The Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) P P Malhotra, was briefing a Bench of Justices T S Thakur and Siddharth Mridul on the “targeted intervention” intended by the Centre, including basic amenities and job opportunities for “90 identified minority concentration districts and opening of more branches by public sector banks in Muslim concentrated areas”.

Midway through the briefing, Justice Thakur, the senior judge on the Bench, interrupted the ASG with a query on the Centre’s actual intention behind setting up the Sachar panel.

“Is this meant to appease some community? If you intend to fight poverty, cut across religions and communities and fight. Never mind whether it is a Hindu poor or a Muslim poor,” said Justice Thakur.

“When you say in your Action Taken Report on the Sachar recommendations that ‘we will spend more for this minority community... does it mean that you will spend less for the major community?” he asked.

Reminding the ASG that “we live in a welfare state”, the Bench observed: “There are Sikhs, Muslims and Christians here... Why are you not doing it (welfare measures) for the majority community?”

Malhotra contended that Muslims were more in print in the report because they were “India’s biggest minority community” — a justification oft-repeated by the government counsel during the entire duration of the court hearing.

The Sachar Committee, set up to report on the social, economic and educational status of the Muslim community, submitted its report in November 2006. The “major decisions” proposed by the government, as per the summary text submitted in court, include improving deficient civic and economic opportunities in “338 identified towns and cities with a substantial population of Minorities, including Muslims”, an inter-ministerial group to monitor a programme to better their skill and entrepreneurial development, expand the outreach of upper primary schools, particularly for Muslim girls.

“The Sachar Committee report is for all. Of course, there are certain Muslim dominated areas where there is no development at all,” the ASG said.

To this, the Bench said: “So are you saying there are no Hindu slums?”

“Tell us Mr Malhotra, in our Constitutional framework, can a welfare scheme say we concentrate only on the benefit of one community and not for all?... A lot of money is spent in a welfare state, is it that you (Centre) spend it only for one minority community?” the Bench asked the ASG.

The ASG assured the court that “special care is taken care of all minorities” but drew the line by adding that “political issues be best left to the public to decide during elections. Courts cannot decide”.

Those involved in drafting the affidavit for the government said they welcomed the tough questions asked in court, and saw the session today as a routine one, which was to be expected. The court has given time until August 21 for further hearing.