The judgement needs to be seen in a broader context. This highlights that the laws created just to remain in power must not voilate the basic right of the citizens and if it is then it must be struck down. The state based, caste based, religion based reservation also comes in this category. All Indian citizens are equal if the opportuniy comes for in any field of study or job. The criteria for some preference should be for economically weaker section of the society only. Even for this the more preference should be given to strengthen the support to the weaker or under-priveledged section of the society by more and more grants to study, free books, free education, free food, free hostels, etc. No amount of reservation is going to help either the individual or the country, rather it will lower the standard of education by providing the shortcut.
In recent times the leaders, in the name of representing the common political will of the country, have, for quick and cheap political gains,come out openly to champion the cause of sectors of people on the ground of race and religion, despite it being prohibited by Article 15 of the Constitution. In the Jan 11 judgement, by including Article 15 among the sacrsanct Articles of theConstitution,the SC has given a timely warning to such leaders. by Lalit Bajla.
The jujdgement shows the judiciary's supermacy over legisleture who tried to mend constitutuion fore mere political gain & it will provide weaken people a great relief.
This is a judgement that should be welcomed by all. This judgement reaffirms our belief in indian constituiton and will insure that for mere small political gain no one will be able to mend with our constitution.
Can the learned public representatives or the honorable judges or the intelligensia just think of a time limit beyond which it will be a survival of the deserving- an end of qouta raj. If after more than half a century the situation could not be improved then does it not really point out to something inherently defective either in planning or in implementation or in comprehending the problem as a whole. Whatever be the reply , it will be sheer denial of justice to snatch something from someone who deserves it more and give it to someone who has a much less or no claim to it .for such mistake on our part JUST THINK WHAT HAPPENS ON THE LONG RUN. JUST SPARE A THOUGHT .LEAVE IT IF IRRELEVANT
There is a stark distinction between the Singur and Nandigram land acquisition approaches by the WB Govt. While the CM stood firm in Singur and ensured acquisition of required area of land, without thinking necessary to meet the agitating peasants, it was a different story in Nandigram. Since Nandigram abounds with land of the minotiry population who are vehemently attched to their properties and do not wish to part with, the Govt is going to withdrawal-syndrome and has even termed their decision to acquire land at Nandigram as a 'blunder'. So much of appeasement!
Many laws made by parliament and state legislatures lost sanctity after the "antidefection law".Most political parties are dictated by "single human beings" and their "whip" is law. Legislators should be free to oppose.SUPREME COURT IS FREE .
The recent judgement only reinforces the profound belef of all citizens that the 3 pillars of democracy act in a manner not detrimental to our basic rights. Any legislation will affect the fundamental rights of one or other section of the population.As such the powers of the legislature and judiciary must balance the pros and cons and decide what serves best the interests of the nation and its people. The judgement is a reinforcement of the checks and balance envisaged by the founding fathers and there is in my view no cause for any side to believe that they have more powers than the other.
Can the country be managed by the courts themselves? That would be great! Is there anything called JUDICIO-CRACY (like democracy or autocracy)?? we definitely need that.. THANK GOD FOR THE COURTS..
