tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post7389776352691196931..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: New Twist to Mandal II: GOI's Application for vacation of stay reveals interesting factsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-49018660163020302762007-04-24T21:38:00.000+05:302007-04-24T21:38:00.000+05:30There have been quite a few deletions from the li...There have been quite a few deletions from the list also by the NCBC.V.Venkatesanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08138846925562952785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-41121917938854429242007-04-20T15:47:00.000+05:302007-04-20T15:47:00.000+05:30// Specifically, the statements attributed by the ...// Specifically, the statements attributed by the Bench to the Additional Solicitor General, Gopal Subramanium have been denied. The statement that ‘there is need for periodical identification of backward citizens and that for this purpose the need for survey of entire population on the basis of an acceptable mechanism is needed’ has been described as an inaccurate attribution by the Bench. The submission of the ASG was that a head count census was, in fact, not a possible or feasible option.//<BR/><BR/>The order reads - <BR/>"There is no dispute and in fact it was fairly accepted <BR/>by learned Additional Solicitor General that there is need <BR/>for periodical identification of the backward citizens and for this purpose the need for survey of entire population on the basis of an acceptable mechanism."<BR/><BR/>is it likely that what was stated in the order as 'fairly accepted' by ASG was the need for periodical identification of BCs? The portion after 'and for this purpose.." was possibly the court's observation on a way of doing that periodical identification, and not attribution to ASG?<BR/><BR/>The need for a periodical identification/revision of the BC list every 10 years is a part of the Backward classes act 1993 (section 11). To a layman (ie not a legal expert) it appears like the Government can not present a different opinion about the *need* for this revision - it is part of the ACT. (http://www.ncbc.nic.in/html/functionsandpower.html)<BR/><BR/>The act says - <BR/>"revision of the lists with a view to excluding from such lists those classes who have ceased to be backward classes"<BR/><BR/>In practice, the BC list is treated as a one-way list with only additions of potential vote-banks during every election cycle (thus, taking the non-backward population in TN to a mere 3% thru the years).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-7626096151883985382007-04-19T13:06:00.000+05:302007-04-19T13:06:00.000+05:30very very informative piece. I dont know however, ...very very informative piece. <BR/><BR/>I dont know however, if the review of policy decisions as a question came up before the Court. Probably the 2000 case that you have cited might have addressed this. <BR/><BR/>If reservations is a matter of policy, then going by the decision in BALCO, it is not subject to review unless it violates the FR of an individual. In this case, such cannot be taken into consideration by the Court.<BR/><BR/>once again, thank you venkateshan for this post and keep us updated.Aditya Swaruphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08603274694061214050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-47591135590822656832007-04-19T12:42:00.000+05:302007-04-19T12:42:00.000+05:30I join Mr. Srinivas in thanking V. Venkatesan for ...I join Mr. Srinivas in thanking V. Venkatesan for making the full text of the Govt's application available. It makes for interesting reading, and is a valuable resource for tracking the goverment's approach to the issues raised. It also allows us to get a sense of the tenor of the final arguments that will be advanced by the government in this case.<BR/><BR/>I realise that this is an issue that Mr. Venkatesan has referred to earlier (and that this has also been the subject of disagreement between him and Vivek Reddy), but I want to revisit the issue of the <BR/>line of Supreme Court cases that assert that legislation involving "economic matters" or "economic activities" deserve to be treated with greater latitude by courts. In other words, I am questioning the <BR/>applicability of the Bhavesh Parish (2000) case to Mandal II, as has been asserted earlier by Mr Venkatesan, and now in the Union of India's application. <BR/><BR/>The case of Bhavesh Parish (2000) involved a challenge to Section 45S of the Reserve Bank of India (Amendment) Act, 1997, which was clearly an economic legislation. Justice Kirpal's judgment in that case, in upholding the constitutional validity of Section 45S, relies on the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court in R.K. Garg's case (1982) as authority for the proposition that Courts should be reluctant to intervene in economic issues. The Garg case involved a challenge to provisions of the Special Bearer Bonds Act, 1981, and the Court in Garg, after classifying it as a tax statute, cited American cases to hold that being an economic legislation, it was entitled to greater judicial deference. The category of cases referred to in Garg and Bhavish included tax, utility, and other issues involving economic matters.<BR/><BR/>Another example of this line of precedents is the Delhi Science Forum case (1996)which rejected a challenge to the privatisation of the Telecom sector. Justice N.P. Singh's judgment in Delhi Science Forum also cites the Garg case (and decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court where this exception was first carved out by courts) as authority for the proposition that governmental decisions involving economic issues should be given greater latitude by courts.<BR/><BR/>While quotas in educational institutions do involve economic issues incidentally, they are not the kind of "economic activities" that either Garg or Parish refer to. I agree with Mr. Srinivas and Mr. Venkatesan that, speaking generally, it is doubtful whether "economic issues" should be given a special licence when it comes to scrutinising them for constitutional validity. However, so long as these specific precedents stand, and constitute good law, laws involving "economic matters" do seem to have a special character in India.<BR/><BR/>I don't think, however, that the Union govt. is right in arguing that Mandal II falls within that category. The Garg, Delhi Science Forum and Parish line of cases clearly have a very different conception of laws involving "economic activities or matters" and much as I doubt the overall validity of such a category, I cannot see how it can be stretched to cover quotas in educational institutions. The way out for those of us who oppose this category is to argue for its removal, not to argue that it should be expanded to include everything under the sun (which of course is also an effective strategy towards making the category redundant, though a less candid and therefore less legitimate one).Arun Thiruvengadamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15902119597448574508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-50686471772289761382007-04-19T11:52:00.000+05:302007-04-19T11:52:00.000+05:30This comment has been removed by the author.Arun Thiruvengadamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15902119597448574508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-69463671585826842332007-04-19T10:49:00.000+05:302007-04-19T10:49:00.000+05:30Thanks for making available the application by the...Thanks for making available the application by the govt. of india.<BR/>I wonder whether this hair splitting distinction between socio-economic and economic law/policy will be acceptable.<BR/>Reservation is a question of fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution and the Act derives its legitimacy from a constitutional amendment.So<BR/>it is better to judge it from<BR/>a constitutional perspective.<BR/>Not all socio-economic/economic<BR/>laws flow from a constitutional<BR/>amendment. <BR/>Is there bar on the highest<BR/>court considering any document<BR/>or record in its hearing or<BR/>in considering it, irrespective<BR/>of the origin or purpose of the<BR/>document.ரவி ஸ்ரீநிவாஸ்https://www.blogger.com/profile/10176389904737294055noreply@blogger.com