The Supreme Court of India has taken a strong stance today on a plea seeking the determination of the minority status of religious communities at the state level. The court has also addressed the constitutional validity of the National Minority Commission Act, 1992, and the National Minority Commission Education Institution Act, 2004. The directive, issued by a bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, has set a deadline for states to file their responses, emphasizing the importance of compliance with previous court orders.

Despite earlier instructions from the court, it was noted that some states are yet to submit the necessary data and details. Expressing dissatisfaction with the delays, the court has now warned that states failing to take a stand within six weeks will be subject to a penalty of ₹10,000. This move underscores the court's commitment to expeditious proceedings and adherence to its directives.

This is not the first instance where the Supreme Court has reprimanded states for sluggish responses. In a previous hearing, a bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul had cautioned that the opportunity for states and Union Territories to respond could be closed if they failed to meet the stipulated deadlines. The court's current directive, led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, reflects a continuation of this firm approach.

The court has scheduled a relisting of the case on a non-miscellaneous day in April 2024, providing state governments with a final opportunity to furnish required details or file affidavits within the specified timeframe. The Union of India is also expected to file a status report at least two weeks before the next hearing.

During the previous hearing, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj informed the court that responses had been received from all states and Union Territories, with the exception of Rajasthan, Telangana, and a partial response from Jammu and Kashmir. Expressing frustration over the non-responsive states, the court declared its intention to presume that those failing to respond had nothing to contribute to the case.

The Union Government had previously submitted a status report containing the views of 24 state governments and 6 Union Territories on the matter. However, responses from six state governments and Union Territories were still awaited at the time of the court's latest directive.

Interestingly, states such as Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh, governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party, have taken a stand in support of the current method of minority notification at the central level. The court, in a previous interaction, had sought clarification on whether there was a concrete case indicating the denial of minority status to Hindus in states like Mizoram or Kashmir.

Case: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay V. Union of India and Ors.