The Hindu : National : Supreme Court's indelible record

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Dec 30, 2005

National

National

Supreme Court's indelible record

J. Venkatesan

Its orders touched every facet of day-to-day life in the year 2005 asserting rights

EVENTFUL TIMES: Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal (right) with his predecessor H C Lahoti — A file photo: V.V.Krishnan

New Delhi: The year 2005 has been an eventful one for both the former Chief Justice of India, R.C. Lahoti, who retired on October 31 and the present incumbent, Y.K. Sabharwal since the Supreme Court passed orders on every facet of day-to-day life, be it in politics, sports, education and putting a check on the Executive.

The court's decision (the Bench was headed by Justice Sabharwal) declaring unconstitutional the May 23 Presidential Proclamation dissolving the Bihar Legislative Assembly was seen as a major embarrassment to the United Progressive Alliance Government at the Centre. Acting on the basis of two reports sent by the Governor, Buta Singh, on April 27 and May 21, the Centre had dissolved the Assembly. These two reports, which were made public, became a subject matter of litigation in a batch of petitions questioning the legality of the proclamation. But despite the unconstitutionality, the court gave its nod for the Assembly polls. The final judgment is still awaited.

Intervention in Jharkhand

Intervening in Jharkhand, the Bench headed by Justice Lahoti ordered the Pro-tem Speaker of the Jharkhand Assembly to conduct a composite floor test in the Assembly to ascertain as to who enjoyed the majority — the (then) Chief Minister Shibu Soren appointed by the Governor or Arjun Munda, the (present) Chief Minister.

Using very strong words, the court observed, "If the averments of the petitioner are correct then the action of the Governor (in appointing Mr. Soren) is a fraud on the Constitution. We want to prevent a further fraud on the Constitution by issuing interim directions." The court ordered video recording of the entire proceedings and directed that a copy of the recording be placed before the court.

These two judicial interventions evoked strong reaction but both Justice Lahoti and Justice Sabharwal refuted the criticism. They were of the view that judicial activism was not new to India since the judiciary intervened only when the executive or the legislature failed to perform its lawful duties.

A five-Judge Bench is also to examine the mala fide exercise of powers by the Centre in sacking Governors due to political compulsions or otherwise.

In the area of education, the court held that unaided minority and non-minority institutions have absolute rights to establish, administer and admit students of their choice in medicine, engineering and other professional courses without government interference.

Order on reservation

It also abolished State quota and reservation in unaided private minority and non-minority colleges. The court held that imposition of State quota of seats or enforcing the reservation policy of the State on available seats in unaided professional institutions were acts constituting serious encroachment on the right and autonomy of private professional educational institutions.

The court in its unanimous judgment said "Neither the policy of reservation can be enforced by the State nor any quota or percentage of admissions can be carved out to be appropriated by the State in a minority or non-minority unaided educational institution."

It recommended that the admissions be regulated by a centralised common entrance test either at the State or national level and single window procedure. It put a complete ban on collection of capitation fees and profiteering by colleges.

This judgment prompted the Centre to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to enable the States to enact legislation to provide for quotas and reservation in educational institutions.

Electoral disqualification

In the area of contesting elections, the court held that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to a person for various offences should be taken into account cumulatively for the purpose attracting the disqualification. If the total sentence period exceeded two years imprisonment, it would attract the disqualification under Section 8 (3) of the Representation of the People Act and a convicted person could not contest the polls.

The court decided to examine a petition seeking a right for the voter to cast a "negative vote" in an election by pressing the "none of the candidates" option in the electronic voting machine. The Election Commission said that providing such an option for negative voting would be in the interest of promoting democracy as that would send clear signals to the political parties and their candidates as to what "the electorate thinks about them."

Government accommodation

Dealing firmly with 465 VVIPs, including Bihar Governor Buta Singh, occupying government bungalows in the capital even after the expiry of the allotment period, the court observed "how can they occupy the houses after [the] expiry of [the] allotment period." In particular it was harsh on Mr. Buta Singh saying "What is he doing here (Delhi). Throw him out. Governor can't have a house here."

In the field of sports, the court held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India was an autonomous body discharging duties like selection of an Indian cricket team, controlling the activities of the players and others involved in the game of cricket. The BCCI could not be brought within the ambit of "other authorities" under Article 12 of the Constitution, the court said. It appointed former Chief Election Commissioner, T.S. Krishnamurthy, as Observer for the BCCI polls held in November.

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

National