Plea on ‘Brahmin’ judge stuns court

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by ajtr, Oct 21, 2010.

  1. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Oct 2, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Plea on ‘Brahmin’ judge stuns court

    Ahmedabad, Oct. 18: A Gujarat High Court judge was left stunned when the lawyer of a Dalit petitioner argued he would not be able to do justice to his case because he was a Brahmin.

    “This court has come across such argument for the first time from a learned advocate after it assumed office as judge of this court,” Justice R.R. Tripathi said, dismissing Atul Ramjibhai Makwana’s petition.

    Makwana had approached the high court against the Junagadh district judge, who, he said, was favouring only Brahmins for the posts of Class III and Class IV staff in his office. His lawyer, A.M. Chauhan, told the court that nearly 60 per cent of selected candidates were Brahmins.

    The petitioner, who had applied for a job, said interviews were conducted twice but he was not called.

    Then, Chauhan submitted: “The surname suggests that Your Lordship also belongs to the same community (Brahmin) and, therefore, I want that this court may not take and hear this matter.” The lawyer wanted a non-Brahmin judge to hear the case.

    Taken aback, Justice Tripathi said “it was a fit case for issuing notice for contempt against the learned advocate and, if he is making this submission on instruction of his client, then against him also” but he was restraining himself.

    “The learned advocate seems to have made the aforesaid submission only with a view to either bring pressure on the court and obtain a favourable order or to get his matter out of this court,” he said.

    “The court deems it proper to dismiss this matter so as to discourage such a practice.”

    Dalit activist Valji Patel said the advocate should not have made such an insinuation. The petitioner raised a genuine issue but in casting aspersions on the high court judge, the main issue got lost, he said.

    Chauhan, who is planning to appeal to a division bench, said “the petition was dismissed without behind heard on merits”.
  3. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    May 10, 2010
    Likes Received:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    That petitioner and his lawyer should have been sent to Jail for 6 months. This is act of defamation of court.
  4. maomao

    maomao Veteran Hunter of Maleecha Senior Member

    Apr 7, 2010
    Likes Received:
    LOL, When will we grow up and leave these petty Caste issues behind, If I dont get selected at a place, I will never blame the caste of a person, more than 50% of seats these days are reserved for SC/ST/OBS, I don't find people going to courts to challenge the decision of govt. to continue and expand the reservation spectrum.
  5. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Aug 25, 2010
    Likes Received:
    Too many divisions in Indian society.

    6 months is too long...a 1 month jail sentence with a fine should be sufficient.

Share This Page