OCTOBER 19, 2006: Compelling reasons for SC/ST quota in govt jobs

Justice Balakrishnan was part of the unanimous verdict by the Constitution Bench that upheld the Constitutional validity of the 77th Amendment providing reservations for SC and STs for promotion in government jobs.

“We reiterate that the ceiling limits of 50 per cent, the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons namely backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.”

However, the Bench headed by Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal ruled that the creamy layer be excluded from its benefits. “It is made clear that even if the state has compelling reasons...(it) will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50 per cent or obliterate the creamy layer of extended reservation indefinitely,” said the 5-judge bench.

AUGUST 22: PILs not meant to advance political gain, settle scores

A majority verdict (2:1), which included Justice Balakrishnan, rejected two “PILs” (filed by MP Rajiv Ranjan Singh and Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Modi) seeking cancellation of bail granted to Railway Minister Lalu Prasad and his wife Rabri Devi in the multi-crore fodder scam and disproportionate assets case.

In views concurring with Justice Lakshmanan (Justice SH Kapadia was the dissenter), Justice Balakrishnan said: “...In a case of this (criminal litigation) nature, nobody else has got any right to interfere, especially by way of Public Interest Litigation or else such PIL would only hamper the course of justice and may cause prejudice to the accused by denying fair trial...PILs are not meant to settle their scores under the guise of a public interest litigation and to fight a legal battle.”

AUGUST 22: Seems power crisis is concern of the court, not state

Pulling up the Delhi government following a “vague” affidavit with no measures to tide over the prolonged power crisis, Justice Balakrishnan said the state didn’t seem to be in a position to meet the power demands for the Commonwealth Games to be held in 2010. Describing the affidavit as “not satisfactory”, Justices Balakrishnan and DK Jain said: “It seems as if the power crisis is the concern of the Court and not of the State.”

JANUARY 17: States must set up panels to tackle workplace sexual harassment

Justice Balakrishnan directed the chief secretaries of all states to find out if committees had been set up to deal with such complaints in all departments and institutions with more than 50 employees. Along with Justice RV Raveendran, he ruled: “...To coordinate the steps taken in this regard, there should be a state-level officer ie either the secretary of the Women and Child Welfare Department (of the HRD Ministry) or any other suitable officer... concerned with the welfare of women and children in each state.”

2001: Make mid-day meal programmes in school mandatory

Justice Balakrishnan says this judgement is “most special” to him. The two-member Bench, including Justice BN Kripal, ruled that mid-day meals be made “statutory”.

1997: Impose a ban on bandhs

Restriction on holding people and the city to ransom by calling bandhs

In a severe indictment of then Bihar Governor Buta Singh, the Constitutional Bench, in a majority verdict (3:2), held that he had misled the Centre in recommending dissolution of the State Assembly. The Union Council of Ministers, they said, should have cross-checked before accepting his recommendation. The Assembly was dissolved on May 23, 2005.

The majority judgement was passed by Chief Justice YK Sabharwal and Justices BN Agarwal and Ashok Bhan. Justices Balakrishnan and Arijit Pasayat took the minority view. Justice Balakrishnan disagreed on the main aspect of the petition, that whether the proclamation to dissolve the Assembly was illegal and unconstitutional.

The majority judges inferred from the May 21, 2005, report of Buta Singh as the Governor of Bihar that he believed that 17 or 18 MLAs belonging to the Lok Janashakti Party (LJP) were moving towards the Janata Dal (United), meaning the latter could stake its claim to form the government. They described as arbitrary the Governor’s two assumptions that the move was itself indicative of various allurements having been offered to the LJP MLAs and that the claim that might be staked to form a government would affect the constitutional provisions and safeguards built therein, and distort the verdict of the people.

Balakrishnan did not think so: “It cannot be said that the decision to dissolve the Bihar State Legislative Assembly, is mala fide exercise of power based on totally irrelevant grounds.”

His dissent note read: “It was clear that not a single political party or alliance was in a position to form the Government and when the Assembly was dissolved after waiting for a reasonable period, the same cannot be challenged on the ground that the Governor in his report had stated that some horse-trading is going on and some MLAs are being won over by allurements.

“I find myself unable to agree with the decision on point No 2 formulated in the judgment. On all other points, I gratefully adopt the exposition of law and agree with the decision proposed by the learned Chief Justice.” Point no. 2 gave rise to all other related questions before perusal by the SC.

He added: “If by any foul means, the Government is formed, it cannot be said to be a democratically-elected Government...If Governor has got a reasonable apprehension and reliable information such unethical means are being adopted by the political parties to get majority, they are certainly matters to be brought to the notice of the President and at least they are not irrelevant matters.