Saturday October 21, 2017
Home India Delhi High Co...

Delhi High Court’s remarks political rather than legal: experts

0
377
Image source: newsx.com

New Delhi: Senior legal experts yesterday denounced the Delhi High Court’s remarks on nationalism and love for the nation while granting bail to JNU student leader Kanhaiya Kumar.

Judge Pratibha Rani’s observations are a part of a judicial trend which needs to be curbed right away, leading advocates said, with one dubbing them “totally uncalled for, unwarranted and unfortunate”.

Senior lawyers said the judge appeared to be broadly espousing the official line on the events at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) where Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested on February 12 on charges of sedition.

He was accused of raising anti-India slogans at a meeting organised to mark the execution of parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, a militant from Jammu and Kashmir. Kanhaiya Kumar has repeatedly denied the charge.

The high court judge, while granting six-month interim bail to Kanhaiya Kumar, reminded him his fundamental duties, love for the country, nationalism and the sacrifices soldiers were making and the demoralizing effect that anti-India slogans had on the families of martyrs.

Pointing out that the observations had been lapped up by government circles and right-wing groups, activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan told reporters: “It is a political rather than a legal judgement.”

“The judge has no business to expound on nationalism or anti-nationalism which is not an offence under the law.”

He added: “Nationalism is not defined anywhere and is not a ground on which freedom of speech can be restricted.”

“By expounding on this issue, the judge seems to have played into the hands of those who are using this as a political weapon to drum up fascist hysteria in this country.”

Echoing Bhushan’s sentiments, Supreme Court Bar Association president and senior counsel Dushyant Dave described the observations as “totally uncalled for, unwarranted and unfortunate”.

He added: “Judges must stay away from political debate.”

Saying Kanhaiya Kumar deserved unconditional bail, Dave said: “Nationalism is not a part of judges’ function to write about. They must confine to law and not emotive issues.”

Former Delhi High Court judge Rupinder Singh Sodhi said that making loose observations was an unfortunate trend that the judiciary was adopting. “I think this trend has to stop now and immediately.”

Justice Sodhi, also a senior lawyer in the Supreme Court, says granting interim bail had no legal precedent.

“All bails are interim in nature and can be cancelled at any time. Ordinarily, an interim bail is granted to fulfill an extreme social obligation which the court can always accommodate. As a rule, bail can either be granted or dismissed.”

Another leading lawyer who did not wish to be identified by name said that while attempting to define nationalism in a pluralistic society, the judge seemed to have overstepped her judicial limits.

“Her observations are symptomatic of all that ails Indian judiciary and deserve to be expunged.” (Parmod Kumar, IANS)

Next Story

JNU Ideologues are Spewing hate in the name of Dissent and nurturing Anti-India ideologies

0
81
JNU
JNU has become den for left politics. VOA
  • By Amit Srivastava

Sep 16, 2017: With the help of media propaganda and public opinion manufacturers, JNU has become an epitome of left politics – Viciously nurturing the anti-India ideologies and placing them into state establishment through their sympathizers.

They hate a lot of things that are Indian or having Indian identities. Their perpetual anathema is cleverly placed with covert name of ‘dissent’. It would be interesting to know, how they instill a failed and violent ideology like Marxism through inroads of hate.

Before 93rd amendment for OBC quota in higher education, JNU had very progressive admission policy with weightage number for backward districts, castes and also for women. Though these deprivation points still exist, but since half of admission is done on caste lines, these points are less relevant now. Owing to its admission policy and standard entrance exam, JNU has been providing excellent higher education opportunity for the students from remote rural areas at par with metro educated students.

Ironically, left parties with help of communist faculty members also exploit this opportunity as they get fresh cadres who could easily get disconnected caused by the language difficulties, cultural shock and administrative difficulties. A person with deeply rooted Indian value system won’t accept valueless violent ideology of Marx. Brainwashing such person is not easy. Hence the process of indoctrination begins with very first day of admission at JNU.

Earlier, admission process in JNU was cumbersome and lengthy. Comrades used to catch new comers in the name of admission assistance. Now, this opportunity is lost as there is single window admission process is adopted by JNU administration. Another step to trap the new comers is artificial scarcity of hostel. You are on their mercy of ‘these seniors’ who offer you to stay with them. And sometimes 6-7 students stay in 10-by-15 hostel rooms. More freshers in one comrade’s room means more problem, hence more opportunity to brainwash them.

First stage of abomination start with inciting new-comers to hate individuals including hating own self. This hate is designed to suit the social conflict theory of communism. If you are a general category student, you must hate yourself for being born in ‘upper caste’ and must accept it wholeheartedly than only you would be ‘ready’ to abuse political opponents on caste line.

If you are from OBC-SC-ST and Minority, you must hate those ‘upper caste’ guys living with you in the same campus, no matter they’re even poorer or more deprived than you. Irrespective of rationality and humanity, you must hate them; because they’re born in bourgeoisie castes, and you should assume yourself as proletariat, even if you are richer and dominate than most of them. This hate is mandatory. Selective crimes are extrapolated to justify it. Incidents like Khailanji, where Dalits were burned alive, are used to consolidate this hate. But details of culprits are purposefully hidden and ignored as they don’t belong to ‘general caste’ and this may derail the hate direction.

Minority students have to hate Hindu co-students as per the conditioning of the leftist mentors. Hindus are blamed for their all problems. OBC-SC-STs are encouraged to hate Hinduism too. If there are complacent with it, they’re encouraged to shun Hinduism and accept more exploitative Islam, Christianity or atheism. At same time, Muslims and Christians students are encouraged to be more religious and fanatic for their respective faith. This is why JNU communists encourage Islamic or Christian festivals but gets reprimanded if students celebrate Hindu festivals in the campus.

This abhorrence has another intense level of inculcation. Female students from remotely rural areas are too attached with their families. Girls won’t be a good ‘recruiting’, ‘facilitating’ and a devoted comrade, until they respect family system and existing social ethics of the society. Hence, they’re taught that they’re the master of their own body. Their vagina belongs to them and their father has no right to say with whom they shall sleep. This typical teaching is very crucial and preached through woman comrades in very delicate ways by living with them, fanaticizing with them with instilling a false sense of empowerment and freedom among them… only to sexually exploit them for own leaders or an allurement for the new recruits.

JNU’s left ideologues are not limited to a close campus. Congress governments have been giving them important posts in order to devise new divide-and-rule policies. After debacle of 2014, these master-less Maoists of JNU are left with no one to support. Their political existence was long gone.  Post General Elections 2014, they engineered several caste-riots, devouring state-funding and abusing the same state. Unfortunately, they failed into it too.

Within JNU, they opened another sister concern named ‘BAPSA’ – an organization that not only abuse Hinduism on daily basis, but also abuse the students who belong to Brahmin or ‘Savarn’ castes. The right to live with dignity for these ‘savarn caste’ students is violated by BAPSA and left-relict in name of Social Justice. Ironically, JNU administration allows such caste abuses in name of sociological studies. Much grave violation of thousands of students’ fundamental right to live with dignity is violated every day.

However, these avant-garde social terrorists still think that they can potentially harm the ruling BJP party by taking Bhimrao Ambedkar’s name. Now a days, Student wing of Naxalites, DSU used ‘Jai Bhim’ along with ‘Lal Salam’ in order to immunize itself from the responsibility of offending content it circulate within JNU campus. It is high time for Ministry of Human Resource Development and JNU administration to stop the violation of personal dignity of students. We must not allow the abuses and exploitations just for the sake of intellectual pleasure and useless showoff of tiny campus victory.

Amit can be reached at Twitter @amisri


NewsGram is a Chicago-based non-profit media organization. We depend upon support from our readers to maintain our objective reporting. Show your support by Donating to NewsGram. Donations to NewsGram are tax-exempt. 

Next Story

What Gives Husbands The Licence to Rape? Decoding Marital Rape in the Indian Legal Scenario

Can there be two different definitions of rape? Can there be a differentiation between the rape of a married woman and the rape of an unmarried woman?

0
117
Marital rape
While most of the developed world has penalized marital rape, surprisingly it is yet to be categorized as an offence in India. Pixabay
  • Cases of sexual violence, including rape, fall within the larger realm of domestic violence
  • Marital rape is yet to be categorized as a criminal offence in India
  • According to the central government, criminalizing marital rape “may destabilize the institution of marriage”

New Delhi, September 2, 2017 : Baby works as a domestic help; she says she cannot recall her age when her parents married her off to a man who was much older to her; a man she barely knew. She didn’t anticipate her husband would demand to have intercourse on their wedding night. She was still young and not ready, but that didn’t stop him. Baby was raped by her husband on her wedding night. But marital rape means nothing to her.

Sunita irons clothes for a living. She says has been married for more years than she can remember. The duo has four kids together, but that doesn’t stop her husband from raising a hand or two on her, every once in a while. Every night, her husband would get drunk, hit her and forcefully demand to have sex, paying no heed to her resistance. Sunita has three daughters, and a son, and the husband still wants to have progenies. “I told my mother that this man has raped me multiple times. She protested, arguing that he is ‘your husband’ after all,” she said.

But did she never decide to approach the authorities?

To this, Sunita promptly replied, “I once had a sore eye after he (the husband) hit me with his shoe when I refused to have sex. I went to the local hospital and then the police. I narrated the entire scene; they were very considerate, offered me water and then asked me to go home and ‘adjust’.”

Sunita is unaware of a term called ‘marital rape’.

This is the reality of a huge part of the society in real India.

Like Baby and Sunita, women who suffer such indignities are often asked to “adjust” with perpetrators of violence because of a deep –embedded fear of what the society would say. This notion of an ‘ideal woman’ impedes women to object to illicit treatment meted out by their ‘better halves’.

The debate around the issue has become ripe once again with the Central Government stating that what “may appear to be marital rape” to a wife “may not appear so to others”. In an affidavit to the Delhi High Court, the central government took a stand against criminalizing marital rape saying that it “may destabilize the institution of marriage” and also become easy tool for harass the husbands and the in-laws.

Rape v/s Marital Rape

Rape is defined in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, but with an irregularity: “Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.”

While rape is addressed as perforation without a woman’s accord in its main clause, the only remedy to forced intercourse provided to ‘married’ woman is specified under Section 498-A of the IPC and the civil provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestiic Violence Act.

Following the horrific 2012 Nirbhaya rape case that brought the entire world to a standstill, the Indian media has given paramount coverage to instances of rape across the country. But even after 5 years of the gut-wrenching incident, there seems no end to this crime.

ALSO READ The Hardships of Sexuality: Marital rape, violence and humiliation

Cases of sexual violence, including rape, fall within the larger realm of domestic violence. However, rape by husbands within holy matrimony continues to remain an obscure subject in India and the exact number of cases is hard to gauge.

According to a 2015 report by National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) tracing the proximity of offenders to the victims of sexual violence, it was revealed that in 95 per cent of all rapes, the offenders were familiar to the survivors. These, presumably include acquaintances, friends, relatives and colleagues.

And what about rape committed by husbands?

These cases continue to be an under-reported crime in India. This can be attributed to two major reasons,

  • Because of the stigma associated with it
  • Because of the presence of a defunct justice system

Furthermore, more often than not, these cases go missing because of several additional (and unnecessary) barriers stemming from a combination of familial and/or social power structures, shame and dependency.

Marital Rape In India

While most of the developed world has penalized marital rape, surprisingly it is yet to be categorized as an offence in India.

A United Nations’ report titled ‘Why do some men use violence against women and how can we prevent it?’ published in 2013 disclosed that nearly a quarter of 10,000 men  in Asia-Pacific region, including India, admitted to have indulged in the rape of a female partner. The report traced their rationale to a deep-embedded belief that they are entitled to sex despite the consent of their partners.

The study also revealed that the majority of these instances were not reported and the perpetrators faced no legal consequences.

In 2014, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), in association with International Centre for Research on Women (ICRW) brought out a report titled ‘Masculinity, Intimate Partner Violence and Son Preference in India’. Among other things, the report analyzed the average Indian male’s understanding and interpretation of the idea of ‘masculinity’ and how that molds their interactions with women.

Not surprisingly, the study revealed that a typical man in the Indian society associated the attributes ‘tough’, and ‘controlling’ with masculinity.

Segments of the present day Indian society continue to look at men as tough forces, who can (must) freely exercise their privilege to establish rule in personal relationships and above all, continue to control women.

Additionally, the study also revealed that 60 per cent of the Indian men disclosed the use of physical violence to establish authority.

In India, stiff patriarchal norms continue to tilt the gender balance firmly in the favor of men, as a result of which, women are forced to internalize male dominance in their lives.

Marital Rape in India : A Legal Perspective

Section 375 essentially distinguishes between two categories of women

  • Married women
  • Unmarried women

Much to the Indian society’s disappointment, the Indian legal system denies protection from rape to the married woman. This creates discrimination as the women belonging to one section are denied justice merely by virtue of being married.

But can there be two different definitions of rape? Can there be a differentiation between the rape of a married woman and the rape of an unmarried woman? Is it justified to discriminate a woman just because she is married to the man who has raped her?

The Debate Around Marital Rape In India

Despite the piquant situation, the issue raised furor when Minister of State for Home, Haribhai Parathibhai Chaudhary told the Parliament that the question of criminalizing marital rape in India has no relevance “as marriage is treated as sacred here.”

Does marriage being a sacrament provide one with the legal right to rape a woman?

South Asia director at Human Rights Watch Meenakshi Ganguly had retaliated saying that it is particularly concerning when a government that claims to secure the safety of women inside and outside national territory shamelessly turn to justify a crime in the name of culture and tradition.

Group director of social and economic development at the International Centre for Research on Women (ICRW) Priya Nanda asserted in an interview with a leading portal that “the reason men don’t want to criminalize marital rape is because they don’t want to give a woman the power to say no.”

In 2013, a three-member commission headed by Justice J.S. Verma suggested remedial measures to combat sexual violence in India, following the 2012 Nirbhaya rape case. One of its recommendations was the criminalization of marital rape.

ALSO READ Reasons Why Marital Rape Should Be Recognised as a Criminal Offence

The recommendation was ignored by the government as a large amount of people questioned its efficiency saying if made a crime,

  • It might be misused by people
  • It will be difficult to prove
  • It might break up marriages

But, how fair is it to not have a law against marital rape, only because of the reason that it is ‘difficult to prove’?

In a broader understanding, it needs to be understood that the criminalization of marital rape must not be viewed as a step against men or the institution of matrimony, but as an attempt to demolish the patriarchal system that continues to clutch the Indian society.


 

NewsGram is a Chicago-based non-profit media organization. We depend upon support from our readers to maintain our objective reporting. Show your support by Donating to NewsGram. Donations to NewsGram are tax-exempt.
Click here- www.newsgram.com/donate

Next Story

How Are Restaurants Operating Without Permit? Asks High Court: 19 Hauz Khas Village Eateries in Delhi Lose Licence

Restaurants in HKV lack security and fire safety mechanisms. Delhi High Court has thus ordered probe to answer how these establishments have been running without permit.

0
66
Hauz khas village
The Delhi High Court believes unlawful construction of restaurants in HKV is a very serious issue, involving “valuable rights of the people". Wikimedia
  • Hauz Khas village has come under the scanner of the Delhi High Court for ‘unlawful existence’ and operation of restaurants without obtaining mandatory permits
  • According to PILs, restaurants cramp the narrow lanes of HKV without proper security and fire safety mechanisms in place
  • Licenses of 19 restaurants have been revoked by the SDMC 

New Delhi, August 23, 2017: With the wave of pop-culture that has come up in Delhi in the last few years, Hauz Khas village in south Delhi has emerged as the hub of ‘alternate culture’. While the ‘village’ remains comfortably filled during the weekdays, it gets crowded beyond measure over the weekends. There are usually long queues of cars and people waiting to enter HKV (as it is popularly known) that is home to a number of state-of-the art cafes, eateries and designer boutiques.

Hauz Khas village is not only famous its enviable list of establishments, but also for the number of cases that have previously been filed against the popular hub.

Hauz Khaz vilage has previously been in news for the following reasons-

September 2013: 34 restaurants were shut down for four days upon orders from the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for violating environmental flaws, following which they were conditionally allowed to operate on promise of upholding the laws.

August 2016: A ‘minor fire’ in the urban hub killed an Indian businessman and injured a French woman, bringing to light the poor safety standards and remedial mechanisms in the place.

Click To Tweet

February 2017: a 26-year old was allegedly sexually assaulted in the wee hours of the morning after a night of partying in HKV. A series of similar incidents have remained common to the area.

July 2017: The village came in news when the police decided to ban the Tuesday-Wednesday ladies’ night in the area to keep law and order in place and avoid possible cases of sexual assault or violence. While the ban was never imposed, security arrangements in the area were strengthened.

The cramped, neon-lit streets and cafes of this urbanized village have once again come under the radar of the Delhi High Court now for illegal constructions and encroachments.

Following the hearing of PILs alleging “unlawful existence” of eateries in the village, a bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar made an oral observation saying the court is to protect and upload “the life and personal liberty of every person in the city.”

The bench’s observation came following the hearing of petitions filed by social activist Pankaj Sharma and advocate Anuja Kapur.

According to the petition filed by Sharma, the village is a host to 120 eateries and pubs, most of which have been illegally constructed in the absence of an approval of their building plans from the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC). Alternatively, the plea by advocate Anuja Kapur claims that these restaurants and bars are additionally violating the law as they continue to operate without a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the required authorities including the fire department.

ALSO READ: Why do buildings collapse?

Kapur in her plea to the High Court had also raised allegations against the police claiming that no officer can be spotted in the village which gives various business owners an opportunity to indulge in ‘illegal activities’, which she believes are done with support from the local police.

Hauz Khas village is a popular commercial hub in the city and has a footfall of around 5,000 during weekdays which escalates to over 15,000 during the weekends.

Thus, the petitioners had also raised objections towards the risks to security and fire hazard in the village and asserted that the cramped location jam-packed with enormous crowd furthers the threat by making it impossible for ambulances and fire trucks to enter the area in case of emergencies.

It was revealed before the bench on August 22 that there is only one entry and exit in the village to allow the movement of fire tending vehicles.

Fire chief GC Mishra in his interview to the Indian Express in early August had asserted that the place is very congested for a city that ranks at level 4 of earthquake risk. “There is complete disregard towards the stability of the structure. Also, the access road is very narrow. How do I take my vehicles there?” he had said.

Previously, the High Court in May had issued a notice to the Centre, Delhi government, Delhi Police and SDMC to ensure strict enforcement of the law in the village and provide the court with a detailed account of the exact number of restaurants operating illegally.

Responding to the Court’s order, the Corporation revealed that they have issued notices of closure to 19 restaurant owners who do not possess the obligatory clearances. According to the report, “Nine licenses (have been revoked) for running the restaurants with more than the permitted number of seats and 10 licenses for running their trade on roads that don’t meet norms.”

The bench said during the hearing that this is a very serious issue, involving “valuable rights of the people”, according to a report by PTI.

Following the PILs the bench has asked authorities to file a status report explaining how these enterprises are running without a permit.

The SDMC has been directed to supplement the court with a detailed site-plan of the village clearly stating the location of different properties sprawled across the village along with the permissible property usage of Delhi as explained in the master plan of the city.

The bench has also asked the petitioners and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to undertake detailed inspection of the place and inform the court about the width of the only road that runs through the area.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar further asserted that any decision would be taken keeping the right of owners to undertake business activities, as guaranteed in the Indian Constitution, in mind.

However, the rights shall be considered “only if one has complied with the building bye-laws and the master plan. Violators will have to go,” the bench added.

The case is scheduled to have a further hearing on September 5.



NewsGram is a Chicago-based non-profit media organization. We depend upon support from our readers to maintain our objective reporting. Show your support by Donating to NewsGram. Donations to NewsGram are tax-exempt.

Click here- www.newsgram.com/donate