A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur, while issuing notice to the Centre, sought the assistance of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and appointed senior advocate T R Andhyarujina as amicus curiae in the matter.
"Can Muslims, who are in majority in Kashmir, still be treated as minority? Can Sikhs be minority in Punjab? Can Christians be minority in Meghalaya," the bench, also comprising Justices F M I Kalifulla, A K Sikri, S A Bobde and R Banumathi, asked.
"This is a serious issue on which we need assistance of the Centre," the court said and issued notice to the Minority Affairs Ministry and asked the Attorney General to assist it.
The move by the apex court could have a bearing on other communities as well.
The question came up before the court in an appeal of the SGPC challenging the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which stripped Sikh educational institutions of their minority status, holding that Sikhs were not a minority community.
bench ruling of 2005 in Bal Patil versus Union of India in which the issue of declaring minorities was discussed.
The verdict had held that a numerical head count cannot be the sole criterion for declaration of minority.
"Linguistic and religious minorities are covered by the expression 'minority' under Article 30 of the Constitution. Since reorganisation of the States in India has been on linguistic lines, therefore, for purpose of determining the minority, the unit will be the State and not the whole of India. Thus, religious and linguistic minorities, who have been put on par in Article 30, have to be considered statewise...," the verdict had held.
Earlier, the apex court had stayed the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgement which had held that Sikhs were not a minority community in Punjab.
Punjab government and Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee (SGPC) have filed petitions challenging the High Court's December 17, 2007 verdict.
The High Court had relied upon the census of 2001, as per which the Sikh population in Punjab was 59.2 per cent and Hindus were 37 per cent.
The Court had held that there was no material to substantiate that Sikhs were non-dominant group in the state, apprehending deprivation of their rights at the hands of dominant groups.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
