Courts trying to talk sense into our leaders

Our courts of justice have tried to talk some sense into the UPA leadership. First, on May 8, the Supreme Court had the following suggestions in Ram Sethu petition filed by Dr. Subramanium Swamy -

“There is a specific direction of the Madras High Court that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) should carry out investigations on whether Ram Sethu is an ancient monument or not,” said the Bench also comprising Justices R V Raveednran and J M Panchal.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy argumed that the UPA government decided go ahead with the Sethusamudram project ostensibly under pressure from coalition ally DMK. He also argued that the sethu was a matter of faith to 100 crore Hindus. Other strong arguments included that there were other ways to implement the project more economically, without damaging the Ram Sethu & the environment, which were the principal drawbacks of the proposed project.

In an another case relating to the controversial Sachar committee recommendations, the Delhi High Court, today, had the following to say -

“Is this meant to appease some community? If you intend to fight poverty, cut across religions and communities and fight. Never mind whether it is a Hindu poor or a Muslim poor,” said Justice Thakur. “When you say in your Action Taken Report on the Sachar recommendations that ‘we will spend more for this minority community... does it mean that you will spend less for the major community?” he asked. Reminding the ASG that “we live in a welfare state”, the Bench observed: “There are Sikhs, Muslims and Christians here... Why are you not doing it (welfare measures) for the majority community?”

The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) P P Malhotra representing the centre argued -

“The Sachar Committee report is for all. Of course, there are certain Muslim dominated areas where there is no development at all,” the ASG said.

To which the bench headed by Justice Thakur said -

To this, the Bench said: “So are you saying there are no Hindu slums?” “Tell us Mr Malhotra, in our Constitutional framework, can a welfare scheme say we concentrate only on the benefit of one community and not for all?... A lot of money is spent in a welfare state, is it that you (Centre) spend it only for one minority community?” the Bench asked the ASG.

ASG Malhotra had the following to say then -

The ASG assured the court that “special care is taken care of all minorities” but drew the line by adding that “political issues be best left to the public to decide during elections. Courts cannot decide”.

Interestingly, the matter has now become a political issue best left for the public to decide when it became clear that appeasing only to the Muslims was being questioned by the Court. It wasn't political at all when the UPA decided to spend loads of the tax payer's money on Muslim ghettos. When faced with sound arguments, the matter is sought to be brushed off or changed in course.

Another noticible case was that between Dr. Venugopal & Ramadoss. The UPA is getting kicked all over, by the public & the courts, yet it refuses to realise it's fallacy.