Tag: Justice Markandey

  • All caste based reservations for govt jobs or admissions in educational institutions should be abolished By Justice Katju

    All caste based reservations for govt jobs or admissions in educational institutions should be abolished By Justice Katju

    Recently the US Supreme Court has struck down reservations for blacks and other races in USA as they violate the equality provision in the US Constitution.


    https://thewire.in/world/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-race-based-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions


    I submit that the time has come when the Indian Supreme Court, too, must declare all caste based reservations in India as unconstitutional, being violative of the right to equality.


    While ostensibly for uplifting the historically suppressed backward castes, the truth is that reservations have become just a political tool for getting votes, and in fact such reservations greatly harm the SCs and OBCs.


    This is because there are so few govt jobs that hardly 0.01% SCs and OBCs can get jobs through reservations ( these too usually go to the ‘creamy layer’ ), but an impression is falsely created that all SCs and OBCs will be benefited thereby. This is a motivation to SCs and OBCs to not work hard, because they think a job is guaranteed to them even if they score poor marks.


    How long will SCs and OBCs walk on the crutches ( baisakhi ) of reservations ? They should throw away these crutches, and say that we dont need reservations. We will work hard, compete on merit, and show that we are not intellectually inferior to the upper castes.


    However, while caste based reservations should be abolished, special facilities should be given to poor boys and girls of all castes ( even upper castes ) and communities, so as to provide them with a level playing field.


    For example, many poor boys and girls may not be able to buy the school text books ( which boys and girls of rich families may be able to afford ). Hence the govt should give these to such poor students free of cost Other facilities should also be given to poor students, to ensure for them a level playing field with rich students.


    But there should be no caste or communal reservations, which have only become a vote catching device.

  • Burning the Quran By Justice Katju

    Burning the Quran By Justice Katju

    An Iraqi immigrant living in Sweden reportedly burnt a copy of the Quran on Wednesday, 28th June, publicly before the Central Mosque of Stockholm in Sweden.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMdf3RAkvFs&pp=ygUVcXVyYW4gYnVybmluZyBzd2VkZW4g


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shhPIUDJfs4


    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66052670#:~:text=Several%20Muslim%2Dmajority%20countries%20have,Stockholm’s%20central%20mosque%20on%20Wednesday.


    Many Arab and other Muslim countries have condemned this incident, and protests are still going on in the Muslim world.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t3-Y9avOQc&pp=ygUdbXVzbGltcyBjb25kZW1uIHF1cmFuIGJ1cm5pbmc%3D


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_TFqsm_8lo&pp=ygUdbXVzbGltcyBjb25kZW1uIHF1cmFuIGJ1cm5pbmc%3D


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFTMNyBVJmE&pp=ygUobXVzbGltcyBwcm90ZXN0IGFnYWluc3QgYnVybmluZyBvZiBxdXJhbg%3D%3D


    However, Sweden has approved Quran burning protests as part of the freedom of speech enshrined in its Constitution.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQOH-tY5lTE&pp=ygUUcXVyYW4gYnVybmluZyBzd2VkZW4%3D


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixrE55CEKuA&pp=ygUWbXVzbGltcyBxdXJhbiBiIHVybmluZw%3D%3D


    Now let me give my opinion on this issue.
    The Quran is the holiest book in Islam, and I can quite understand that most Muslims feel very hurt if a copy of it is deliberately burnt publicly. I too condemn such mischievous acts.


    However, the question is what should be the response of Muslims to such desecrations and insults ?


    I submit that the best and most mature response would be to simply ignore them.


    It must be realised that such mischievous acts are usually done deliberately by agent provocateurs hired by powerful forces to provoke religious, ethnic, or communal strife.

    Gullible Muslims innocently fall into their trap by being provoked, and then the matter gets further exacerbated.


    In Hindi there is a proverb ‘taali do haath se bajti hai’ ( i.e. to clap needs two hands ). So if Muslims do not extend their hand, and turn a Nelson’s eye to such provocative and insulting acts, there will be no clap, and such mischievous people will be denied the publicity they seek, and on which they survive.

  • Eid al Adha in Court By Justice Katju

    Eid al Adha in Court By Justice Katju


    Today 29th June is Eid al Adha ( also called Eid ul Zoha or Bakrid ) an important festival among Muslims in which an animal is sacrificed ( qurbani ).


    This reminded me of a case I heard in the Allahabad High Court shortly after I was appointed a Judge there in 1991.


    The petition, presented a few days before Eid al Adha, prayed that I should order ban on slaughter of buffaloes as a sacrifice during Eid.


    Now it is a belief among Muslims that sacrifice of one buffalo gives the same spiritual benefit of qurbani to 7 persons which sacrifice of a goat gives to one person. So poor persons who cannot afford to buy a goat, often collectively buy a buffalo and sacrifice it, as the per head cost is much less than the cost of a goat.


    I asked the counsel for the petitioner why I should ban killing of buffaloes during Eid ? He replied that buffalo is the carriage ( sawaari ) of the Hindu god Yamraj ( the god of death ). So slaughter of buffaloes hurts the religious sentiments of Hindus.


    I replied that mouse is the sawaari of Lord Ganesh. Should I ban killing of mice ? Most Hindu gods ( it is said there are 330 million of them ) have some animal as a ‘sawaari’ or ‘vaahan’. Should killing all of such sawaaris be banned ?


    https://www.hinduismfacts.org/how-many-gods-are-there-in-hinduism/


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vahana
    I added that this would be absurd. I could only prohibit killing of some animal if there is a statutory law against it. For instance, there is a law against killing of cows in most ( but not all ) states of India e.g. the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. So I could pass an order prohibiting slaughter of cows.


    There is also a Wildlife ( Protection ) Act, 1972, so I could prohibit killing of wildlife.


    But to prohibit killing of some animal, though there is no law for that, just because someone’s religious feelings are allegedly ‘hurt’, would not only have no legal justification, but would also raise a host of problems.

    Which animal is sacred ?

    Opinions may differ on that ?

    When do religious feelings get ‘hurt’ ?

    Again, opinions may differ.


    I dismissed the petition, saying I would only enforce the law, not sentiments.

  • The BBC commentary on Modi

    The BBC commentary on Modi

    By Justice Katju

    The central government has blocked youtube and video tweets showing the BBC commentary on the Gujarat riots.

    Is this restriction valid ?

    In this connection the judgment of the celebrated Justice Louis Brandeis of the US Supreme Court in Whitney vs California ( 1927 ) is noteworthy :

    ” Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated ”.

    He went further to say :

    ” Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, selfreliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence ”.

    This judgment should be considered by our courts if there is challenge to the restriction.

    image

    Author Hon’ble Justice Markandey Katju is former Chairman, Press Council of India and former Judge, Supreme Court of India.

    Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article above are those of the authors’ and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of this publishing house.