One must thank Justice K. Chandru for clearing the air over the agitation in Tamil Nadu for greater representation in the subordinate judiciary (“Judges, castes and social justice,” March 16). Our Constitution is unique in content and spirit in securing social justice for our vast sections and making India a social welfare state. Unfortunately, this well-intentioned commitment of ensuring social justice through equalisation or protective discrimination policies does not seem to have ensured the desired results, which is causing tensions. The government should ensure a proper and balanced implementation of these policies to make social justice an effective tool in achieving social progress and equality.
C.R. Ananthanarayanan,Bengaluru
It is rightly said that a section of the bar either feigns ignorance of these facts or suffers from selective amnesia. Not only that, it is a caste obsession and a similar mentality to view everything through the caste prism which is dangerous. The demand for reservation for a particular community may be justifiable but the demand to avoid some communities is both unjustifiable and unconstitutional. The article ensures that the public cannot be misled anymore.
P.K. Raman,Tiruchi
Is this the way the judiciary conducts business by denying justice to a section? It is understood that in other departments there is a system of having a roster to control the legitimate allotment of the posts to be filled up by the different groups. In many cases, the judiciary had intervened in the past if anything went astray in the procedures in those departments. This lopsidedness must have crept in as a way to buy peace in the face of a politicisation of the bar. It is time the trend is corrected so that there is a well-balanced growth of judicial wisdom by tapping the best candidates in all categories.
K. Rajendran,Chennai
The agitation is not at all against the forward communities. The agitators claim that certain communities are more than well represented and that it is time lawyers from other communities, who are equally competent and honest, find a just place in the higher judiciary. Their demand is for inclusion and not exclusion. In the list of nine names forwarded by the Madras High Court for appointment as High Court Judges, a Muslim, a Christian and a woman and other weaker sections of society have not found a place. The demand is to start with them first. Nobody can oppose such a claim. If the forward communities have not found a place as yet in the selection of district judges, it cannot be dubbed as a casteist move. Many from the forward communities are now seeking greener pastures. If you look at the statistics of the number of forward communities who have applied, you will notice that it is decreasing by the day. They are going in for more remunerative and challenging jobs.
N.G.R. Prasad,Chennai
