I beg to differ. Here is my two pence worth of comment.
I am not ecstatic over the “Judicial Knock Out” ,as some triumphalists have termed the recent SC verdict in this perceived battle for supremacy between the judiciary and the legislature. . Judges come from the same class as the elite and they tend to reinforce the conclusions of the drawing room debaters of this comfortably off sections of the society. . In fact there was no hurry to decide on this issue as indeed shown by the honourable judges’ collective wisdom in not deciding the Ayodhya tangle for over fourteen years. Liberhan Commission another judicial sinecure does not appear to be willing to even hasten slowly as it seems to be at a standstill. This judicial pronouncement on nineth schedule was not crying for resolution and in any way cannot be compared to insisting on introduction of CNG or enforcing common law in the case of Delhi sealing.

Whether having a nineth schedule strikes at the root of the golden triangle of the basic structure of the constitution as enshrined in the articles 14, 19 and 21 is a matter which has to be debated by larger sections of the informed public and not by a mere nine judge bench out of over twentytwo judges however learned they may be in constitutional matters. Perhaps Hon. YJ Sabahrwal was in a hurry and wanted his name to be immortalised in future text books of constitutional jurisprudence before his retirement. May be, it will after all be only a footnote.

Our constitution is fiftyseven years old. The NDA’s attempt to have a review started with a bang and ended in a whimper since their intentions were suspect. Although the constitution, even overlooking the fact that there was no referendum on it, was well debated in the constituent assembly, yet, it is a decades’ old debate. The fact that the Nineth Schedule had to be introduced within five or six years of its adoption shows how quickly parts of it can become dated. The neglect of large sections of populations, for instance the police refusing to recognise Kairalanji massacre and Nitari killings is a manifest injustice perpetrated under our very noses despite having an enlightened constitution. Why are matters of Education and Health of the poor neglected if this paper constitution was as good as its words which we gave ourselves almost fiftyseven years ago ?

It is basically because the constitution perpetuated the class and caste divide as inherited from the British Colonists. As on date no one but polticians, however much freedom loving armchair pundits may revile against , can represent them with at least a modicum of credibility. If polticians’ even well intentioned efforts are stymied at every turn and twist of the social evolution in the name of basic doctrine structure we are sowing seeds for settlement of future political controversies by violent revolutions. The judges as well as the civil servants are still in a time warp perhaps because they are living in sprawling bungalows in the feudal parts of Lutyen’s Delhi and therefore anything wich is indicative of yielding space to the weaker sections is seen by them as an assault on fundamental freedoms, guarenteed by the constitution. They do not have to think about how to guarentee citizens of India freedom from hunger.

I am not sure which side of the debate is more rational. If some of the legislations like abolition of zamindari or 69% reservation of Tamilnadu are viewed as legislations to wring far reaching social changes and looking at the speed with which we should usher in such changes to empower poorer and weaker sections then retention of Nineth Schedule appears to be more than justified. The fear that it may be misused shows serious self doubts on democracy by the enfranchised non voting class .

Instead of resting the case with this knock out I sincerely hope the debate continues to avoid bloodshed.

Such back-door entries like 9th schedule will only pave way for utter disregard for law & order. It is time the politicians stand pulled up & corrected for such ‘illegal laws’.
Further, no one has objected to poor people deriving benefits of reservation. Only the creamy layer needs to be excluded to allow for the next-in-line poor to stand benefitted. For example, if MK allows his grand children to get benefited out of reservation in preference to someone else living in abject poverty, it is definitely a mistake on the part of lawmakers to allow. This situation is being corrected by SC.