Justice Janarthanam's moments of glory
After the Supreme Court, in July 2010, provided one year to Tamil Nadu to come out with justification along with quantifiable data for the continuance of the 69% reservation for Backward Classes (BC), Most Backward Classes (MBC) and Scheduled Castes (SCs)/Scheduled Tribes (STs), Justice Janarthanam, as the head of the State BC Commission, had authored a report in support of the quota scheme, as provided in the Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994.
Exactly a year later, the then AIADMK regime, at a Cabinet meeting, adopted the findings of the report and decided that 'there cannot at all be any doubt regards the fixity of reservation of 50 per cent to Backward Classes, 18 per cent to Scheduled Castes and one per cent to Scheduled Tribes.'
On the matter of 'creamy layer' among the BC and MBCs, his take was that though the 1994 law had been in existence for well over 17 years, the Lakshman Rekha line had not been crossed, warranting the application of 'creamy layer' exclusion.' This opinion was also accepted by the government. It continues to be in force.
Nearly 20 years ago, when the demand was made for creating special reservation for Arunthathiyars within quota of reservation for SCs, the government had turned to Justice Janarthanam to consider it. In November 2008, he, as the head of a committee, submitted a report to the then DMK government that the representation of the Arunthathiyars in Groups A, B and C services under the State 'has been found grotesquely inadequate.' Consequently, a three percent quota came into force. for the Aruthathiyars. This has withstood the test of judicial scrutiny, says G. Santhanam, who served as Secretary of the BC, MBC and Minorities Welfare Department about 15 years ago.
In 2012, he gave an opinion to the government for providing a 10.5% quota to Vanniyars within the 20%.. Though this was acted upon by the previous AIADMK regime nine years later, the Supreme Court, in April 2022, quashed the move.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Rahul Gandhi expresses concern over SC order on strays
New Delhi: Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi has expressed his concern over the Supreme Court order that directed the authorities in the National Capital Territory of Delhi to shift all stray dogs to dog shelters . "The SC's directive to remove all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR is a step back from decades of humane, science-backed policy. These voiceless souls are not 'problems' to be erased. Shelters, sterilisation, vaccination & community care can keep streets safe-without cruelty," Gandhi said in a social media post. Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 4 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 3 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals By Vaibhav Sisinity View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 2 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass Batch-1 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program "Blanket removals are cruel, shortsighted, and strip us of compassion. We can ensure public safety and animal welfare go hand in hand," he added.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
After Top Court's Stray Dog Order For Delhi, Madras High Court's Big Hint
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday said it would consider directing the Tamil Nadu government to implement in the state the Supreme Court's order on managing street dogs in Delhi. A Bench was hearing and disposing of a batch of petitions relating to stray animals — one on stray cattle, another on street dogs in general, and a third on the menace of dogs inside a temple that had allegedly bitten devotees, causing injuries and raising fears of rabies. During the hearing, petitioners submitted alarming data, claiming that Tamil Nadu had already recorded 3.67 lakh dog bites and 20 deaths due to dog-bite-related rabies this year alone. The judges said they would issue combined formal orders after studying the Supreme Court's detailed guidelines. The possible directive has sparked mixed reactions. Animal welfare activists expressed concern over the state's lack of infrastructure, manpower, and veterinary expertise to handle such a large street dog population. "Dogs have equal rights to live in this world," one activist said, adding that a poorly implemented crackdown could leave thousands of dogs neglected or starving. They urged the court instead to ensure that the state rigorously enforces the Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme, which focuses on sterilisation and vaccination as humane solutions. On the other hand, many residents and civic activists welcomed the move, stressing that human life must come first. They argued that the rising number of fatal and non-fatal dog attacks called for immediate, decisive intervention. "Lives should not be lost to dog bites in this day and age," one petitioner said, pointing to the absence of coordinated rabies control measures in several districts. The court's reference to the Supreme Court's Delhi order suggests that Tamil Nadu could soon see new, court-mandated protocols for street dog management — potentially affecting everything from municipal responsibility and sterilisation drives to shelter management and public awareness campaigns. The Bench is expected to issue its final directions after reviewing the top court's ruling, setting the stage for a state-wide policy on balancing public safety and animal rights.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Summons to lawyers: SC reserves verdict
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgement in a suo motu case initiated by it to consider the issue of probe agencies summoning lawyers who provide legal advice to accused involved in criminal suo motu was initiated by the top court after it had issued summons to two senior lawyers for rendering legal advice to their clients. A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai reserved its verdict after briefly hearing arguments of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and other lawyers. "Lawyers need to be protected. Provisions are already there. But if they are party to the commission of crime, (they are not entitled to protection)," Mehta submitted. The bench said that it has already made it clear that no protection can be extended to such the last hearing, Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh had suggested that the guidelines issued by the ED to its officers should be adopted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and other investigating agencies as well. Singh had further suggested that for CBI and state police, there should be permission from the Superintendent of Police for issuance of summons to lawyers. He had further proposed that summons to a lawyer should be sent only after the concerned judicial magistrate clears the development took place during the resumed hearing of a suo motu case initiated by the SC on summons issued by ED to two senior advocates - Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal - in the course of ED's investigation into the grant of over 22.7 million Employee Stock Option Plans, valued at more than ₹250 crore, by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja.
