In a recent hearing before the Supreme Court's seven-judge Constitution Bench, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, made a statement that left the bench surprised. The ongoing case involves a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the 1968 verdict that stripped Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) of its minority status.

On the fifth day of the hearing, SG Tushar Mehta expressed his lack of support for the 1981 amendment by Parliament, which conferred minority status on AMU. This revelation led to questioning by the bench, with Justice Sanjiv Khanna asking, "Mr Solicitor, are you saying that you do not accept the amendment?" To which, Solicitor General Mehta reiterated, "No, I do not stand by the amendment."

This unusual stance prompted Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud to intervene, emphasizing the supremacy of Parliament in the legislative process. The CJI stated, "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." He went on to highlight that Parliament, being supreme and eternal, holds the power to bring in another amendment if deemed necessary.

The SG's argument seemed to revolve around the Allahabad High Court's decision in 2006, which struck down the 1981 amendment on various grounds. However, the CJI emphasized that while Parliament can introduce amendments, it cannot directly overrule a judgment of the court. He pointed out that the 44th amendment came into being to address such issues and that if Parliament believes an amendment is invalid, it can nullify it by introducing another amendment.

The core of the dispute lies in the 1981 amendment to the Aligarh Muslim University Act 1920, which granted AMU minority status. In 2006, the Allahabad High Court declared the amendment invalid, asserting that AMU was not entitled to claim the rights of a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution.