ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846
-A A +A

Maharashtra-Twice Blessed Bagaitdars

pointments to the higher judiciary would take place after due consideration of the social philosophy of the individual judges. It will he for the government' of the day to determine what the current fashion is, and what criteria are to be applied for deciding what is 'backward' or 'forward' looking. For example, if the one thousand seven hundred and odd individuals in West Bengal, who have not been released despite the striking down of Section 17(a) of the MISA, were to sue for damage against the authorities, it would be for the judiciary to decide whether the dilly-dallying on the part of government was intentional or otherwise. The delay in issuing the release orders, the government may claim, was because it had to sort out the 17(a) cases from the non-17(a) ones; the persons affected could allege that the delay was on account of the fact that the authorities were using the time to concoct new cases against them so that they could be re-arrested as soon as they were let out. Called upon to arbitrate on the issue, how many judges would be henceforth found who would dare not to give the government the benefit of the doubt? Those who decide not to accord the authorities the benefit of the doubt might be put down as 'backward-looking'

Subscribers please login to access full text of the article.

New 3 Month Subscription
to Digital Archives at

826for India

$50for overseas users

Get instant access to the complete EPW archives

Subscribe now


(-) Hide

EPW looks forward to your comments. Please note that comments are moderated as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear. A comment, if suitable, may be selected for publication in the Letters pages of EPW.

Back to Top