Saturday December 16, 2017
Home India Legal fratern...

Legal fraternity indignant over Ansals escaping jail term

0
19

By Parmod Kumar

New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s decision to waive off the rest of the jail term of the powerful Ansal brothers, convicted for causing death in the Uphaar cinema fire by their negligence, hasn’t gone down too well in the judicial corridors and also evoked much disquiet among the average litigant about the court’s lenient attitude towards the rich and the powerful.

2015-08-20_2247

The apex court Wednesday said that Ansal brothers will not go back to Tihar Jail to serve their remaining jail terms as it imposed a fine of Rs. 30 crores each on them.

Describing it “unfortunate order”, where the victims have been completely given a good-bye, well-known lawyer Kamini Jaiswal told IANS: “Having waited for 19 years with full faith and confidence in judiciary this must be a traumatic experience” for them.

“This fortifies the impression carried by many that the (judicial) yard-stick varies for the rich and famous and the poor,” Jaiswal added.

“The judgment is not in accordance with the law of the land. Fifty-nine people have died. The case of gross negligence was clearly established. Therefore it was a fit case to award maximum sentence of two years (as provided) under the Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code”, senior counsel Shekhar Naphade told IANS.

However, holding that there was “nothing wrong in the order,” Rupinder Singh Sodhi: a former Delhi High Court judge and now a practicing senior counsel in the apex court, told IANS: “Ansals have already undergone a substantial part of the one year sentence awarded to them by the Delhi High Court. There is a provision for fine under Section 304A Fine is not a lesser sentence. Nor is it a compromise nor can you term it blood money as has been said.”

“Please understand, we don’t believe in an eye-for-an-eye or a tooth-for-a-tooth,” Justice Sodhi said, addding: “This is a sentence provided under Section 304A IPC and it is that sentence that has been awarded to Ansals. They have been given both.”

2015-08-20_2246

Section 304A that provides for punishment for causing death by negligence says:”Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Differing with Justice Sodhi, Jaiswal said: “If the application for enhancement of sentence (as was sought by the CBI) was to be rejected, the sentence given by the High Court should at least have been have been confirmed.”

Naphade had reservations over the way entire case was handled, saying: “Perhaps the case could have been brought under Section 304 part II but unfortunately that angle was not seriously pursued.”

There seems to be a disquiet amongst the lawyers over the manner in which the punishments under the penal provision gets invoked differently depending on the social milieu of the litigant and it is this that found expression when senior counsel Ravindra Srivastava told IANS: “The law regarding sentencing should be consistent and should be consistently applied.”

(IANS)

Next Story

Triple Talaq Ban in India: Union Cabinet Passes Bill Making the Practice a Criminal Offence

The BMMA celebrates its victory over the much-debated practice of instant divorce

0
0
Muslim women are often victims of triple talaq, in spite of the ban
Muslim women are often victims of triple talaq, in spite of the ban, VOA News
  • Supreme court had ruled that the practice of triple talaq as illegal in August 2017.
  • On December 15, the Union Cabinet passed a bill which would make it a criminal offence
  • .The bill recommends a sentence of imprisonment for three years in case of a violation.
  • The bill also makes provisions for “subsistence allowance” for the women divorced through triple talaq.

On December 15, the Union Cabinet of India cleared a draft legislation, which would make the controversial practice of triple talaq a criminal offence in India, a violation of which may result in imprisonment for a period of three years for the husband. The recently approved bill, deemed as the ‘Muslim Women’s Protection of Rights on Marriage Bill’, was framed by a group of ministers including the External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, the Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, and the Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, and was headed by the Home Minister Rajnath Singh.

What is triple talaq

The practice of triple talaq, or talaq-e-biddat, is a Islamic ritual through which a man might divorce his wife by uttering the word ‘talaq’, that is, the Arabic word for ‘divorce’, three times. The controversial practice, which dates back to Islamic scriptures of the 8th century AD, was a common one among the Muslim population in India, often enacted through letters, emails, text messages, Skype and Whatsapp.

The Supreme Court of India bans the practice of triple talaq
The practice of triple talaq still continues, in spite of the ban, VOA News

Triple Talaq Ban

On August 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of India had banned the archaic practice of triple talaq, after a long and hard legal battle fought by the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), also known as the Indian Muslim Women’s Movement. “Triple talaq is against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and consequently, it violates Shariat … What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, in that sense, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well,” they had declared, making India the 23rd nation to ban the practice of unilateral divorce, after Pakistan, United Arab Emirates and Egypt. Many non-governmental Islamic organizations, along with certain clerics had opposed the verdict, on the grounds that it was an infringement of their right to religion, which is ensured by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, had decided to uphold Article 14 of the Constitution, which grants every citizen equality before the law. The verdict had met with mixed reactions among the people of India, attracting applause as well as apprehension all over the country.

The Supreme Court of India bans the practice of triple talaq
Women can now demand subsistence allowance for themselves and minor children, VOA News

However, in spite of the Supreme Court verdict, there have been reports of instant divorces performed through the process of oral declaration, as many continued to ignore the various advisories issued by the government.
The new bill approved by the government also makes provisions for Muslim Women to demand “subsistence allowance” for herself and her minor children from her husband, in case she feels victimised by the now illegal practice of triple talaq.

 

Next Story

Love Jihad Case : Kerala’s State Women Commission Directs SP to submit report on Hadiya’s Condition

24 year old Akhila had converted to Islam and taken the name Hadiya to marry Shafin Jahan.  However, their marriage was declared null and void by the High Court of Kerala

0
32
Office of Kerala Women Comission
Office of Kerala Women Comission. Official Website KWC

Kerala, October 28, 2017 : A day after a video of Hadiya pleading to be ‘saved’ from her father’s brutalities was released, Kerala’s State Women Commission has directed Kottayam Superintendent of Police to inquire and submit a report on Hadiya’s present conditions.

In the video release at a press conference in Kochi by social activist Rahul Eashwar, Hadiya can be heard saying, “You have to get me out. I am sure I will be killed tomorrow or the day after.” Hadiya claims that her father is physically assaulting her and pleads to be saved in the video before her voice trails away.

The direction came following reports that Hadiya is being sedated and physically abused at her parents’ house.

The State Women Commission has told the SP that an officer not less than the rank of a DSP should conduct the inquiry and submit a report on the condition of the 24-year old woman in love jihad case.

24 year old Akhila had converted to Islam and taken the name Hadiya to marry Shafin Jahan.  Their marriage was declared null and void by the High Court of Kerala after Hadiya’s father Ashokan has approached the court, claiming that his daughter had been forcefully converted and her alleged husband was involved in plans to take her out of the country for questionable reasons.

Consequently, Hadiya’s husband Shafin Jahan had approached the Supreme Court and challenged the order by the High Court of Kerala, which is still hearing the case.

– prepared by Soha Kala of NewsGram. Twitter @SohaKala

Next Story

Gorkhaland: SC allows withdrawl of Central Forces from Darjeeling

0
14
The Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court of India. Wikimedia

New Delhi, October 27: The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Centre to withdraw seven companies of central paramilitary forces from trouble-torn Darjeeling and Kalimpong districts of West Bengal where the agitation for Gorkhaland, a separate state for Gorkhas took a violent turn.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud directed the Centre to withdraw the seven companies of Central Armed Paramilitary Forces (CAPF) for being used for election duties in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat.

The bench also sought a response from the West Bengal government on the Centre’s appeal against the High Court’s order putting on hold its decision to withdraw 10 of the 15 companies of the central paramilitary forces deployed in the hill district.

The apex court also stayed the pending proceedings before the High Court and said that it will deal with the case in a holistic manner and posted the appeal of the Centre for further hearing on November 27.

In an interim order, the High Court had stayed the withdrawal of CAPF from the Darjeeling hills till October 27 after the state government approached it against the Centre’s decision.(IANS)