Economists say there are weaknesses in India’s GDP data. But statisticians claim the accusations are based on flawed understanding, saying while GDP has problems, the economists are looking in the wrong places.
It also witnessed participation from IAF, Andaman & Nicobar Command, and Coast Guard, indicating the high degree of interoperability among the services.
I wonder what purpose it serves to go into spurious comparisons with the American SC (a body whose composition is determined by party ideology; the judges are appointed by Presidents and Senators) or spout vague terms like “social justice narrative” which have no validity in a courtroom, instead of going into the merits and demerits of actual arguments put forward by SC while delivering those judgements e.g. is the 13-point system unfair? How does the Atrocities Act sit with the basics of a “fair trial”? Not saying the SC is always right, but the author doesn’t even attempt to engage.
Also, saying that the SC will lose the esteem of Dalits (or any community for that matter) if it doesn’t deliver verdicts amenable to them is a bizzare idea which is at odds with the very concept of a court of law, which is that you respect its rulings whether you agree with them or not. The court, in all three cases, acted entirely within its constitutional remit (anyone who disagrees is free to appeal).
Oh, and as regards reservation in University posts, the actual number of reserved posts is pretty inconsequential, given that most of these posts remain vacant anyway. Any challenge here is purely for optics, democratizing education is a far more pressing problem.
It’s difficult to understand why the author chooses not to take up the arguments in the particular judgements he speaks about (for example the merits and demerits of a 13 versus 200 point roster system, or the basics of what constitutes a “fair trial”) , rather than drawing spurious comparisons with the American SC (which, unlike ours, is determined by Presidents and Senators and is therefore transparently an instrument of party ideology) or talking about some vague “social justice narrative” that has no standing inside a courtroom. Surely the judgements weren’t INTENDED as a blow against reservations?
The idea that Dalits, or any other section of the society, will only respect an institution if it delivers verdicts amenable to them cuts at the root of the very idea of a court, in that one obeys a judicial ruling, whether one agrees with it or not.
The SC was working entirely within its remit when it delivered these judgements, one of which was nothing but a dismissed appeal (if anyone disagrees, they can always appeal). As for the material part, the UGC’s numbers prove that, at least in universities, simply increasing the number of reserved posts is pointless: there’s no one to fill those posts because we haven’t been able to democratize access to education.
The author rightly pointed out the flaws in the decisions.
Justice V R Krishna Iyer once stated that ‘The kernel of justice in a country of mass poverty is social justice” (Iyer 1984:55). It seems the Supreme Court should revisit the decision, if not, then they are deviating from constitutional morality, and certainly the framers vision who intended supreme Court to be ‘an arm of social revolution’.
The author has rightly pointed out the anti-social justice approach of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court who, in recent years, delivered some path breaking decisions on gender, where it opined ‘Constitutional Morality’ to underline the positive approach of the executive i.e. a positive obligation to reinforce constitutional values. Same interpretation equally applies to Supreme Court with respect to Dalits.
Supreme Court will be revered as citadel of justice, if it stands for the socially deprived sections, in enhancing their rights and not making them legally broken people.
It is better to remove all the reservations and implement reservations based on creamy layer.
Even SC/STs are unable compete dude to creamy layer. Most important thing is to eliminate the Christians who are utilizing the SC reservations by claiming their caste as Hindu-SC.
I wonder what purpose it serves to go into spurious comparisons with the American SC (a body whose composition is determined by party ideology; the judges are appointed by Presidents and Senators) or spout vague terms like “social justice narrative” which have no validity in a courtroom, instead of going into the merits and demerits of actual arguments put forward by SC while delivering those judgements e.g. is the 13-point system unfair? How does the Atrocities Act sit with the basics of a “fair trial”? Not saying the SC is always right, but the author doesn’t even attempt to engage.
Also, saying that the SC will lose the esteem of Dalits (or any community for that matter) if it doesn’t deliver verdicts amenable to them is a bizzare idea which is at odds with the very concept of a court of law, which is that you respect its rulings whether you agree with them or not. The court, in all three cases, acted entirely within its constitutional remit (anyone who disagrees is free to appeal).
Oh, and as regards reservation in University posts, the actual number of reserved posts is pretty inconsequential, given that most of these posts remain vacant anyway. Any challenge here is purely for optics, democratizing education is a far more pressing problem.
It’s difficult to understand why the author chooses not to take up the arguments in the particular judgements he speaks about (for example the merits and demerits of a 13 versus 200 point roster system, or the basics of what constitutes a “fair trial”) , rather than drawing spurious comparisons with the American SC (which, unlike ours, is determined by Presidents and Senators and is therefore transparently an instrument of party ideology) or talking about some vague “social justice narrative” that has no standing inside a courtroom. Surely the judgements weren’t INTENDED as a blow against reservations?
The idea that Dalits, or any other section of the society, will only respect an institution if it delivers verdicts amenable to them cuts at the root of the very idea of a court, in that one obeys a judicial ruling, whether one agrees with it or not.
The SC was working entirely within its remit when it delivered these judgements, one of which was nothing but a dismissed appeal (if anyone disagrees, they can always appeal). As for the material part, the UGC’s numbers prove that, at least in universities, simply increasing the number of reserved posts is pointless: there’s no one to fill those posts because we haven’t been able to democratize access to education.
The author rightly pointed out the flaws in the decisions.
Justice V R Krishna Iyer once stated that ‘The kernel of justice in a country of mass poverty is social justice” (Iyer 1984:55). It seems the Supreme Court should revisit the decision, if not, then they are deviating from constitutional morality, and certainly the framers vision who intended supreme Court to be ‘an arm of social revolution’.
The author has rightly pointed out the anti-social justice approach of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court who, in recent years, delivered some path breaking decisions on gender, where it opined ‘Constitutional Morality’ to underline the positive approach of the executive i.e. a positive obligation to reinforce constitutional values. Same interpretation equally applies to Supreme Court with respect to Dalits.
Supreme Court will be revered as citadel of justice, if it stands for the socially deprived sections, in enhancing their rights and not making them legally broken people.
It is better to remove all the reservations and implement reservations based on creamy layer.
Even SC/STs are unable compete dude to creamy layer. Most important thing is to eliminate the Christians who are utilizing the SC reservations by claiming their caste as Hindu-SC.