Some SC verdicts are remarks, not court's decision

Some SC verdicts are remarks, not court's decisionDhananjay Mahapatra
[ 27 Nov, 2006 0026hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]

NEW DELHI: The UPA government will be thankful to attorney general Milon Banerjee for taking the steam off the controversy arising from the Supreme Court's recent judgment on application of creamy-layer exclusion policy to all backward classes, including SCs and STs. In the erudite opinion of the A-G, government need not burn the midnight oil in finding a way out of the caste triggered maze presented by the court while giving its judgment on the reservation within reservation issue pertaining to promotions in government jobs. The verdict was meant for OBCs and the ancillary observations need not be taken seriously as a direction, A-G appeared to have said by terming the creamy layer reference in the judgment as obiter dicta. An obiter dictum, Latin for a statement made "by the way", is a remark or observation made by a judge that, while included in the body of court's opinion, does not necessarily form part of the court's decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. Whoever had invented the coinage obiter dicta must have been in a situation similar to the one thrust upon the A-G, who knows the coalition nature of the government he represents before the courts and the importance of caste-based politics. He did well by terming the most sensitive and strong remarks in the judgment as obiter dicta. His approach to the problem was reflective of the traditional approach of governments, irrespective of the political party at the helm of affairs, that is to term the apex court's inconvenient observations as obiter dicta. From Bommai to Bihar, the SC in the last 10 years has given several judgments laying down guidelines and standards for imposition of President's rule in a state. Did the sanctity of the law laid down by the apex court under Article 142 prevent the Centre from dismissing inconvenient state governments bowing to pressures of its allies? Why should it be, for there were equally erudite law ministers and law officers who must have termed these judgments as obiter dicta. The Bommai case may be old enough to be forgotten. But take the judgment of the five-judge Bench on the action of Bihar governor Buta Singh to recommend dissolution of the assembly last year to prevent the NDA from coming to power by stitching together a rag-tag coalition. The judgment was an academic exercise to test the purity of the governor's action and Buta Singh failed miserably. A furious court singled him out for some special treatment terming his apprehension as "fanciful assumptions" and holding him and the council of ministers, which advised imposition of President's rule in Bihar, to have acted in tandem to "subvert the Constitution". Sample these: "Governor is not an autocratic political ombudsman"; "Buta Singh's action was a mere pretence. The real objective was to prevent Nitish from staking claim to form government"; "Clearly the governor has misled the council of ministers"; and "Report recommending dissolution of assembly was a mere ipse dixit, suspicion, whims and fancies of the governor". Had these been aimed at the holder of a constitutional post in any other country, he was sure to have resigned but Buta Singh continued.