1. Vaikom Struggle: Two States, Two Leaders, and a Landmark Reform Movement
Introduction:
The Vaikom Struggle, which began over 100 years ago, was a pivotal socio-political movement in India’s history. It marked the fight against caste-based discrimination and paved the way for broader social and religious reforms.
Centered on temple entry for backward castes in the Travancore princely state, this movement not only united people across social strata but also became a cornerstone for subsequent legal and constitutional reforms in India.
- Evolution of the Vaikom Struggle:
- The struggle emerged as a protest against the prohibition of backward castes from walking on roads adjacent to the Vaikom Mahadeva temple.
- Initiated by the Kerala State Congress Committee in 1924, it gained traction and transformed into a mass movement with support from all social classes.
- By November 1925, the streets of Vaikom symbolized the shift of India’s freedom struggle toward addressing social justice issues.
- This movement inspired similar protests across the country, such as B.R. Ambedkar’s call for Dalit entry into temples like Kalaram Mandir.
- Legal and Constitutional Developments:
- Early legal measures such as the Travancore Temple Entry Proclamation (1936) and Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act (1947) marked significant milestones.
- These laws were precursors to constitutional guarantees, with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasizing public order, morality, and health in regulating religious practices during the Constituent Assembly debates.
- Such principles were upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark Shirur Mutt case (1954), affirming the state’s role in managing secular aspects of religious practices.
- Modern Implications:
- Successive governments in Tamil Nadu and Kerala have passed laws appointing non-Brahmin priests, reflecting continued efforts toward inclusivity.
- These measures have faced resistance from orthodox groups but are reshaping temple administration and rituals to align with constitutional ideals of equality and secularism.
- Collaboration Between States:
- In 2024, Kerala and Tamil Nadu jointly commemorated the centenary of the Vaikom Struggle, underscoring its shared legacy.
- This collaboration highlights the enduring relevance of Vaikom in addressing caste inequalities and promoting reforms in contemporary society.
Conclusion:
The Vaikom Struggle was not just a fight for temple entry but a broader challenge to entrenched social hierarchies. Its legacy resonates in the ongoing quest for equality, as seen in modern temple reforms and secular governance. The movement exemplifies how local resistance can catalyze national reforms, bridging societal divides through legal and constitutional measures.
Mains Practice Question: |
“Discuss the significance of the Vaikom Struggle in India’s socio-political and constitutional history. How do the principles it stood for continue to influence modern-day governance and reforms?” |
2. Chief Justices Need Longer Tenures: Ensuring Stability in the Judiciary
Introduction:
The tenure of Chief Justices in High Courts has increasingly come under scrutiny due to its brevity. With several appointments in recent years lasting under a year, concerns have emerged over the impact of short tenures on judicial administration, institutional stability, and the implementation of reforms.
- Issues with Short Tenures:
- Recent appointments of Chief Justices highlight a troubling pattern, with many serving only a few months. For instance:
- Justice Rajiv Shakdher of Himachal Pradesh retired after just 24 days.
- Justice Tashi Rabstan in Jammu and Kashmir had a tenure of only six months.
- Such brief tenures hinder the ability of Chief Justices to understand and address the complex needs of High Courts, such as administrative reforms, judicial backlogs, and personnel welfare.
- Role of Chief Justices:
- Chief Justices shoulder multifaceted responsibilities:
- Recommending names for judge appointments.
- Overseeing administrative functions of the High Court.
- Participating in seminars and public engagements while ensuring judicial efficiency.
- With limited time, they struggle to leave a lasting impact on institutional health.
- Historical Context and International Comparison:
- Historically, longer tenures were the norm. For instance, the Madras High Court, established in 1862, had only 24 Chief Justices in its first 150 years, with an average tenure of over 7 years.
- In contrast, recent trends show an average tenure of under two years, reflecting a significant decline.
- British-era appointments emphasized stability and continuity, which is increasingly absent today.
- Challenges with Current System:
- Judicial appointments and frequent transfers disrupt the institutional workflow.
- Short tenures discourage long-term vision and reform implementation, limiting opportunities for innovation and growth in judicial administration.
- Recommendations for Improvement:
- Increase the minimum tenure of Chief Justices to three years.
- Reform the judicial appointment process to prioritize stability and strategic planning.
- Establish collaborative mechanisms between the judiciary and the government to address systemic issues holistically.
Conclusion:
Short tenures for Chief Justices undermine the efficiency and stability of the judicial system. To address this, a structural overhaul is needed, focusing on longer tenures and reduced transfers. Stability in judicial leadership is crucial not only for the administration of justice but also for ensuring long-term institutional health.
Mains Practice Question: |
“Discuss the implications of short tenures of Chief Justices in High Courts on judicial administration and reform. Suggest measures to address this issue.” |
