SC refutes 'son of the soil' theory

The Supreme Court refuted the ‘son of the soil’ theory that led to violence against north Indians on Friday and said balkanisation of the country cannot be permitted at any cost.

A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan although refused to take any action against his party, but said, “We know what is happening. The ‘son of the soil theory’ is not acceptable. We will not permit balkanisation of the country.” Such a divisive nature conflicted with the constitutional guarantee to every citizen work and settle in any part of the country.

In a very short period hearing on the two PILs filed by advocates Arvind Kumar Shukla and Rakesh Upadhyay the Apex Court refused to entertain PIL petitions seeking a direction to the Maharashtra government to initiate action against MNS chief Raj Thackeray for allegedly stirring up violence by his remarks against north Indians living in Mumbai.

Upadhyay petition was also refused, who was seeking proper rehabilitation of the migrants targeted by MNS activists.

The bench advised the petitioners to approach the Bombay High Court for relief. They then resorted to withdraw the petitions, which the Court permitted.

The Chief Justice remarked, “the violent incidents occurred in Maharashtra is a question of law and order. The state will take care of the problem. How can this court interfere when some incidents take place? It is not possible for this court to give a direction whenever law and order problem arises in some parts of the country.”

On the plea seeking disqualification of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) as a political party, he advised the petitioners to approach the Election Commission.

When the counsel Upadhyay sought attention of the bench towards the plight of north Indian migrants that they need to be protected as they were ill-treated, beaten badly and eventually forced to depart Maharashtra in a large numbers; the chief justice replied, “it is a dangerous tendency, but we cannot give the directions you want as law and order is a State subject. If you feel innocent people are affected, you go to the High Court.”

The bench also comprising justice Markandey Katzu and R V Raveendran besides CJI Balakrishnan further said, “the incidents complained are of purely law and order cases. State government is bound to take care of these and there is no room for the court to interfere in it,” suggesting the petitioners that Bombay High Court could be an appropriate forum to raise their grievances.

Sena’s Stand

Despite the Supreme Court refuting the sons of the soil (bhumiputra) theory, the Shiv Sena and MNS seems to be stuck to their stand.

According to Sena’s viewpoint as per the source, the whole issue began with the reorganisation of the state on linguistic basis provided by the constitution, to protect the cultural identity of each state.

They say that what is wrong if we demand the local people be given priority in employment opportunities. It is responsibility of the state government to provide them jobs.