasonable.

The Centre has also stated that the Supreme Court had either disposed of or dismissed three previous writ petitions filed by the same petitioner seeking identical reliefs, and has thus requested that the current case be dismissed as well.

The affidavit was sworn to on March 25 by Shubendu Shekhar Srivastava, Under Secretary to the Ministry of Minority Affairs. Previously, on January 7, the Supreme Court slapped costs of Rs.7500 on the Centre for failing to file the document despite multiple opportunities.

On March 28, a bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul will hear the case.