Tindivanam, Tamil Nadu, Oct 4 (UNI) Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) founder-leader S Ramadoss today called for a public debate on the observation made by a Supreme Court judge, threatening to recommend to the Centre to dismiss the DMK Government for observing a fast on October 1.
Talking to newspersons at his Thailapuram garden residence here, he said former judges, lawyers, legal luminaries and sociologists should come forward and express their views boldly on the observation made by Justice B N Agrawal, when the Opposition AIADMK complained that a bandh was being observed in the State, despite the apex court staying it.
Dr Ramadoss said the Judge's oral observation that there was a constitutional breakdown in Tamil Nadu and he would recommend to the Centre to sack the DMK Government would not augur well for democracy.
The PMK leader, whose party is a key ally of the DMK-led DPA, said the developments after the DPA's state wide fast on October 1 were disturbing and it was a matter of concern.
He said courts giving verdicts based on precedents should be applied only to the particular case and could not be generalised.
''It always goes against democracy when such rulings are generalised,'' he opined.
Dr Ramadoss said the Kerala High Court had passed an order against a bandh, called by a particular union to highlight an issue and this could not be a precedent to ban all bandhs. Sometimes bandhs were called to press for the development of the State, progress of the people and to protect democracy. Imposing ban on such bandhs would go against democracy, he said.
Pointing out that there were two kinds of laws, one enacted by the legislatures and Parliament after detailed debate by the people's representatives and the other based on court verdicts, he said the latter could be applied only to individual cases as they were not good for democracy.
Dr Ramadoss said when doctors of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) struck work, protesting the implementation of 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in higher educational institutions, the Supreme Court, while directing the Centre to pay them salary during the strike period, clarified that it could not be a precedent.
Similarly, when a tribal community in Gujarat held a bandh, the apex court had observed that it was a 'national shame'. Hence, verdicts given against bandh or strike should not set a precedent for other cases, he said.