IBRAHIM KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A triology of blind -the petitioner, the respondent and a Court of law.

(2.) A God cursed blind citizen is the petitioner before the court of law, which again is supposed to do justice, with Godeso of justice again being blind. The relief claimed in this writ petition is again rotating in a blind lane because the State has choosen to remain blind and not to respond by giving reply or relief to a blind citizen, even though about 3 years have passed since petitioner knocked the doors of the temple of justice. The tell tale of woe and suffering of the petitioner would have created companion and sympathy in any one's heart but inspite of tall claim of giving relief to handicapped & enactment of the Rules in 1976 for reservation to the physically handicapped people of Rajasthan, the State has not choosen to examine the writ petition a copy of which was sent to the State by this Court with notice and to take some steps to make the Rules of 1976, a reality rather than a mirage.

(3.) TO remind the State and its functionaries of the feeling of serious anguish and agony of this Court of account on non -observance of the constitutional mandates and virtually scrapping of the Reservation Rules of 1976,1 may again state what I said in Miss Kum Kum Jhalani's case : - "The prospect of realising social justice is remote unless Article 39 (b) & (f) go into militant action and unless there is a committed cadre of civil servants. The natural civil service abhorrence to peoples demands, contradicts social Justice." The above observation of Mr. Justice V. R. Krishnna Iyer (1) aptly apply to the present tragic tale of a physically handicapped lady a victim of injustice at the alter of bureaucracy's apathy and abhorrence for God cursed handicapped. According to Justice Iyer "In the new order there must not be Judges who are untroubled by the misseries of masses." Another eminent judge, Justice Shelat, writing foreword to the above lecture of Justice Iyer, exhibited his independent thinking, when he observed: "Consistent with the system of parliamentary democracy, the bureaucracy can have no philosophy of its own which it can enforce. For Judiciary's role, Shelat again disagrees with Iyer and concludes: - The function of the judiciary is therefore, in a limited field and not to peculate in the hope of carrying out some object on the ground that the legislature has failed to make manifest or omitted to provide such object." Even after recording above dissent Shelat echos Justice Iyer when he observes - "It is true that the preamble to our Constitution uses the term "social Justice". So does Article 38 Part IV." The concept of it, he hints at, in the following one sentence "TO discriminate positively in favour of the weak may sometimes be promotion of genuine equality." Making the limited agreement of Justice Iyer & Shelat as the Pivot and leaving the controversy of the two taking inspiration from Iyer but again with Shelat's limitation and restraints, let me state the tragic tale of a physically handicapped lady, who prays for "Social Justice" in "substantial form", from an equitable forum of Article 226."