- Chennai
- Tamil Nadu
- India
- World
- EntertainmentEntertainment
- Business
- Sports
- Lifestyle
- Technology
- Videos
- Explainers
- Editor's Picks
Even before the controversy over the Prime Minister’s “dimagi (intellectual) Naxals” remarks could settle down, the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary is under a cloud over an alleged order that appears to target students associated with the Left across colleges. In a similar vein, an RDO issued a circular in one district seeking to identify supporters of the Left and the CJP. Can bureaucrats, or even elected representatives, issue such politically or ideologically biased orders? Can the Chief Secretary order such an exercise without the Chief Minister’s knowledge or approval? What does the Constitution say about such measures, particularly when they involve identifying people based on their political affiliations? In the past, the Chennai police’s circular to enumerate migrant workers, ostensibly to curb crime, was withdrawn after controversy. Why, then, do such attempts to profile or identify people based on their political or social affiliations keep recurring? What safeguards exist to prevent the bureaucracy from overstepping its powers?
— D Sanjay Kumar, Mylapore, Chennai
During the colonial period, only historysheeters whose names were prepared and kept in police stations were put under constant watch. But for those entering government service, their antecedents were verified with the local police. People who applied for government jobs from states like West Bengal and Kerala were subjected to double verification because of the heavy Leftist influence among the youth.
Verification of individuals regarding their Leftist ideology before or during service started in the US after World War II. A large number of alleged Communists were sent out of employment. This process of weeding out Leftists was called "McCarthyism", as the Secretary of State at the time, one McCarthy, pushed this idea.
In India, when a school teacher selected by the Madhya Pradesh government was found to be an RSS follower, the then Congress government denied him the job. The Supreme Court, hearing the case in 1983, struck down the order, holding that "McCarthyism" is anathema to the Indian Constitution and that a person's pre-employment views cannot act as a bar to employment.
The present circular by the TVK government in the Education Department is not only unconstitutional but also deserves deprecation, as it sought to identify only Leftist student groups and not other political outfits. This once again smacks of McCarthyism, found foul by the Supreme Court four decades ago. Though withdrawn due to protests, the real persons behind this must be identified and weeded out of service or position.
Why does the Supreme Court insist on mandatory Bar practice even for law graduates seeking entry-level judicial posts? The court has now reduced the requirement from three years to one, while prescribing a further two years of training and clerkship after selection. If practical courtroom exposure can be imparted through structured training after recruitment, why is even one year of prior practice necessary? At a time when the “uncle judge” syndrome has raised concerns about nepotism and unequal access to opportunities in the legal profession, could adding a pre-entry practice requirement inadvertently favour candidates with established legal networks and family connections? Could such an additional hurdle risk undermining merit rather than strengthening it?
— N Hariharan, Mandaiveli, Chennai
Initially, the entry-level judicial post on the civil side was called District Munsif. Later, it was renamed Civil Judge (Junior Division). The Supreme Court took upon itself the task of fixing the qualifications, emoluments, and retirement age through a case filed by the All India Judges Association. Earlier, it required a law degree and three years of Bar experience. Suddenly, they permitted fresh law graduates on the model of the All India Civil Services, prescribing a two-year training period. While a large number of fresh law graduates were selected, there was no worthwhile training like IAS/IPS entrants. So these inadequately trained judges were given postings by relaxing qualifications.
Disputes among judges arose as to how far these efforts were successful. One set of opinions led a bench under CJI BR Gavai to strike down the appointment of fresh law graduates. However, on a review petition, the CJI Surya Kant-led bench found a via media: no more fresh law graduates will be allowed to compete. They must have one year of practice, followed after selection by two years of training one year of training followed by one year of clerkship under High Court judges.
This is far better than the earlier method, as they will have at least three years of experience before actually sitting on the bench to hear cases.
