Merit must prevail

THE editorial, “Merit must prevail” (Jan 18), brings forth two-fold aspects of the crucial issue of reservation policy so far as its implementation in the field of judiciary is concerned. The President of India, Mr K.R. Narayanan has raised a pertinent point favouring due consideration to the weaker sections like SCs and STs in all the appointments to the Supreme Court and the High Courts. While reacting to the above, Mr Justice Anand (CJI) has asserted that all eligible candidates, including those from the SCs and STs, are considered: merit alone is the criterion for all these judicial appointments and there should be no compromise on merit. This does not seem to be inspiratory in view of the observation of a noted jurist, Justice V.K. Krishna Iyer: It is a genetic calumny and unscientific assertion to castigate the SC/ST communities as possessing less intellectual potential. The question arises here as to what is merit and suitability. The sincere dedication and intellectual integrity are the major components of merit and suitability; not degrees from Oxford or Cambridge, Harvard or Stanford.

Article 335 speaks of the efficient settlement of the claims of the SCs/STs by the administration. But this “efficiency of the administration” has been wrongly inserted into the “claims” of the SCs/STs. “The claims shall be taken into consideration”. The phrase “taken into consideration” means “ to make allowance for”. In other words the claims shall be allowed.

Obviously, the members of the SCs/STs seem to have not been able to enjoy full representation in the field of judiciary so far, following which the President had to comment on their under/non-representation therein. A majority of the eligible persons is available from these segments but it has been left high and dry owing to the faulty implementation of the reservation policy in almost all the fields.

A cursory look at the Constitution shows that the people of India have directed the State — the executive, the legislature and the judiciary — to remove to the extent possible the inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities suffered by the backward classes. The history of the past more than 50 years shows that the State has not done its duty effectively necessitating the reservation’s extension after a decade. For this, the blame lies with the implementing agencies of the reservation policy. Otherwise the reservations were a short-time special measure to help the under-privileged segments of the society to join the mainstream and stand on an equal footing with others. These castes are yet to have adequate share in the governance of the State and are still suffering inequality in social and economic life.

It merits mention here that since the socio-economic reality reveals “graded inequality”, Articles 15(4) and 16(4) provide for “reservation” for backward citizens. This finds support from judicial pronouncements, too. But the underlying aims and objects of these constitutional guarantees, to mitigate the hardship caused to these categories by centuries—old social and cultural oppression, are yet to be realised.

O.P. KALYANA
Chandigarh

II

This refers to the recent controversy on the selection and appointment of our judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

The intent and the contents of our Constitution are clear. Undoubtedly, our founding fathers desired a secular, strong and united India, fair and free representation for us all, positively, with a view to supporting and uplifting the weaker sections of our society.

But to take the view that representation means reservation is plainly wrong. Never, never was the spirit of the Principles and the Constitution meant to sacrifice merit for anything. What sort of “social objectives” are we talking about? It is deeply disturbing when scholarly, gifted men of eminence take such an illogical, partisan view.

Thank God, the Chief Justice of India has spoken openly and asserted himself (“of those whom much is given, much is required”). That’s the only way the right thinking people — let alone scholars and jurists — of this country or anywhere in the world have it. Furthermore, by trying to “favour” one section of society against another, was the President of India violating the oath of his office? The earth must tremble a little!

KARAM CHAND
Chandigarh

Electrical fires

It is amazing that we accept fires caused by electrical short circuits or breakdown of insulation at joints as a fait accompli. It is even more shocking that in spite of the Army having adequate strength of electrical engineers, they are not able to arrange periodical inspections of the electrical installations, especially where the buildings are inherently fire hazards — like the beautiful wooden hospital that was recently gutted in Shimla. Again, what is the function of the state governments’ Directorate of Electrical Inspection, on which the government spends lakhs of rupees annually? When will we adopt preventive maintenance measures in our country?

SUJOY NATH RAY
Chandigarh

Avoidable strike

You have rightly voiced your concern through your editorial “Avoidable strike” in favour of reasonable and genuine demands of bank employees. The bank employees, as a whole, have applauded your right and timely support to them and have commended your valuable suggestion to avoid strike to IBA/government. The general public is not aware of the fact that the employees are not responsible for bad health of banking industry. The government itself is responsible due to its undue interference and policies. Further, not even a single employee is interested in going on strike because he has to lose his pay for the strike period. The bank employees are being forced to strike work to maintain their dignity and honour in society in relation to their pay package when compared to employees of equal status in State/Central government.

You are well aware of the fact that the IBA/government is following dilly-dallying tactics with the bank employees for the last 14 months in settling the matter. During this employees have shown their patience and coolness. Now, when the IBA has refused to budge at all from its rigid and unreasonable stand and have offered a disgraceful and meagre 8% increase, including superannuation, with prospective effect, the employees have to resort to this painful act of strike which they never desired. However, employees in the banking industry are united to fight for their right and are ready to face any situation.

I hope that the IBA/government will act according to your advice and accede to the genuine demand of bank employees to avoid any adverse situation.

M. SINGH
Amritsar