Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

Lahoti's remarks

Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti's suggestion to the Government to close down courts is not worthy of the exalted position he holds. In a democracy it is the MPs and MLAs who face the people, are closer to the realities of life, and are responsible to them for the promises made to them. Gandhiji promised a stake for everyone in the state. It is the state's responsibility to ensure that promises are kept, especially to the marginalised.

Gandhiji also gave a talisman for judging one's action by its effect on the ordinary citizen. Can the Supreme Court claim to have passed this test while delivering its verdict on private, unaided colleges?

K.S.K. Prasad,
Hyderabad

* * *

The Court's clarificatory order is debatable because it deals with the educational opportunities of the less privileged, who constitute a major part of society and for whose alleviation the Constitution is meant. Instead of welcoming criticism, the Court has chided the Government to the extent of saying it can close down the courts. A statement of that kind should hardly come from courts, much less the Supreme Court.

Asked once by journalists what he thought of the criticism of his judgments, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer said there was not enough and that there should be more. That is the essence of judicial democracy.

N.G.R. Prasad,
Chennai

* * *

The Chief Justice should have avoided taking suo motu note of the Government's criticism. He should have instead waited for Parliament to come up with legislation on reservation before airing his views. As the learned judge himself put it, let courts go on doing their duty and the elected legislators theirs.

R. Venkatesan Iyengar,
Hyderabad

* * *

The debate over Supreme Court verdicts, when rendered against executive orders or legislation, has been going on ever since the Constitution was first amended in 1951. It reached its culmination during the Emergency. Therefore, Justice Lahoti's outburst is surprising. Surely, the Court verdict in question calls for a national debate.

B.M. Baliga,
Bangalore

* * *

That the law as interpreted by the court is against social justice is an opinion. It is due to the infirmity of the law and not the judgment. The Chief Justice should have pointed this out instead of expressing his displeasure in such strong terms. In fact, responsible Ministers including the Prime Minister also ought to have pointed this out instead of riding the wave of populist criticism.

Courts cannot resent their verdicts being nullified by enactment of laws, which is a legitimate prerogative of the legislature.

P.K. Doraiswamy,
Chennai

* * *

Justice Lahoti's wind-up-courts outburst is symbolic of the judiciary's outrage. In many instances, most significantly the Shah Bano case, the legislature has changed the law to negate the Supreme Court's verdict.

But the same legislators take recourse to the judicial process when it suits them. When the verdict goes in their favour they "respect" the court verdict and swear by judicial supremacy. But when it goes against their interests, they cry hoarse and declare that they will go to the peoples' court.

H.M. Anantha Padmanabha,
Mysore

* * *

How can the Government consider enacting a law at the expense of private educational institutions in the name of social justice? The Government should see reason and should not circumvent the verdict under the pretext of parliamentary supremacy.

Surendra M. Mehta,
Chennai

* * *

While the backward sections have enjoyed the benefit of reservation all these years, the forward castes, particularly those belonging to the middle class, have been at the receiving end of the policy.

The rich have not faced a serious problem because they could pay exorbitant fees and get admission in management quota. Now is the time to do away with reservation in any sphere.

Sruti K. Nair,
Visakhapatnam, A.P.

* * *

The argument that quality should not be compromised in education is disturbing. Can social justice be compromised for quality?

A. Edwin Arockiam,
Tiruchi, T.N.

* * *

Cutting the branches of higher education without strengthening the roots of primary and secondary education is unfair.

The existing education system is such that children require parental assistance even after six hours of schooling. Children deprived of it drop out of schools. Let us first make education uniform and then talk about equality.

S. Vasumathi,
Chennai

* * *

Why should Parliament use its powers of legislation and amend the Constitution to upturn a politically or otherwise unfavourable court verdict?

It is time the amendment procedure was reviewed. Most of the 92 amendments to the Constitution have been politically motivated.

M.C. Joshi,
Lucknow

* * *

The Government can explore the following options: a flexible education system, which is quite possible in this era of virtual classrooms/Edusat and Internet/Intranet; distance learning, and greater involvement of professional bodies such as the Institution of Engineers.

Air Cmde (retd.) Raghubir Singh,
Pune

* * *

Is it fair for State Governments to demand a share of seats in colleges that do not ask for any aid?

P. Isaac Prabhakar,
Vijayawada, A.P.

* * *

Legislators should learn to respect court verdicts. If successive governments keep finding ways of neutralising them, what is the need for a judiciary at all? It is this argument that the Chief Justice echoed.

H.V. Rao,
Chennai

* * *

The CJI's outburst is understandable. This is not the first time that the legislature is adopting a confrontationist attitude towards the judiciary.

It must be understood that though Parliament is supreme, the judiciary is the watchdog of our Constitution.

Viswanatha Krishnan,
Pune

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Maintaining the balance
Security for unorganised workers
The dodgy underbelly of India's war on terror
Mainstreaming naxalites and other extremists
In the land of Hammurabi
He wants to change Latin America's history
Reservation for women
Lahoti's remarks

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu