What do you think?
Rate this book
The Court and the Constitution of India: Summits and Shallows
On the role of the Supreme Court of India in interpreting the main themes of the constitution and in formulating contemporary public law in the country.
337 pages, Hardcover
First published April 15, 2009
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 28, 2016
Justice Chinappa Reddy was a Supreme Court Judge from 1978 to 1987. In this book, Justice Reddy deals with landmark Supreme Court cases on interpretation of the Constitution. The book covers almost all landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court till 2008. It covers themes ranging from Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, Fundamental Duties, Basic Structure, Reservation, Women Rights, Minority Rights to Federalism, Labour Law, Administrative law, Judicial Review, and Environmental law.
The author takes up one topic in each chapter. For instance, Basic Structure in Chapter 6 and Article 21 in Chapter 13. He then states the landmark cases on that point of law and concludes the Chapter by giving his analysis of the cases that has been discussed. It is a great book for both lawyers and law students interested in Constitutional law as it covers all landmark cases of the Supreme Cour till 2008. It also gives perspective about how the jurisprudence on each subject matter evolved since Justice Reddy deals chronologically with the case laws on each topic.
While Justice Reddy has offered an honest critique of the Judgements he has discussed, there are issues on which it is difficult to agree with Justice Reddy's analysis. For example, he criticizes the decision of the SC to exclude 'creamy layer' from the benefits of Reservation and quotes the Third Karnataka Backward Class Commission which states:
"That a few of the seats and posts reserved for Backward Classes are snatched away by the more fortunate among them is not say that reservation is not necessary.....Are not the unreserved seats and posts snatched away, in the same way, by the top 'creamy layers' amongst them on the same principle of merit on which the non-reserved seats are taken away by the top layers of the society. How, can it be bad if reserved seats and posts are snatched away by the 'creamy layer' of Backward Classes, if such snatching away of unreserved posts by the top 'creamy layer' of society itself is not bad?"
Firstly, Justice Reddy fails to see that the Commission was addressing arguments against Reservation whereas, the Judgement nowhere states that Reservation should be discontinued but that it should merely, reach the people who need it the most.
Secondly, the argument made by the Commission itself is erroneous as it fails to notice the distinction between those competing in reserved categories and those in the general category. It is pertinent to note that Reservation is an affirmative action by the State to empower the oppressed and weakest sections of the society and it is the duty of the state to ensure that such affirmative action reaches those most in need.
In the same Chapter, Justice Reddy states that the assertion that Reservation is anti-merit is a myth but contradicts himself by arguing that Reservations in promotions does not affect the efficacy of the Job as most promotional jobs require very little efficacy. The author negates his own argument that Reservation is not anti-merit by arguing that Reservation in promotions should be applicable to those posts which don't require a high degree of skill.
Further, in the Chapter on Secularism, he criticizes the SC's judgement in Aruna Roy v. NCERT wherein it was held that the NCERT's bid to include a primer on all major religions of the world to be 'secular'(constitutional). Justice Reddy argues that teaching of religious precepts in schools is bound to nurture anti-secular sentiments in the impressionable minds of young students. What one fails to understand here is how teaching about all the major religions of the world to young children instead of broadening their worldview makes them communal and anti - secular? Justice Reddy fails to notice that Children are bound to learn about other religions sooner or later in a more communal and less objective context.
He also indirectly hints at banning the Heads of State from visiting religious places as done by the Japenese Courts. However, he fails to address the ensuing conflict between banning Head's of States from visiting religious places and Right to practice & propagate their religion as guaranteed by the Constitution.
To conclude, it is a good book for anyone interested in Constitutional law in spite of its flaws.
The author takes up one topic in each chapter. For instance, Basic Structure in Chapter 6 and Article 21 in Chapter 13. He then states the landmark cases on that point of law and concludes the Chapter by giving his analysis of the cases that has been discussed. It is a great book for both lawyers and law students interested in Constitutional law as it covers all landmark cases of the Supreme Cour till 2008. It also gives perspective about how the jurisprudence on each subject matter evolved since Justice Reddy deals chronologically with the case laws on each topic.
While Justice Reddy has offered an honest critique of the Judgements he has discussed, there are issues on which it is difficult to agree with Justice Reddy's analysis. For example, he criticizes the decision of the SC to exclude 'creamy layer' from the benefits of Reservation and quotes the Third Karnataka Backward Class Commission which states:
"That a few of the seats and posts reserved for Backward Classes are snatched away by the more fortunate among them is not say that reservation is not necessary.....Are not the unreserved seats and posts snatched away, in the same way, by the top 'creamy layers' amongst them on the same principle of merit on which the non-reserved seats are taken away by the top layers of the society. How, can it be bad if reserved seats and posts are snatched away by the 'creamy layer' of Backward Classes, if such snatching away of unreserved posts by the top 'creamy layer' of society itself is not bad?"
Firstly, Justice Reddy fails to see that the Commission was addressing arguments against Reservation whereas, the Judgement nowhere states that Reservation should be discontinued but that it should merely, reach the people who need it the most.
Secondly, the argument made by the Commission itself is erroneous as it fails to notice the distinction between those competing in reserved categories and those in the general category. It is pertinent to note that Reservation is an affirmative action by the State to empower the oppressed and weakest sections of the society and it is the duty of the state to ensure that such affirmative action reaches those most in need.
In the same Chapter, Justice Reddy states that the assertion that Reservation is anti-merit is a myth but contradicts himself by arguing that Reservations in promotions does not affect the efficacy of the Job as most promotional jobs require very little efficacy. The author negates his own argument that Reservation is not anti-merit by arguing that Reservation in promotions should be applicable to those posts which don't require a high degree of skill.
Further, in the Chapter on Secularism, he criticizes the SC's judgement in Aruna Roy v. NCERT wherein it was held that the NCERT's bid to include a primer on all major religions of the world to be 'secular'(constitutional). Justice Reddy argues that teaching of religious precepts in schools is bound to nurture anti-secular sentiments in the impressionable minds of young students. What one fails to understand here is how teaching about all the major religions of the world to young children instead of broadening their worldview makes them communal and anti - secular? Justice Reddy fails to notice that Children are bound to learn about other religions sooner or later in a more communal and less objective context.
He also indirectly hints at banning the Heads of State from visiting religious places as done by the Japenese Courts. However, he fails to address the ensuing conflict between banning Head's of States from visiting religious places and Right to practice & propagate their religion as guaranteed by the Constitution.
To conclude, it is a good book for anyone interested in Constitutional law in spite of its flaws.
Displaying 1 of 1 review