Hi Ravi – I was waiting for your article on this subject and it was well worth the wait. Yesterday I was watching the debate on the subject on a Tamil news channel and it was heartening to note that there were representatives from hindu organisations as well as BJP sympathisers as part of the debate. It’ll be good to see more and more hindu participation in such debates so as to “open the eyes” of the common man. But as expected the hindu sympathisers were extremely meek and apologetic. They did not ask some really hard hitting questions at the other “pro APSC” speakers. For example they should have asked “is talking about destruction of a religion” acceptable as free speech in our country? What stops the “free speakers” who want to talk about destroying a religion from speaking outside the compound wall of IIT-M?”. What does the past several decades of history in TN since Independence tell about dalit persecution and dalits getting suppressed? Who is carrying out such activities? Are the Brahmins responsible for such actions? How does Periyar who advocated physically attacking , verbally abusing and humiliating Brahmins qualify as a great leader ? Do his speeches qualify as healthy free speech and the resultant actions by his followers qualify as healthy actions in a democracy ?
Most interesting was the moderator who let it slip rather quietly that free speech means the freedom to talk ill of and abuse someone whom you don’t agree with and not one panelist even raised an eyebrow about that!. There were even some non hindu panelists and I am quite sure they understood the real meaning of the word “someone” in that statement i.e., someone = hindus ! If the same discussion had happened in the 60s when Periyar was calling the shots that statement would have surely had an additional phrase “to attack,kill, desecrate or rape” and there would have been applause all round. Thank God we are a few decades past those days and there seems to be some faint light visible at the end of the tunnel.
Many thanks to people like you Ravi.
September 3, 2017
evr periyar? the real periyar?
Important speech by *Pasumpon Muthuramalingathevar,
delivered in a public meeting on 1957 Feb 21 at Kancheepuram is something special.
Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Thevar’s speech:
“There is a group contesting the elections with the call, ‘Tamil love is important; Tamil Nadu must live’. It is essential to have love for Tamil. But, see how these fellows display their love? In their meetings, they keep telling, ‘North Indians, South Indians; North land, South land” and attempt to divide us. They say, the next meeting is at ‘Jinnah Park’. The one after that is at ‘Robinson Park’. They have no problem using these names.
At the same time, if it is going to be in ‘Tilak Ghat’, they get angry to use his name. They say, ‘North Indian ---- Father ground’.
(Sarcastically, Thevar, switches to English):
In what way Jinnah is not a North Indian? How is the names Jinnah and Robinson so sweet to you Sir? How is the name of poor Tilak so bitter to you Sir? I am not able to understand.
This exposes that you came from ‘Justice Party’ whose primary job was bootlicking the Whites. Further, these fellows say that, ‘North Indian, swindles Dravidian land. North Indian name must not be here. If present, we will agitate to change it’. Very happy.
You agitated to change the name ‘Dalmiapuram’. But, you did nothing to change ‘Harvypatti’. Why not? White’s name can be there. That will make you happy. But, you will want the name ‘Dalmiapuram’ to go. Will any fellow with sense agree?
In Harvey mill, Soundara Pandiyan’s family has stocks. He is a founding father of DMK. So, your party won’t get money, if you ask for the name to be changed. So, it will be pointless to hide the truth from the Tamils, by harping about the language. Understand this. This is the secret.
In addition, they keep shouting ‘Dravida nadu’. How dare you ask for this? If you had fought for freedom from the British, by fighting along with the people when the Britishers were keeping us as slaves, we may say, you qualify to ask for this.
How can you demand ‘Dravida nadu’ today when we were fighting for independence, you took money from the British and conducted ‘war propaganda’ in their favor? Like the ‘secret agreement’ that resulted in the formation of Pakistan, you may also be the ‘fifth columnist’ for the Whites. We are not mad to be cheated like that.
‘We want Tamil. No to Hindi’, is what they say. In the 1937 anti-Hindi agitation, I told Rajagopalachariyar’s ministry, not to impose Hindi. This is history. ‘If our party comes to power, we will have the name ‘Tamil State’. We are not against removing the name ‘Residuary Madras State’. But, by misusing the Tamil language name and posing as preserver of Tamil people’s rights, if you are going to bring in ‘agitation to spoil Tamil Culture’ and ‘atheism in the name of creating a rift between, Brahmins and non-Brahmins’, we won’t allow.
How do you protect non-Brahmins, by writing stories like ‘Romapuri Rani’? By writing such stories, how
many school boys have you spoiled? In addition to ‘Romapuri Rani’, you have also written ‘Thangaiyin Kadhal’,
in which you have written that, ‘a brother falls in love with his sister’. Next, why can’t the son marry the mother? What else? Is this, Tamil culture?
My request to all of you is not to support these parties which will ruin the lives of school going children thereby take our country in the path of destruction.
This book is a nice documentation of many such frauds perpetrated by the Dravidian parties. All those who rush to learn about the other side of Tamil Nadu politicians, must necessarily read ‘The other side of EVR’.
E V Ramasamy Naickarin Marupakkam
E V Ramasamy Naickarin Marupakkam
(The other side of E V Ramasamy Naickar)
M Venkatesan, 2004
Available at: 3, V R Pillai Theru, Hanumanthapuram,
Thiruvallikkeni, Chennai – 600 005.
This book has been published by ‘All India Forward Bloc’. The author M Venkatesan belongs to Madurai.
"When you see the title, you will get a feeling that, this must have been written by a Brahmin. That is wrong. I belong to a backward community’ is the opening line. In this book, there are many rare details.
The author lists the reasons for writing this book as:
“First, I was thinking about EV Ramasamy Naicker as:
1. EVR strived for the Tamil language
2. He served the downtrodden
3. He voiced for women’s liberation
4. He never lied; always consistent
With these impressions, I read many books about him. I read all the books of ‘Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Publications’.
In addition, I also read the exposure of EV Ramasamy Naicker, by his contemporaries, M P Sivagnanam, P Jivanandam, T.P Minakshi Sundaram, U Muthuramalingam Thevar, K.A.P Viswanatham, Kamarajar, Pavanar, etc.
As a result, I realized that EVR behaved in a manner that is exactly opposite to what the people of Tamil Nadu believe today.
The followers of EVR have shown only one side of him and they have hidden the other side. As a true son of India, I consider it my duty to bring to light what they hid.
After reading this book, even if one blind follower of ‘Dravida Kazagam’ accepts that I have written the truth, to come out of the illusion, I would have succeeded in my efforts.”
The above is the introduction for this book.
EV Ramasamy Naicker’s hatred to Tamil language,
Lies in Islam on castes,
EVR’s bogus anti-God policy,
‘Telling’ and ‘Doing’ were always at the opposite,
Twisted history,
Did EVR strive for the downtrodden?
Vaikom agitation – EVR’s lies and Gandhi’s role,
EVR’s ‘Superior male’ mentality,
EVR without patriotism,
Masiammai’s lies and superstitions in later days,
Follower Veeramani’s contradictions and superstitions.
are many captions the author Venkatesan uses to prove his points.
In Appendix, there are additions in the title, ‘These about EVR’, with views expressed on public meetings by Muthuramalingathevar, Linguist TP Minakshisundaram, Kamarajar and Jivanandam,
Let us see some interesting parts from the first chapter titled, ‘EV Ramasamy Naicker’s hatred to Tamil language’.
“EVR lived and behaved like a Tamilian, but his mother tongue was ‘Kannadam’. Yes, the language in his house was only Kannadam. He was very proud to advertise in his speeches and writings that he was a Kannadian – (Dr MP Sivagnanam’s book – Other language people in Tamil Nadu). With this piece of information, the first chapter starts.
WAS EVR A TAMILIAN?
“EV Ramasamy Naicker was a Tamilian. He struggled for the Tamil language’ is a ‘false image’ his bootlickers were creating. They are doing it even today. But, do you know how the the so-called ‘Tamil Leader’, introduced himself?
‘Kannappar is a Telungar. I am a Kannadian. Annadurai is a Tamilian’ (Periyar EVR thoughts – first part) and ‘I belong to the Karnatak Balijawar caste’ (Kudiyarasu 22/8/1926) are the ways in which he introduces himself.”
The man who proudly proclaimed as ‘I am a Kannadian’ is continuously referred to as ‘Tamilian’ and ‘Tamil leader’. He not only said, ‘I am a Kannadian’, but also criticized the ‘Tamil language’ and ‘Tamil poets’ a lot.
This is what EVR says in the book, ‘Tamil language and Tamil people’:
“In today’s Tamil world, some Tamil poets names keep appearing frequently. They are: 1.Tholkappiyan, 2.Thiruvalluvan, 3.Kamban. Of these,
1. Tholkappiyan was an Aryan servant. The traitor gave as grammar all of ‘Arya Dharma’.
2. Thiruvalluvan, without bothering about ‘paguththarivu’, dominated by his own religious feelings supporting ‘Aryan thoughts’ offered something as ‘scriptures’.
3. Kamban, like today’s politicians and patriots, used his Tamil knowledge in favor of anti-Tamil pappans, so proved himself as a money minded Tamil traitor. He is a total liar. Total fraud. He imagined himself to be a ‘pappan’, and offered thoughts even a pappan would hesitate to offer. Thus, this traitor pushed the Tamils down permanently.
All these three supported ‘castes’ and ‘caste based jobs’.
In Kudiyarasu dated 20/1/1929, he wrote further about Thiruvalluvar as:
“We can see many things supporting Gods like Indran, Bramma and Vishnu and Arya religious practices and superstitions such as Reincarnation, Heaven, Hell, Upper world, Souls, Devas, etc.”
These are his views about the great Tamil poets. Were Tholkaapiyar, Kambar and Valluvar traitors? Good description! If, as creators of ‘Tamil grammar’ and ‘Tamil Literature’, they earn the name ‘traitors’, as the one who insulted the language, is EVR not a traitor?
EVR Periyar
Periyar was a racist
He propagated the false Aryan Invasion theory and claimed that India or Tamil Nadu belonged to Dravidian; and the Brahmins(Aryan or Hindus) invaded and imposed their religion. Well this is false and it has also been proved by Dr. Ambedkar in his book "Who were Shudras" in chapter 4.
Periyar was ani-national
Well, this is not my conclusion. This is what Dr. Ambedkar has hinted us. When Hindi was to be made as national language, Periyar's group protested it and started anti-hindi campaign. In response to this Dr. Ambedkar wrote a book entitled "Thoughts on Linguistics" where he says that anyone who do not accept Hindi as our national language is not and Indian.
Regarding Brahmanism and caste
In his book "Annihilation of caste", Dr. Amedkar has said that Brahmanism and caste are poison of Hinduism which has to killed. But at the same time unlike Periyar and his follower he recognizes that previously there was not caste system, it was varna. And Dr. Ambedkar states that Varna and caste are not only different but also opposite. And he goes on to say that varna is sensible as it is defined by worth and not birth.
Unfortunately due to "So-called Brahman", this flexible varna turned into Jati which started to become rigid and later into caste which became cruel, insensitive and in human. What is not spoken this todays caste is actually defined by Risley(Britisher). He categorized the people based on caste what we know today. Al though the fact remains that caste existed from long time and it is stupid and in human which has be removed.
Dr. Amedkar was against caste, but he promoted religion. In the book "Annihilation of caste" he says that Religion should be the foundation of society. He even goes to define how priesthood should be there is Hinduism, which is followed today by many Bhakti movements. Dr. Ambedkar reject caste but promoted religion as the most essential pillar of society.
On Justice Kabir’s correct NEET judgment
**
The amount of flak Chief Justice Altamas Kabir is getting for the NEET judgment is quite astonishing. [ “Scrapping of NEET raises questions over Justice Altamas Kabir” : FirstPost / “CJI Final Judgement comes as boon to private colleges” : TOI ]
I think the critics of the judgment are off the mark. In his opinion, Justice Kabir has correctly recognized the impact of admissions regulation on autonomy. He has also not fallen for the high promises made by proponents of NEET such as eliminating capitation fee, reducing commercialization, and so forth. Finally, unlike the RTE Bench, he has correctly interpreted Art 30(1) rights enjoyed by the minority as an additional guarantee to Art 19-1(g) and not separate from it.
What is this issue about ?
The Congress-led UPA-II government tried to regulate admissions (undergrad + postgrad) in Medical education by introducing a common exam called NEET. NEET stands for National Eligibility and Entrance Test. Pay attention to the words “eligibility” – which means setting minimum standards, and “entrance” which means inter-se merit ranking. The exam was to be conducted on CBSE syllabus and the agency selected by the Medical Council of India to conduct the test was also CBSE. It was proposed to have a normalization scheme (I know, please keep a serious face) to account for differing standards among the 50+ boards in India.
The relevant new regulations (Sec 33 – Medical Council of India Act – Regulations)
IV. No candidate who has failed to obtain the minimum
eligibility marks as prescribed in Sub Clause(ii) above shall be
admitted to MBBS Course in the said academic year.
V. All admissions to MBBS course within the respective
categories shall be based solely on marks obtained in the
National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test.
So it is clear that once the NEET is in force, private medical colleges would be required to use the inter-se merit list of each reservation category. They are allowed to filter out categories but they cant rearrange within the same category. Let me stress this further as it is important. Example: A Christian minority medical college can pick a Christian over a higher ranked Hindu but it cannot pick a lower ranked Christian over a higher ranked Christian. To me the NEET notification is crystal clear, the natural fallout of this is that you cannot have another exam in addition to NEET that would shuffle the inter-se merit list discovered in NEET and weight the two.
As you can see, this completely destroys the autonomy of private medical colleges to devise their own standards and instruments of admission. As I said on the RTE post, the ability to select the intake is one of the main attractions in starting this enterprise in the first place. Naturally, almost all private colleges and their associations as well as states of Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh went to the Supreme Court. On July 18, a 3 judge bench ruled 2-1 that NEET was unconstitutional. CJ Altamas Kabir wrote the opinion joined by J Vikramjit Sen with a strong dissent by J Anil Dave.
The very next day it was clear the judgment had really rubbed off various pro-government activists the wrong way. A curious side issue of the judgment being leaked was also draggedinto the headlines and on to Karan Thapar’s show. The current status is the Union Govt isnt happy and has filed a review petition joined by an NGO called Sankalp.
Quick analysis of the judgment
The actual case is called “Christian Medical College & Ors vs Union of India“. It seems the trajectory of any higher education regulation is the same. You’ve got a socialist state which seeks to provide education as a right (Mohini Jain) confronted by the reality of being third world and cash strapped (Unnikrishnan & Ors). So it reluctantly allows private participation and constantly pushes regulation as a means of satisfying demands of society. In doing so it always runs up against a major bulwark – the constitutional guarantee to religious and linguistic minorities under Art 29 and Art 30.
To really appreciate this case, you have to do a bit of unlearning. Here is the counter intuitive. Colleges like CMC Vellore and St Johns which have 85% minority quota are actually the model minority institutes and colleges like St Stephens and Loyola are iffy. Are you with me ? This is crucial to understand how these cases play out. I blogged with great curiosity thepushback Rev Valson Thampu received from distinguished Hindu alumni when he (rightly) tried to assert the Christian values of the college. This is not to say they aren’t fine colleges, they are exceptional indeed, but they arent exceptional minority colleges.
Once you are comfortable with this you can follow Shri Harish Salve’s winning arguments quite easily. Take CMC Vellore, in addition to a science test there is also a Bible test followed by a searching interview where candidates are evaluated for abilities to serve Jesus Christ in line with the ideology of the college – heed the command of Jesus Christ exhorting His disciples and followers to heal the sick . You have to concede this is a valid ideology.
So here we have a model minority institution which is clearly a candidate for Art 30(1) protection. One can easily imagine a socialist or majoritarian state outlawing such mixing of religion and professional education. There is no question that NEET would impact CMC Vellore adversely as they can no longer weight down a higher ranked Christian candidate due to his lack of religious knowledge or commitment to Jesus Christ over a lower ranked one who demonstrates the above values. Other colleges like Vinayaka Missions , a Telugu minority college, made similar arguments or challenged the authority of the MCI to issue the NEET notification. But I think Salve’s was the clincher.
At this point it was clearly established that the NEET would impact the model minority institution. For arguments sake, if the court were to exempt NEET for “such model minority ” colleges, what about the others ? Here is where I think Justice Kabir demonstrated a great sense of balance and judgment.
Other minority institutions may not be as committed as CMC and St Johns. Can we rationally distinguish between the two kinds ? There is an absence of an overall principled definition of what a minority institution and lack of a standard of judicial scrutiny to decide individual cases.What if non-minority institutions too had such character ? Do we then hold some religious endeavors at a higher pedestal over some other religious or say scientific endeavor? What is a college wanted to select super smart kids via a really tough exam?Practicality – How can a single exam based on CBSE syllabus ensure a level playing field ? Granted this is a secondary question but like the JEE-Main fiasco the court cannot ignore this matter altogether.
So instead of picking and choosing and washing it down with literary flourish – the majority simply threw the whole thing out. They rightfully sided with more autonomy.
161. In the light of our aforesaid discussions and the views expressed in the various decisions cited, we have no hesitation in holding that the “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010 (Part II)” and the “Post Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part II)”, whereby the Medical Council of India introduced the single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and the corresponding amendments in the Dentists Act, 1948, are ultra vires the provisions of Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26(a), 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution, since they have the effect of denuding the States, State-run Universities and all medical colleges and institutions, including those enjoying the protection of the above provisions, from admitting students to their M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and Post- graduate courses, according to their own procedures, beliefs and dispensations,
The dissent
Justice Dave’s admits in his dissent that he wrote it in a hurry. The dissent bestows upon NEET qualities and abilities it simply does not have.
NEET will stop commercialization
Here is the plain truth. NEET or no NEET – you have to be wealthy to afford a MBBS degree from a private college today. It is also a giant mistake to assume that those rich kids studying in private medical colleges like Manipal or Chettinad lack merit. Sure they may rank lower than general category students of lesser means, but that doesnt mean they cant clear minimum NEET qualifications. Most of them are good and rank well in their higher income category. NEET wont change a thing.
Easy to normalize
Justice Dave says ” here would not be any problem with regard to equalizing marks and merits of different students passing different examinations from different regions or states or universities or colleges.” It turns out this is a very hard problem as the CBSE who designed the JEE-Main are finding out. As more and more complex formulae are used the system loses respect and transparency among the student and parent community.
Have to appear for multiple exams and pay exam fees
This is a strong argument for NEET but there is no reason to believe a market solution cannot emerge here. In my view, this is not a big factor as the most motivated kids will find a way to select a subset of institutions within their budget. About the exam fees, lets not forget we are talking about private MBBS. If you are ready to pay lakhs per year for tuition, reducing exam fees is not a worthwhile policy pursuit.
Religious minority can use NEET as eligibility
NEET is clearly prescribed for eligibility as well as entrance. The hard fact is that medical seats are so few in number that those who aspire are certain to clear basic minimum qualifications. Also if all colleges use NEET as “eligibility only” they have to conduct their own evaluation in addition to NEET as the “entrance”. Now we are back to square one – as with the JEE fiasco. Kids not only have to appear for all the old exams – but also for a new one called NEET.
NEET is not the answer – real issue lies elsewhere
The real problem with medical education is not with NEET. This is a case where the Government must expand its capacities dramatically as private colleges are necessarily going to be out of bounds for most meritorious middle class and poor kids. On the private side, over regulation and the resultant political involvement has created de-facto monopolies. This allows the existing institutes to adopt dubious practices including capitation fees (which rearranges inter-se merit). The greatest example of how bizarre the situation has become can be seen in my pet peeve – the NRI quota.
Because the govt takes a share of the private capacity as well as fixes fees for another part, the colleges are allowed to take in upto 15% NRI students. The colleges like this because the admission norms for NRI students are a lot looser and they can charge them a much higher rate to compensate for govt takings in other categories. As you can see, over regulation on one side has side effects. Squeezed out capacity enables in unexpected ways headroom for arbitrariness and money making.
A lot of this capacity leaks out to the blackmarket.
In the meanwhile, a meritorious kid who does not have parents in a foreign country scratches his head and wonders why he is discriminated against for having dad work in India.
We have a long way to go. Lesser regulation and not more is the answer.
CJI Altamas Kabir’s final judgment
CJI Altamas Kabir’s final judgment comes as boon for private medical colleges - The Times of India - http://toi.in/wUkD_a/a18ag
chronology on how the decisions regarding NEET or AIPMT have been changed over the years
http://indianexpress.com/article/education/neet-know-everything-about-the-sc-verdict/
The Two Not-So-Neat NEET Judgements
Change is tough and unfair. When it comes to implementing a uniform medical entrance exam across a federal state, its riddled with rightful dissent, even in the judiciary.
On 18 July 2013, the Supreme Court scrapped the government’s proposal to hold a common medical entrance exam. The decision of the three-judge bench, however, was not unanimous, and was preceded by reports of a leaked judgement.
On 28 April 2016, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice AR Dave recalled the controversial verdict, noting that “the majority view has not taken into consideration some binding precedents and more particularly, we find that there was no discussion among members of the Bench before pronouncement of the judgement.”
So, What’s Changed in Three Years?
Not much actually. The terms of conducting the NEET remain the same, there is no new dimension to the argument for and against a CBSE-conducted all-India exam – autonomy still remains the bone of contention between the government and private, unaided medical colleges, and state boards are still not willing to cede control over school-level education.
It’s rare for the Supreme court to recall its own verdict. Why then, would it overturn a verdict delivered by a bench headed by the former Chief Justice of India?
Judgement 1
In 2013, the three-judge bench that was hearing a petition filed by Vellore’s Christian Medical College passed a majority verdict against the implementation of National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET).
The “majority verdict” was controversial because it did not take into consideration Justice AR Dave’s dissent – he was of the opinion that NEET “would not allow for any discrimination or influence in the process of selection.”
This was in contradiction with Chief Justice Altamas Kabir’s view that a common entrance test favoured students from metropolitan areas who “enjoy greater privileges than their counterparts in rural areas as far as education is concerned.”
Justice Vikramjit Sen (now retired) seconded Chief Justice Altamas Kabir’s view, who incidentally was retiring the same day.
Interestingly, Justice Dave also noted that there had been no discussion with the Chief Justice before the draft judgements due to “paucity of time”.
The Leak
The dissent and the majority verdict was not the only controversy that dogged the 2013 NEET judgement. Supreme Court advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, had predicted the outcome of the case in his column on a social networking website, even predicting the number of pages and paragraphs the judgement would run into. Sankaranarayanan noted that gossip corridors in the Supreme Court were abuzz with the news that Justice Kabir’s majority judgement would quash NEET.
Judgement 2
Three years later, both Justices Kabir and Sen are retired, and a constitutional bench headed by Justice AR Dave recalled the 2013 Supreme Court verdict that allowed Vellore’s Christian Medical College (CMC) to conduct its own admission test.
“Recalled, not struck down” argued senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan in court while appearing for private medical colleges. “How can an order be set aside without a hearing”, was Rajeev Dhawan’s contention, which was overruled by Justice Dave and the four other judges.
Secondly, the Supreme Court ordered the implementation of NEET on 28 April and announced the first phase of the exam would be held on a weekend’s notice on 1 May. Representing the Tamil Nadu government, senior advocate L Nageshwar Rao argued that the students in the state had no concept of entrance exams, since they are evaluated on the basis of their Class 12 exams. This was done in 2007 with the aim to bridge the parity between urban and rural students. His argument that 48 hours was too short a time for students to prepare for a CBSE-style entrance exam was also not entertained.
With the ordinance against the implementation of NEET, the government has bowed down to pressure from crucial and potential allies like Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu, Chandrababu Naidu in Andhra Pradesh, and Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal. In doing so, it has pressed pause on its own agenda and undone Justice Dave’s determined efforts to implement a common medical entrance test.
Scrapping of NEET and the questions it raises over CJI Altamas Kabir
It was a controversial judgement that brought down the curtain on the tenure of the former Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir yesterday. The striking down of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) was one that had an impact on the lakhs of students and doubts are already being raised over it.
The NEET was welcomed by students as a single transparent solution to admissions instead of the various exams to be written to get admission for 31,000 seats in MBBS and 11,000 seats in MD courses.
However, while the verdict found favour among two judges on the three judge bench, Justice AR Dave who had dissented with the verdict and in a 35-page dissent hinted that he was rushed into the judgement by the imminent departure of Kabir.
"As the Chief Justice is to retire within a few days I have to be quick and also short," he wrote.
The judge also noted that prior to the preparation of the draft judgements the three judges had 'no discussion' due to the lack of time.
And while dissent by one judge in a three-judge bench isn't unusual, it is an allegation that the verdict on the case was known in advance that has cast a shadow on the judgement.
"For the better part of the last week, senior counsel and junior advocates alike have without compunction shared a story that the appeals by the private colleges will be allowed with a declaration that the MCI has no jurisdiction, and that Justice Dave will dissent from this view," Gopal Sankarnarayanan, an advocate in the Supreme Court wrote in an article on Bar and Bench.
"The judgment, it is confidently touted, runs into more than 190 pages and in excess of 300 paragraphs. It is my fervent hope that this tale is false – a figment of some perverse and destructive mind. In a few hours, we will know the truth," he wrote, a good two hours before the verdict was delivered.
As a column pointed in the Times of India, the uncanny accuracy of the prediction, given the secrecy with which matters are usually handled in the Supreme Court, raised many an eyebrow.
Apart from this judgement, Sankarnarayanan raised other questions about the manner in which Kabir had functioned during his tenure which lasted around a year including poor administration of the courts and stepping into cases, notably in Sahara and Sunil Mittal.
In addition to this criticism, a report that Kabir attempted to push for a high court judge to be elevated to the Supreme Court, only to flare up and accuse the collegium of judges of 'ganging up' against him when they rejected it, doesn't portray him in the best light.
According to a Times of India report, Kabir had held a meeting of the collegium of judges on 2 July which included Justices P Sathasivam, GS Singhvi, RM Lodha and HL Dattu, where he told them of the proposal.
However, he was told that since the warrant of appointment of the next Chief Justice had already come it wasn't right for Kabir to push for the appointment of a judge to the apex court. They reinforced their opinions individually as well, forcing Kabir to drop the proposal.
Neither Sankarnarayanan nor any other authority has raised questions about the honesty of Kabir during his tenure, however, the final judgement by the former Chief Justice of India will also remained tainted by controversy for multiple reasons.