tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post8640036020028128424..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: Mandal II: Solicitor General's robust submission continuesAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-48504624801421381672007-10-05T01:49:00.000+05:302007-10-05T01:49:00.000+05:30Historical discrimination is not a ground to deter...Historical discrimination is not a ground to determine OBCs. This fallacious contention was rejected outright even in Indra Sawhney.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-54366673930257038812007-09-30T22:55:00.000+05:302007-09-30T22:55:00.000+05:30At the outset, let my clarify that the posts on th...At the outset, let my clarify that the posts on the arguments before the Bench are meant to be informative only. To analyse and comment on them, probably we would need a complete picture, and access to the written submissions, and arguments by other counsel. However, responses are welcome, even if they are premature, they are bound to enlighten.<BR/><BR/>Response to RS: I think your queries might get answered as the hearing before the CB advances further. <BR/><BR/>to Anonymous: The SG while debunking the American doctrines, did refer to the Indian case law, which specifically said they don't apply. (Saurabh Chaudri case for example. Again, I feel his written submissions should help us understand his arguments better. <BR/><BR/>to Srinivasan: I think your claim is factually incorrect. SG's exposition of the OBCs during his arguments, are indeed OBCs. The criteria for inclusion in SC list is strictly untouchability. The OBCs might have suffered historical discrimination,but not untouchability, so as to merit their inclusion in SC list.V.Venkatesanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08138846925562952785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-55039858665455977422007-09-29T03:19:00.000+05:302007-09-29T03:19:00.000+05:30One think that struck me is old pattern of traipsi...One think that struck me is old pattern of traipsing into irrelevant discourses on the general prevalence of the caste system whenever any specific act of reservation for OBCs is questioned. In the IS judgment, Justice Pandian uses one such outrageous example of a caste called "poorada vannans" found in Tirunelveli district. They are a caste of washermen, but hear this: they are not even allowed to see the daylight and expected to come out only after the sun sets. Outrageous ? Yes. Unfathamobly so.<BR/>But this caste would belong not to OBCs but to SCs. If someone could go back and verify on all the castes that SG tried to enumerate in his submission, it would be found that a vast majority of them belong to SCs, the constituitionality of which is rock solid and not before the court. So my crib is these arguments should have been shot down right then and there.Srinivasanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02464491851738122345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-9802191625780602272007-09-28T03:13:00.000+05:302007-09-28T03:13:00.000+05:30SG is completely wrong in suggesting that doctrine...SG is completely wrong in suggesting that doctrines of strict scrutiny, narrow tailoring, suspect legislation do not apply to India as it is not race-based. Any first year law student in the US would be able to explain to SG that "strict scrutiny, narrow tailoring, suspect legislation" and other such concepts are simply tools that the US Sup Ct uses to enhance its analysis of the equal protection and due process clauses. These analytical tools would be useful even if US was composed of one race - for instance, these tools are used in gender discrimination cases. I am not saying that these analytical tools are so effective that Indian constitutional law needs to be import them but the efficacy of these tools is a different issue altogether.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-87863386258558905442007-09-27T11:10:00.000+05:302007-09-27T11:10:00.000+05:30If the balaji case was that of 60s and the Thomas ...If the balaji case was that of 60s and the Thomas case was that of 70s. But in subsequent cases the limit of 50% was accepted by the Supreme Court.Correct ne if I am wrong. The Thomas case related to reservation in promotions. In the most recent case of reservation in<BR/>promotions the verdict had reservations in promotions had been<BR/>made possible subject to some conditions. <BR/><BR/>Do the state backward class commissions and the NCBC use the same yardstick to assess the backwardness of a community. If not which is better one. The case before the Court gives an opportunity for the Court to address many such issues. For example is there any provision that mandates that lists at state and centre will be revised at regular intervals.ரவி ஸ்ரீநிவாஸ்https://www.blogger.com/profile/10176389904737294055noreply@blogger.com