38.6c New Delhi, India, Thursday, February 12, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Supreme Court imposes cost on the Central government of Rs 7,500 for failing to respond to a petition to identify minorities based on state population [Read Order]

By LawStreet News Network      02 February, 2022 06:47 PM      0 Comments
Supreme Court Central government petition minorities state population

The Supreme Court on Monday fined the Central government of Rs 7,500 for failing to respond to a public interest litigation petition filed by Ashwini Upadhyay, BJP leader and Advocate [Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India]. He had sought to identify and grant minority status to communities based on their population at the state level.

The Central government was fined by a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh for missing deadlines to present a response affidavit in the matter.

"We grant one further opportunity of four weeks to learned counsel for the respondents to file the counter affidavit subject to deposit of costs of 7,500 with Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates Welfare Fund as requested by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner," the Court said.

The Supreme Court sent notice to the Central government in August 2020, and four adjournments were granted after that.

"We may note that the respondents entered appearance on October 12, 2020 and took time to file counter affidavit. Thereafter counter affidavit has not been filed despite repeated opportunities. On January 7, 2022, last opportunity was granted to the respondent to file counter affidavit within four weeks," the Court said in its order.

According to the appeal, the Central government declared five communities, namely Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Parsis, as minorities in a notification dated October 23, 1993, without defining the term "minority" or establishing procedures for identification at the state level.

"Hindus are merely 1% in Ladakh, 2.75% in Mizoram, 2.77% in Lakshadweep, 4% in Kashmir, 8.74% in Nagaland, 11.52% in Meghalaya, 29% in Arunachal Pradesh, 3849% in Punjab and 41.29% in Manipur but Central Government has not declared them 'minority' under Section 2(c) of the NCM Act and Section 2(f) of the NCMEI Act, thus Hindus are not protected under Articles 29-30 and cannot establish-administer educational institution of their choice," the petition stated.

On the other hand, by using unbridled power under the NCMEI Act, 2006 the Centre has arbitrarily declared Muslims as a minority, who are 96.58 per cent in Lakshadweep, 95 per cent in Kashmir & 46 per cent in Laddakh, it was pointed out.

"Centre has declared Christians as a minority, who are 88.10% in Nagaland, 87.16% in Mizoram & 74.59% in Meghalaya so they can establish & administer educational institution of their choice. Likewise, Sikhs are 57.69% in Punjab & Buddhists are so% in Laddakh and they can establish & administer educational institutions but not the followers of Bahaism & Judaism, who are merely 0.1% and 0.2% respectively," the plea claimed.

The matter has now been listed for hearing on March 28.

 

The order has been attached. [Read Order]



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

gauhati-hc-quashes-case-against-influencer-who-claimed-assamese-women-practise-black-magic-and-convert-men-into-animals
Trending Judiciary
Gauhati HC Quashes Case Against Influencer Who Claimed Assamese Women Practise Black Magic and Convert Men Into Animals [Read Order]

Gauhati High Court quashes case against influencer Abhishek Kar over remarks on black magic in Assam, holds offences under BNS, IT Act not made out.

11 February, 2026 03:08 PM
high-courts-cannot-nullify-arbitration-proceedings-while-substituting-arbitrators-sc
Trending Judiciary
High Courts Cannot Nullify Arbitration Proceedings While Substituting Arbitrators: SC [Read Order]

Supreme Court rules High Courts cannot nullify arbitration proceedings while appointing substitute arbitrators under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act.

11 February, 2026 03:58 PM

TOP STORIES

resignation-on-medical-grounds-attracts-forfeiture-of-pension-service-madras-hc-full-bench
Trending Judiciary
Resignation on Medical Grounds Attracts Forfeiture of Pension Service: Madras HC Full Bench [Read Order]

Madras High Court Full Bench rules resignation on medical grounds leads to forfeiture of past service under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

09 February, 2026 12:16 PM
madras-hc-clarifies-section-37-of-ndps-act-not-applicable-to-acceptance-of-bond-for-appearance
Trending Judiciary
Madras HC Clarifies: Section 37 of NDPS Act Not Applicable to Acceptance of Bond for Appearance [Read Order]

Madras High Court says Section 37 NDPS Act doesn’t apply to acceptance of bond for appearance on summons, as it is distinct from grant of bail.

09 February, 2026 12:20 PM
sc-refers-matter-to-larger-bench-to-resolve-conflicting-judgments-on-third-partys-right-under-under-order-ix-rule-13-cpc
Trending Judiciary
SC Refers Matter To Larger Bench To Resolve Conflicting Judgments On Third Party’s Right Under Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC [Read Order]

Supreme Court refers the issue of third party rights under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to a larger bench to resolve conflicting judgments on ex parte decrees.

09 February, 2026 12:35 PM
bombay-sessions-court-grants-bail-in-193-crore-cyber-fraud-case-reaffirms-bail-is-rule-jail-is-exception
Trending Judiciary
Bombay Sessions Court Grants Bail in ₹1.93 Crore Cyber Fraud Case, Reaffirms ‘Bail Is Rule, Jail Is Exception’ [Read Order]

Bombay Sessions Court grants bail in ₹1.93 crore cyber fraud case, citing right to liberty as investigation is complete and accused not direct beneficiary.

09 February, 2026 04:17 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email