|
NEW DELHI: The time has come to think about the creamy layer among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and their gradual exclusion from quota
benefits, said Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan, the first Dalit judge to occupy the highest post in the judiciary.
Politicians are ever so shy about touching this taboo subject, but the CJI, who endured social discrimination and deprivation right through his school days and into his judicial career, was candid when asked if it was prudent to extend reservation to children of Dalit IAS officials, constitutional post holders or those successful in business.
“Caste prejudice cannot be totally wiped out only by high income,” he told TOI, probably reflecting on the ground situation prevalent in many parts of the country. But he agreed that “it is time to put on our thinking caps about gradual exclusion of the high income group among SCs and STs from the purview of reservation benefits”.
He was quick to clarify, having touched upon a sensitive issue. “Ultimately, it has to be a political decision based on consensus,” he said. Even though guarded, it is significant coming from Justice Balakrishnan, who, probably like US president-elect Barack Hussein Obama, fought prejudices to reach a position where none from the oppressed classes had ever set foot.
His children could never go to a public school and had to get their education in government schools. He seldom benefited from reservation — there being no quota for SCs in selection of judges for the High Courts or the Supreme Court. Even his selection as a civil judge in Kerala in 1973 was purely on merit, for he stood first in the written test.
He had to resign from judicial service and return to advocacy as he was told that he would find it difficult to make it to HC as promotional avenues were very low. Proving himself as an able advocate brought him the offer to join the Bench and he has not looked back since.
If he was worried about clothes for going to school — he had just two pairs of dress — now he is worried about the prevailing situation in the country marred by unrest and terror strikes. “People should feel secure. They have a fundamental right to live in secure atmosphere where they should feel that their life and property are safe. That is the basis of democracy,” the CJI said.
Do judicial officers need training to deal with cases relating to terrorism? Justice Balakrishnan said, “We do sensitize judges in issues relating to gender justice. But this aspect — training judicial officers to deal with terrorism cases — has not crossed our minds. May be we have to look into the scientific and psychological aspects of the evidence and train judges accordingly.” |
Posted on November 13th, 2008
Would anybody, who used to oppose or even threaten to kill, would question KGB?
Posted on November 22nd, 2008
If my memory is correct-
Mandal Commision recommended Idenfying and Removal of Reservation to Creamy Layer.
Reservation without Creamy layer is anti National.
And a Financial limit of 4.5/annum for creamy layer would be Ok, if those getting less than that from others must get reservation first.
Income tax limit must be the Creamy Layer limit.
If one has to file returns to IT that should be the Creamy layer limit.
Posted on November 22nd, 2008
Yes, the Mandal commission has gone into the details.
As it is running into some 180 pages or more, many people interpret even without reading it or seening it!
Posted on November 22nd, 2008
It is sheer common sense that when you give a benefit and try to withdraw it naturally therewill be protests that they still need them.It is psychologically making them beggars and develops a mind set that they always need support.If the so called self respect movement really has self respect,they should be proud to say that they do not need cruthches in the form of reservation.The present system is perpetuating the caste system and dividing everybody.They way to give reservation is only on economic criteria and that too on a time bound schedule.
Posted on November 27th, 2008
First of all, why this CJI should go here and there and make such statements.
In another place, he talked about the Indian politicians, who are affecting the polity implying one political party.
Is it required for him?
Why he should talk inside and outseide the Supreme Court in different tones, but pointing to one ideology?
About | Content providers | Support | Beta feedback | Report abuse | Contact us | Careers | FAQ