Sunday, June 11, 2006

Anti reservation protest

It is pertinent to note that protest for anything, whether it is for good or bad, is the basic rights of the people, which are expected not to be stifled by any force so as to safe guard democracy. In the anti-reservation protest, the SC has threatened the agitators to subdue inviting contempt of court is not tasty. Protest for anything would come under law and order problem, which should be looked into only by the executive and that in which the SC need not poke its nose. By doing so it seems that the SC sided with the government to bring the agitation to a halt instead of being neutral. If the agitation is not activated, increasing of seats would not come to the fore. So the agitators have achieved their objectives to some extent only through agitation and not by the interference of the supreme court. Executive, judiciary and legislatures have seperate identity. One is expected not to interfere in another's affairs. They are also expected to safeguard their own interest by themselves. If one interferes in another's affairs the later should get ashamed of for another's interference. If the law and order are maintained properly, the courts would not come into picture. So also if the legislatures are enacting laws carefully the supreme court could not interfere in their affairs. Similarly, if the judgements are just, the legislatures would not interfere to enact laws to undo the judgement. It is better to beat their own trumpets in all affairs.


Post a Comment

<< Home