In a sign of chutzpah bordering on contempt that seems to come all too easily to politicians who have made language, caste and religion their leitmotif, Tamil Nadu chief minister Muthuvel Karunanidhi has said the “fate and future of 100 crore people cannot be decided by two or three people” and that this would be harmful for democracy.
The target of Karunanidhi’s not-so-veiled attack are the honourable judges of the Supreme Court, who seem to have become a thorn in the flesh of politicians eager to bend every rule in the book to ensure 27 per cent reservations in central educational institutions for the Other Backward Classes from this very academic year, if not tomorrow morning.
By Karunanidhi’s yardstick, how many judges should ideally sit in judgment on an issue of this nature? Are his reservations on the judges’ competence to adjudicate on such a mammoth issue confined to the OBC quota alone? Or does it extend to other issues involving millions and crores of people, like, say, the Cauvery water issue, too? SEZs? Privatisation?
By this yardstick, can our legal courts adjudicate on any issue? Or should everything be decided in the peoples’ court as our politicians would ideally want it?