SC twist to BC quota row

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the petition challenging the 42 per cent BC quota in Telangana, and its direction to approach the High Court, raises serious concerns. Past rulings capped reservations at 50 per cent, making this move constitutionally questionable. Although the Constitution does not fix a percentage or timeframe for educational or employment quotas, it does set a 10-year limit for political reservations—applicable to SC/ST, not BCs.

The High Court cannot ignore the 50 per cent cap set by the apex court. Crucially, the creamy layer remains unexcluded, risking merit erosion and weakening governance. Expanding quotas without reform undermines public trust and institutional integrity and may deepen social divides- hatred between the haves and have-nots. Judicial clarity and policy accountability are essential. Let equity prevail over politics.

Dr O Prasada Rao, Hyderabad

In defence of India’s judiciary

“Calling out the criticism of the Indian judiciary,” rightly exposes the misplaced blame often directed at our courts. The claim that the judiciary is the “single biggest hurdle” to India’s development oversimplifies a complex reality. Judicial delays and case backlogs are real; they are symptoms of deeper systemic failures-poor law-making, inadequate infrastructure, and the government’s own tendency to over-litigate. It is ironic that those who criticise judicial inefficiency rarely acknowledge how poorly drafted laws and bureaucratic apathy clog the system.

The judiciary is asked to clean up the legislative and administrative mess and yet is faulted for not doing it fast enough. Moreover, judges work under immense pressure, with one of the heaviest caseloads in the world, often without the necessary resources or manpower. Instead of scapegoating the courts, reforms must focus on better lawmaking, reducing frivolous government litigation, and filling judicial vacancies. Development in a democracy cannot mean silencing judicial scrutiny. The judiciary, far from being an obstacle, remains a crucial pillar of accountability and constitutional balance.

Abhishek Shukla, Bengaluru

Deal with the errant lawyer sternly

At the outset, a lawyer attempting to hurl a shoe at the CJI B R Gavai within the sanctum of Supreme Court is not only shocking and a disgrace but also demands the strongest condemnation. However deep the grievance the person may have, it cannot justify a symbolic assault on the judiciary. Particularly, if a lawyer, who is expected to uphold the sanctity of the temple of justice, turns disruptor and in a fit of rage and misplaced anger, tries to defile the place, the act is unacceptable and unthinkable.

Even though the provocation coming from the lawyer may be on account of CJI’s remark on faith made earlier, it does not mean that the lawyer instead of expressing his feelings or disapproval through reason or other legitimate avenues can take law into his hands to settle the issue. His act is indefensible by any yardstick. Prima facie, the act by the aggrieved lawyer is not courage but a contempt of court. Since this is a sign of erosion of decorum within the justice system, the Supreme Court administration and Bar Council of India must take cognisance without delay and initiate action against the lawyer.

K R Srinivasan, Secunderabad-3

A five-judge panel must for every case

Though highly condemnable, it is necessary to know why 70-year-old lawyer Rakesh Kishore hurled a shoe at the Chief Justice of India (CJI). What provoked him to do that? The lawyer’s reasons (sanatana dharma) should be made public. The CJI asking the security to let the lawyer go without pressing charges, shows the equanimity and cool approach of the CJI, B R Gavai.

This proves that a team - a panel of at least five judges should deal with any case, and not just one person. This narrows down the “human error” of judgement. Also, if there are differences amongst those five judges, the majority opinion of at least three judges should be counted and considered as final judgment.

P V P Madhu Nivriti, Secunderabad-61

A shameful act in the court

The recent incident in the Supreme Court, where a lawyer attempted to attack the Chief Justice of India by throwing a shoe at him, is not only deeply shocking but also shameful. This is not just an individual act but a dangerous reflection of the growing intolerance in our society, where disagreement is mistaken for hostility.

Such a behaviour undermines the dignity of the judiciary and erodes public faith in democratic institutions. It is the duty of every citizen to uphold respect, tolerance, and the constitutional spirit that bind our nation together. An assault on the judiciary is, in truth, an assault on justice and democracy itself. Let us stand together to protect these sacred values.

Md Hammad, Mumbai