Aligarh Muslim University Minority Status: Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing [Day 6]

CJI: in the absence of an express obliteration of the past, can the court not look into the preexisting history?

SG: no, the simple reason is that history has always held different shapes .....

CJI: therefore is it your submission that unless the statute expressly recognise the minority character of the institution you cannot recognise, can we stretch it to that point

SG: unless the founding facts, members etc are not recognised in the statute, the statute becomes the final word . It would not be possible for any party to request the court to go behind it and try to find out the history

CJI: Annamalai is not under article 30

SG: maybe a linguistic minority I am not aware of ....i have given other examples aswell

CJI: anyway we got your point

CJI: absent a statutory recognition of the founding moment, the statute therefore obliterates the entire past

SG: as a complete code and that is the statutory device adopted by the legislature both pre and post constitution. 

SG: two things happened, the founding person recognised and the university is established by the act of parliament. it was made university in 1961 otherwise it was an institution.

CJI: in pre independence India they were statutes which did recognise the establishment of the Institution even post the enactment of the legislation by the Imperial legislature, which is your point, which is absent in the present case

SG now gives the example of Vishwa Bharathi / ShantiNiketan how no degrees were given in the British era , reads S.2 of the Vishwa Bharathi Act 

the Act of 1929 was replaced by the New Act of 2013 as informed by the SG .

CJI: we have to rise for 2 minutes at 10:59 because it is martyrs day. 

SG gives the example of Annamalai University Act 1929

SG : even during the British era, whenever the legislation felt that we must recognise and incorporate the founding events they so done. That illustration I wish to give. The argument of the petitioner was to go behind the genesis or founding moment, no , unless the legislation recognises the statutes take over from that day , it is that complete code which governs the future codes of action for that university

SG: my submission is restricted to the incorporation of universities

SG refers to written submissions on how the past is statutorily recognised by British Parliament 

SG: this is a preconstitution statute and whatever is extinguished cannot be tested on the basis of the FRs (fundamental rights) which came after the constitution. there are two illustrations to give

CJI : general rule that the moment a statute comes, yes you are right to this extent that if a statute which is a complete code in itself then you are not required to look beyond the statute

SG : I bow down, it was not my submission that once an enactment comes, the past is evaporated or extinguished. My respectful submission is where an educational institution/ body corporate established, the statute takes over ....