Buy online Cialis Soft 20 mg For every 14 seats to be filled by the selection committee, candidates used to be selected strictly on the following basis:
Buy cheap Cialis Soft 20 mg “From the affidavit filed in support of her petition, it does not appear that the petitioner had actually applied for admission in the Medical College. She states that on inquiry she came to know that she would not be admitted to the College as she belonged to the Brahmin community. No objection, however, was taken to the maintainability of her petition on the ground of absence of any actual application for admission made by her. On the contrary, we have been told that the State had agreed to reserve a seat for her, should her application before the High Court succeed. In the peculiar circumstances, we do not consider it necessary to pursue this matter any further. But we desire to guard ourselves against being understood as holding that we approve of a person who has not actually applied for admission into an educational institution coming to Court complaining of infringement of any fundamental right under Article 29 (2)”.
How did Dr. Ambedkar and Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer act in respect of the challenge of the communal reservation and the verdict of the apex Court? Both of them held vital positions in the drafting committee, constituted for writing Indian constitution.
After having accomplished his role as member in the drafting committee, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer started to continue his profession of a lawyer. He was the advocate in the writ petition, challenging the communal reservation, both at Madras High Court and appellate apex court. Having known that the writ petitioner had not applied for medical seat admission, he should not have appeared at all on her behalf or else he could have explicitly mentioned the fact it in the affidavit. In course of arguments, the court came to know that the petitioner, Champakam Durairajan had not applied for it at all. It was exactly unethical on the part of Alladi to appear on behalf of the petitioner when she had not applied at all for the medical seat admission and would not have got aggrieved of. More than that, the reservation for the Brahmins was very much available at the time of filing the writ petition. Having remained at the helm of affairs in the drafting committee of the Constitution, Alladi either should not have appeared for as lawyer in the writ petition or must have been ethical in his performance at least. The role played by Alladi was purely communal to safeguard the interests of the monopoly of his own Brahmin Community.
Whereas, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar subtly offered his views thus on the verdict of the apex court:
“Turning to the Supreme Court judgment, which had invalidated the Communal Order of the Madras State Government on the ground that it involved discrimination between castes, Ambedkar remarked that “it was utterly unsatisfactory and was not in consonance with the Articles of the Constitution”. This remark created a storm in the House. When it died down, Ambedkar explained that the Supreme Court had overlooked the operative word “only” in Article 29 (2) – “No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution on grounds only of religion, race and caste.”
Order Cialis Soft 20 mg cheap -Dr. Ambedkar Life and Mission by Dhananjay Keer (page: 430)
Having drafted the Indian constitution and being well versed with the provisions, Dr Ambedkar interpreted Article 29 (2), as discrimination on grounds of only of religion, rule and caste was void. The discrimination based on communal reservation was only compensatory and not on either of the ground of only of religion, race and caste. After having expressed his views Dr. Ambedkar explored the remedy through the Constitutional means by bringing amendment (insertion of Article 15 (4)) to it ensuring the continuance of communal reservation not only in the Madras State but guaranteed the communal reservation in the rest of the States. How ethical Dr. Ambedkar was despite having held the Chairmanship of Constitution Drafting Committee by upholding the Constitutional provisions and the judiciary with due respect!
Even though both Ambedkar and Alladi performed their roles in the drafting committee, they differed later in upholding the Indian Constitution and its values. The legal luminary in Dr. Ambedkar was different from the practice of Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer which kept their personalities poles apart.
“Even though both Ambedkar and Alladi performed their roles in the drafting committee, they differed later in upholding the Indian Constitution and its values. The legal luminary in Dr. Ambedkar was different from the practice of Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer which kept their personalities poles apart. “
Please follow and like us: