New Vistas of Analysis

The article by Sudhir Krishnaswamy and Madhav Khosla entitled ‘Reading A K Thakur vs Union of India: Legal Effect and Significance’ (July 19) opens up new vistas of analysis and interpretation of the cases decided by courts, including the Supreme Court of India. The probing observations of the authors and the manner in which the issues have been brought to the fore should be considered eye-opening in many ways. The vexatious questions of “Other Backward Classes”, the creamy layer, different relevant provisions in the Constitution of India, and the inherent contradictions in the provisions in Acts and court judgments have highlighted a certain hollowness, both in the laws and their interpretations, insofar as the courts do not usually go beyond their agenda contained in the briefs, documents and facts at issue. However, courts have of late shown much greater sensitivity on issues of public interest. But taking all the variants into consideration, it is possible to argue that generalisations or theorisations for conformance on different questions have their limitations. The courts in their citations have indeed referred to the cases decided by different courts, including the Supreme Court. Not only that, different sectors – social, service, corporate, economic and commercial, and political – jointly and severally, and diverse activities in the country calling for transactional, intra- and inter-cultural relations giving rise to conflict, are also areas that often call for justiciary intervention.

hether such interpretations are generic or only case-specific. Jurisprudential exercises in this country have been very few and far between, of which, one of the reasons is that the case reporting in either All India Reporter or reports of Supreme Court cases and the like, is short, sketchy and so, grossly inadequate for determining how much of the details transcend the specifics of a particular case. In India, research on jurisprudence leaves much to be desired and, to say the least, can hardly be compared with the works on jurisprudence based on British and American experience. We get very wise detailed discussion in some judgments, for instance, those of justice V R Krishna Iyer, but such commentaries are not common and they often miss the background of their utterances. Arun Shourie, for instance, dwelt extensively on some of these issues in his book, The Courts and Their Judgments, which was reviewed by Fali Nariman. The contextualities of the book were all Indian though these were set on a larger canvas. But such researches are forgotten easily.