A single judge bench of Gujarat High Court presided over by Justice J B Pardiwala, on Friday, deleted the ‘anti-reservation’ observations of the judge from his recent judgment on a quashing petition moved by Patidar quota stir leader Hardik Patel & others on the ground that they were not ‘relevant’ or ‘necessary’ to decide the petition. Justice Pardiwala passed an order in this regard while acting on a Speaking to Minutes application moved by the State of Gujarat to delete the observations.
Hours before this, 58 Rajya Sabha MPs had submitted a petition to the Rajya Sabha Speaker Hamid Ansari to move a motion for the impeachment of Justice Pardiwala for his written observations against the constitutional provision of reservation.
On December 1, while deciding the quashing petition moved by Hardik Patel & others Justice Pardiwala had, in paragraph 62 of the judgment, observed, “If I am asked by any one to name two things, which has destroyed this country or rather, has not allowed the country, to progress in the right direction, then the same is, (i) Reservation and (ii) Corruption. It is very shameful for any citizen of this country to ask for reservation after 65 years of independence. When our Constitution was framed, it was understood that the reservation would remain for a period of 10 years, but unfortunately, it has continued even after 65 years of independence.”
“The biggest threats, today,for the country is corruption. The countrymen should rise and fight against corruption at all levels, rather than shedding blood and indulging in violence for the reservation. The reservation has only played the role of an amoeboid monster sowing seeds of discord amongst the people. The importance of merit, in any society, cannot be understated. The merit stands for a positive goal and when looked at instrumentally, stands for “rewarding those actions that are considered good”. Then, this instrumental nature of merit that should be given importance – emphasizing on and rewarding merit is a means towards achieving what is regarded as good in the society. The parody of the situation is that India must be the only country wherein some of the citizens crave to be called backward, ” the judge further observed.
During the hearing of the Speaking to Minutes application, on Friday, Advocate General Kamal Trivedi appeared for the Gujarat Government. Whereas, advocate B M Mangukiya appeared for Hardik Patel. Both of them requested the court to delete the observations.
“Kamal Trivedi…the Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that paragraph 62 in the judgement was not relevant or necessary for the purpose of deciding the main matter, and in such circumstances, paragraph 62 may be deleted,” Justice Pardiwala observed in the order to delete the observations.
“B M Mangukiya…has no objection if paragraph 62 is ordered to be deleted from the original judgment,” he further observed.
Ordering to delete the observations in paragraph 62 of the judgment, Justice Pardiwala observed, “I am of the view that having regard to the relief prayed for in the main matter, which was an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing of the FIR, paragraph 62 was not relevant or necessary for deciding the main matter.”
In such circumstances, the prayer of the State is accepted and the entire paragraph 62 is ordered to be deleted from the original judgment passed by this court…,” he added.