``The views of the President should be taken seriously by all concerned and given due weightage. We know and realise that appointment of judges is governed by the famous 1993 Supreme Court judgment on the Advocates on Record Association case. That is the law of the land. The Congress, therefore, expects that within the parameters of the existing law of the land, the views expressed by the President will be taken note of by the judiciary,'' party spokesperson Ajit Jogi said.

The Congress line on the issue was formalised after a meeting chaired by Sonia with top legal brains of the party following which the spokespersons were authorised to air the party's stance. The issue has taken on the hues of a controversy following the publication of the President's views inthe media.

Narayanan had on November 28, 1998, while clearing the appointments of four judges, said: ``I would like to record my views that while recommending the appointment of Supreme Court judges, it would be consonant with constitutional principles and the nation's social objectives if persons belonging to the weaker sections of society like SCs and STs, who comprise 25 per cent of the population, and women are given due consideration.''

The President added, crucially, that ``eligible persons from these categories are available and their under-representation or non-representation would not be justifiable. Keeping vacancies unfilled is also not desirable given the need for representation of different sections of society and the volume of work which the Supreme Court is required to handle.''

The publication of these views led to an immediate debate on two questions: merit as the sole criterion for appointing judges and journalistic ethics involved in publishing confidential views. The Congress backedboth concepts with the rider that the President be heeded.

``There should be no compromise on merit but there is merit in all sections of society,'' Jogi said adding that the Congress felt that the ``views of the President, which are confidential, shouldn't have been published in the first place.'' ``Now that they have been published, they should be taken serious note of,'' the Congress spokesperson said.

The Congress stance is the result of its policy of wooing SC/STs, women, dalits, adivasis, minorities and OBCs back into its fold. The party is clear that it will not do anything to alienate these sections of society which were once considered Congress vote banks and which sent the Congress to power often in the past.

Also, the Congress is hoping to put the BJP-led coalition government in a tight position by backing the President who has, on issues like use of Article 356 of the Constitution in Bihar, differed with the Centre. The party did, however, stress that there were not enough judges from thebackward sections of society.

``The statistics speak for themselves. Representation of women, dalits, tribals and OBCs is not the level at which they expect them to be,'' Jogi said. The President, who describes himself as a ``working president'', has stressed in the past too that more judges from the backward sections of society must be appointed.

On December 5, 1998, while inaugurating a seminar on judicial reforms organised by the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association, Narayanan said: ``It is a matter of importance that in the judiciary all the major regions and sections of society are represented to the extent possible consistent with the requirements of merit and the high standards maintained by the judiciary.

``The argument is not that the judiciary should follow some sort of proportional representation. The administration of law and justice is intimately linked to the social philosophy of the judiciary, and the social philosophy cannot be entirely separated from the social origins of thosewho dispense justice.''

That is a fine line which Narayanan has reiterated to the Chief Justice, one which the Congress has now backed officially.