VICHITRA BANWARILAL MEENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Iyer coined 'Bharati Ghost' (Bhim Singhji's case (AIR 1981 SC 234)) is haunting the corridors of this Court now, brandishing broken and smashed sword of Golak Nath (AIR 1967 SC 1643) a Giriian (Scheduled Tribe) is attacking the 45th amendment (D. D. Basu's Shorter Constitution of India, p. 807. Eighth Edn. The Constitution(Forty -fifth Amendment) Act, 1980) for giving a decisive death -blow to Article 334 of the Constitution. Vichitra, the petitioner, little realises the distinction between homicide and suicide. The billion dollar question is his success in striking down the reservations, whether would be disaster for the Girijans and failure may result in blessings in disguise.

(2.) THE razor -thin distinction between photo finish race of homicide v. suicide by Vichitra. may become too obscure to be spelled out or to be observed even by a microscope, if the fatal writ issued for alleged paralysation of parliamentary function of 'reservations' or special reservations.

(3.) EVEN when Kesavanand Bharati,AIR 1973 SC 1461 was in womb determined to kill and smash Golaknath, like 'Krishna Avtar' for 'Kansa' and to damage and demolish its dimensions. Mishra and Ray, JJ. (Basudev Khadanga v. U.O.I. (AIR 1973 Orissa 136)1 repelled challenge to 23rd amendment and killed a still -born theme of Vichitra.