Court asks AIIMS to maintain status quo
Direction with regard to selection of resident doctors
Doctors file petition for regularisation of their service
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) administration to maintain the status quo in selection of senior resident doctors till further orders.
A Division Bench of the Court comprising Justice M.K. Sharma and Justice Aruna Suresh passed the direction on a petition by a group of the doctors seeking regularisation of their services. Taking their petition on record, the Bench directed the AIIMS administration to maintain the status quo till further orders and disposal of the matter.
The petition will now come up for hearing on March 18.
The AIIMS administration had selected these doctors in 2007 under the Central Government Residency Scheme in the general as well reserved categories but later refused to issue appointment letters to them on the ground that reservation in appointments was not permitted sssunder the scheme.
The administration had, however, given ad hoc appointments to them and has been extending them periodically since.
These doctors now want the administration to regularise their services as provided in the scheme and the AIIMS Act.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Goel to approach NHRC again on Blueline issue
Goel to approach NHRC again on Blueline issue
“Issue has gained more importance because of the recent sting”
Says the matter involves the life of millions in Delhi
Not contend with plans to phase out Bluelines
NEW DELHI: Former Union Minister Vijay Goel announced on Friday that he would again approach the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to demand that it take up the issue of the Blueline bus menace in the Capital seriously as the matter involved the life and limbs of millions of people in the city.
In a statement, the Bharatiya Janata Party leader said the issue of Blueline buses killing people assumed greater significance in the wake of a recent “sting operation” that showed traffic police personnel taking bribes from Blueline bus operators.
Stating that nearly 100 police personnel had been shown taking bribes in the “sting operation”, the BJP leader said this just indicated how deep the malaise ran.
On Mr. Goel’s previous petition in the matter filed on last October 26, the NHRC had sent a notice to the Delhi Government which had replied that it was bringing in private buses owned by big operators to gradually phase out Bluelines buses and also the fleet of the Delhi Transport Corporation was being expanded to meet the needs of the commuters.
But, the BJP leader said, this was not good enough as people were still losing their lives to the rashly driven Bluelines.
In such a scenario, Mr. Goel said the NHRC should not have closed the case on the ground that the matter was now in court.
“Issue has gained more importance because of the recent sting”
Says the matter involves the life of millions in Delhi
Not contend with plans to phase out Bluelines
NEW DELHI: Former Union Minister Vijay Goel announced on Friday that he would again approach the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to demand that it take up the issue of the Blueline bus menace in the Capital seriously as the matter involved the life and limbs of millions of people in the city.
In a statement, the Bharatiya Janata Party leader said the issue of Blueline buses killing people assumed greater significance in the wake of a recent “sting operation” that showed traffic police personnel taking bribes from Blueline bus operators.
Stating that nearly 100 police personnel had been shown taking bribes in the “sting operation”, the BJP leader said this just indicated how deep the malaise ran.
On Mr. Goel’s previous petition in the matter filed on last October 26, the NHRC had sent a notice to the Delhi Government which had replied that it was bringing in private buses owned by big operators to gradually phase out Bluelines buses and also the fleet of the Delhi Transport Corporation was being expanded to meet the needs of the commuters.
But, the BJP leader said, this was not good enough as people were still losing their lives to the rashly driven Bluelines.
In such a scenario, Mr. Goel said the NHRC should not have closed the case on the ground that the matter was now in court.
Supreme Court prohibits jallikattu
Supreme Court prohibits jallikattu
State counsel says people’s sentiments involved
Can’t continue such barbaric events, says Chief Justice
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to allow jallikattu (bull fight) festival in Alanganallur and other places in Tamil Nadu during Pongal.
A three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice J.M. Panchal, however, permitted ‘rekhla (bullock cart) race’ under the supervision of the police and district administration.
In July 2007, the apex court acting on a petition from the Animal Welfare Board had stayed a Madras High Court judgment allowing the event.
On Friday the court rejected applications filed by the Tamil Nadu government and on behalf of certain villages pleading for vacating the stay and to allow the event to be held this year.
In its brief interim order the Bench said, “We are not inclined to vacate the interim stay order [passed in July 2007.] Bullock cart/rekhla race is permissible under the supervision of the police and the district administration. Sufficient protection should be given to the public and let there not be any confrontation between the public and the bull.”
Earlier, senior counsel for the State T.R. Andhyarujina said people’s sentiments were involved in the event, which was being held for the past 400 years.
He said that the district administration had taken all precautionary steps for the orderly conduct of the event and there would be double barricading to prevent spectators from entering the arena. He said medical facilities would be provided to take care of the injured.
The Chief Justice intervened and said, “What is the point in allowing people to get injured and giving them treatment. Many persons were killed and injured in the past. Will your [Tamil Nadu] DGP give an undertaking in writing that no one will be injured, then we will allow it.”
Counsel said that in any such festival or event there could be some injuries and for that the event itself could not be prevented.
The Chief Justice said, “We cannot continue such barbaric and uncivilised events. We should have some concern for animals.
If enraged bulls are let loose into the crowd and many people cling on to the animal, you are exploiting the spirit of sport in an unhealthy way. We will not allow cruelty to animals and to human beings. Let there not be a fight between the bull and human beings. We have no objection to bullock or bullock cart race.”
Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Board, said, “The bulls are made to drink arrack (alcohol) and chilli powder is sprinkled into their eyes to make them ferocious. He said that the bulls were subjected to enormous cruelty before and during the competition.
He said, “We have taken a video of last year’s events which would show how gruesome it is. Cruelty to animals is inherent in the event which is a clear violation of Section 11 (a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.”
State counsel says people’s sentiments involved
Can’t continue such barbaric events, says Chief Justice
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to allow jallikattu (bull fight) festival in Alanganallur and other places in Tamil Nadu during Pongal.
A three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice J.M. Panchal, however, permitted ‘rekhla (bullock cart) race’ under the supervision of the police and district administration.
In July 2007, the apex court acting on a petition from the Animal Welfare Board had stayed a Madras High Court judgment allowing the event.
On Friday the court rejected applications filed by the Tamil Nadu government and on behalf of certain villages pleading for vacating the stay and to allow the event to be held this year.
In its brief interim order the Bench said, “We are not inclined to vacate the interim stay order [passed in July 2007.] Bullock cart/rekhla race is permissible under the supervision of the police and the district administration. Sufficient protection should be given to the public and let there not be any confrontation between the public and the bull.”
Earlier, senior counsel for the State T.R. Andhyarujina said people’s sentiments were involved in the event, which was being held for the past 400 years.
He said that the district administration had taken all precautionary steps for the orderly conduct of the event and there would be double barricading to prevent spectators from entering the arena. He said medical facilities would be provided to take care of the injured.
The Chief Justice intervened and said, “What is the point in allowing people to get injured and giving them treatment. Many persons were killed and injured in the past. Will your [Tamil Nadu] DGP give an undertaking in writing that no one will be injured, then we will allow it.”
Counsel said that in any such festival or event there could be some injuries and for that the event itself could not be prevented.
The Chief Justice said, “We cannot continue such barbaric and uncivilised events. We should have some concern for animals.
If enraged bulls are let loose into the crowd and many people cling on to the animal, you are exploiting the spirit of sport in an unhealthy way. We will not allow cruelty to animals and to human beings. Let there not be a fight between the bull and human beings. We have no objection to bullock or bullock cart race.”
Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Board, said, “The bulls are made to drink arrack (alcohol) and chilli powder is sprinkled into their eyes to make them ferocious. He said that the bulls were subjected to enormous cruelty before and during the competition.
He said, “We have taken a video of last year’s events which would show how gruesome it is. Cruelty to animals is inherent in the event which is a clear violation of Section 11 (a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.”
Witness against Tytler moves Delhi High Court
Witness against Tytler moves Delhi High Court
“Record my statement in American court”
New Delhi: A U.S.-based witness in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, involving former Union Minister and Congress leader Jagdish Tytler, on Friday moved the Delhi High Court seeking direction to the CBI that his statement be recorded in an American court.
California-based Jasbir Singh, a witness who was earlier declared non-traceable by the CBI, filed the petition through his son seeking quashing of a notice issued by the investigating agency asking him to come to the country and give his statement. CBI notice
The CBI, following a trial court order directing it to re-investigate Tytler’s role in the case, had issued notice to Mr. Singh on January 2 under section 160 of the CrPC, which empowers the probe agency to seek the presence of a witness.
Challenging the summons, Mr. Singh said the CBI, allegedly with the aim to help the accused, was insisting on his presence in India for recording his statement.
“If the CBI is really serious and interested in investigating the case and recording the statement of the witness petitioner, then it should have moved under section 166A (1) (which allows a non-resident Indian to testify in foreign courts on the request of probe agency) and not under section 160 of the CrPC,” the petition alleged. “Restrain CBI”
Mr. Singh submitted that till the decision on his petition was made, the proceedings in the trial court should be stayed and the CBI be restrained from closing the probe.
The petition, filed by his counsel Navkiran Singh and Sharat Kapoor, is likely to come up for hearing on January 14.
Mr. Singh, in an affidavit before the Nanavati Commission which inquired into the anti-Sikh riots, had stated that on November 3, 1984 he had overheard Mr. Tytler rebuking his men for nominal killing of Sikhs in his constituency.
“Record my statement in American court”
New Delhi: A U.S.-based witness in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, involving former Union Minister and Congress leader Jagdish Tytler, on Friday moved the Delhi High Court seeking direction to the CBI that his statement be recorded in an American court.
California-based Jasbir Singh, a witness who was earlier declared non-traceable by the CBI, filed the petition through his son seeking quashing of a notice issued by the investigating agency asking him to come to the country and give his statement. CBI notice
The CBI, following a trial court order directing it to re-investigate Tytler’s role in the case, had issued notice to Mr. Singh on January 2 under section 160 of the CrPC, which empowers the probe agency to seek the presence of a witness.
Challenging the summons, Mr. Singh said the CBI, allegedly with the aim to help the accused, was insisting on his presence in India for recording his statement.
“If the CBI is really serious and interested in investigating the case and recording the statement of the witness petitioner, then it should have moved under section 166A (1) (which allows a non-resident Indian to testify in foreign courts on the request of probe agency) and not under section 160 of the CrPC,” the petition alleged. “Restrain CBI”
Mr. Singh submitted that till the decision on his petition was made, the proceedings in the trial court should be stayed and the CBI be restrained from closing the probe.
The petition, filed by his counsel Navkiran Singh and Sharat Kapoor, is likely to come up for hearing on January 14.
Mr. Singh, in an affidavit before the Nanavati Commission which inquired into the anti-Sikh riots, had stated that on November 3, 1984 he had overheard Mr. Tytler rebuking his men for nominal killing of Sikhs in his constituency.
PIL ON NANDIGRAM ISSUE
Nandigram: State to submit affidavit
KOLKATA: The State government was directed by the Calcutta High Court on Friday to submit an affidavit with regard to a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the violence that had claimed lives in Nandigram, in West Bengal’s Purbo Medinipur district, in the early part of November 2007.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice S. S. Nijjar and Justice P. C. Ghose directed that the affidavit be filed within eight weeks and adjourned a hearing on the prayer for ten weeks after taking into consideration the arguments of the State’s Advocate General, Balai Roy and those made on behalf of the petitioner, Sabyasachi Roy Choudhury.
Mr. Roy maintained that the PIL was not maintainable as 260 cases had already been registered by the local police regarding the violence. There had been no law and order problem in the area since November 11, 2007 he added.
Mr. Roy Choudhury had filed the litigation on the grounds that the police pickets had been withdrawn from different areas of Nandigram enabling cadres of a particular political party to enter and indulge in violence there.
Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, Kalyan Banerjee said that the police had been withdrawn to enable cadres of the CPI(M) to enter Nandigram and recapture the area. At least five persons were killed, several others injured and many displaced in the violence in November, he claimed.
The Calcutta High Court had earlier directed the CBI to investigate into the police firing and subsequent violence that claimed 14 lives in Nandigram on March 14, 2007.
KOLKATA: The State government was directed by the Calcutta High Court on Friday to submit an affidavit with regard to a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the violence that had claimed lives in Nandigram, in West Bengal’s Purbo Medinipur district, in the early part of November 2007.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice S. S. Nijjar and Justice P. C. Ghose directed that the affidavit be filed within eight weeks and adjourned a hearing on the prayer for ten weeks after taking into consideration the arguments of the State’s Advocate General, Balai Roy and those made on behalf of the petitioner, Sabyasachi Roy Choudhury.
Mr. Roy maintained that the PIL was not maintainable as 260 cases had already been registered by the local police regarding the violence. There had been no law and order problem in the area since November 11, 2007 he added.
Mr. Roy Choudhury had filed the litigation on the grounds that the police pickets had been withdrawn from different areas of Nandigram enabling cadres of a particular political party to enter and indulge in violence there.
Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, Kalyan Banerjee said that the police had been withdrawn to enable cadres of the CPI(M) to enter Nandigram and recapture the area. At least five persons were killed, several others injured and many displaced in the violence in November, he claimed.
The Calcutta High Court had earlier directed the CBI to investigate into the police firing and subsequent violence that claimed 14 lives in Nandigram on March 14, 2007.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Efforts on to set up SC Bench in South India: Venkatapathy
Efforts on to set up SC Bench in South India: Venkatapathy
VELLORE: In a bid to reduce pressure on the Supreme Court due to increasing number of cases, plans were afoot to establish a bench of the apex court in South India, Union minister of state for law, K Venkatapathy has said.
"Efforts are on to have a bench of the Supreme Court in the south," Venkatapathy told reporters here on Sunday after attending a function. However, he did not elaborate on where the bench would be set up.
He also said that Rs 410 crore has been alloted for the computerisation of the courts across the country.
"Already Supreme Court, High Courts and Metropolitan courts have been computerised and now lower courts are being computerised," he said.
As many as 7000 'Gram Nyayalayas' have been formed and judges would be appointed soon, to solve problems at the village-level itself, he said.
He said that the existing laws were sufficient to tackle terrorism and that “there was no need to have POTA like rules".
Cases involving violence against women also could be tackled with the existing laws, he said adding the Centre was considering death penalty for rape cases and "a decision would be arrived at soon".
The ministry also was setting up more number of fast track courts to dispose cases quickly.
"We have raised the number of fast track courts from 42 to 49 in Tamil Nadu and 39 to 66 in Andhra Pradesh", he added.
He also appealed to the lawyers not to boycott court proceedings as the people were put to lot of hardships.
VELLORE: In a bid to reduce pressure on the Supreme Court due to increasing number of cases, plans were afoot to establish a bench of the apex court in South India, Union minister of state for law, K Venkatapathy has said.
"Efforts are on to have a bench of the Supreme Court in the south," Venkatapathy told reporters here on Sunday after attending a function. However, he did not elaborate on where the bench would be set up.
He also said that Rs 410 crore has been alloted for the computerisation of the courts across the country.
"Already Supreme Court, High Courts and Metropolitan courts have been computerised and now lower courts are being computerised," he said.
As many as 7000 'Gram Nyayalayas' have been formed and judges would be appointed soon, to solve problems at the village-level itself, he said.
He said that the existing laws were sufficient to tackle terrorism and that “there was no need to have POTA like rules".
Cases involving violence against women also could be tackled with the existing laws, he said adding the Centre was considering death penalty for rape cases and "a decision would be arrived at soon".
The ministry also was setting up more number of fast track courts to dispose cases quickly.
"We have raised the number of fast track courts from 42 to 49 in Tamil Nadu and 39 to 66 in Andhra Pradesh", he added.
He also appealed to the lawyers not to boycott court proceedings as the people were put to lot of hardships.
HARASSED HUSBANDS
Harassed husbands
The promises made in the dark and gloomy prison cells last for a long time. Hardcore criminals make professional pacts with the kids locked up for picking pockets. And the bond is stronger if the men are innocent. Slurping a cup of pale tea while evading the prying eyes of hardened killers, or being heckled by petty thieves while standing in queue for lunch, such men often wonder: what am I doing in this place?
The days somehow crawl and pass off. But, when night darkens the stinking cells and dirty corridors and the warders begin to beat their wooden sticks against the metal bars, such ‘innocent’ men are gripped by panic. They share their grief with other such men. The stories are always similar: “I had a life, a good job, a happy family and some dreams. Now it’s a life of minuses: jobless, penniless and hopeless.” Many of them have one more thing in common: They all have been done in by the accusing finger of a woman - their wife, actually - for “harassing her for dowry”.
Enter section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. A woman files an FIR. The man goes to jail. There is no bail. He thinks he is guilty by suspicion. And there is no chance of proving his innocence because the law is “pro-women”. The accusation is enough to prove his guilt.
So, when such men - accused of harassing their wives for dowry - meet, they spit fire on 498A. They are not so angry with the women who put them in such terrible position, but they are at war with the law which fails “to distinguish between real and fake cases of harassment for dowry”.
Sitting under a tree with their lawyers just outside the court or pushing a wad of currency notes into the hands of an officer in a dank police station or talking to each other in hushed tones in murky jails, their tongues turn venomous against 498A: “It’s a marriage splitter; it’s been made to harass the innocent; and this is legal terrorism.”
There is nothing new about the instances of abuse of the dowry harassment law. It has already become a pan-Indian phenomenon. Even the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, has cautioned against the misuse of the anti-dowry Act. But there are new fears now. With a new anti-dowry law - with harsher punishment - on the anvil, the men who claim to be victims of 498A are already getting nervous. They think their hopeless situation may now sink into an endless abyss.
The worries are written clearly on their faces. Many of them meet every week in Delhi’s Patiala House court premises. They discuss their stories. They all have something horrible to tell - stories of disintegration. Amit Kumar had a flourishing business. And then his wife slapped a dowry case on her family. He, his mother and sisters spent weeks in jail. Now he spends time with his lawyer trying “to get out of this mess”. Suraj Prakash lost his job, money and his father within a month of his wife taking him to court. Azam Shaikh’s story is almost the same. So is Kevin D’souza’s.
Now, they are members of a group called Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF), which fights for the rights of men “falsely implicated in dowry cases”. “If the government makes it a bailable offence, half the problems will be solved automatically,” says Rakesh K Lakra who represents many SIFF members. “Women file fake cases to take money from their husbands and get out of marriage,” says Lakra, with an air of authority on marital issues. He looks determined to help his “innocent clients”.
Almost all of these men are educated, many of them English-speaking professionals working with good firms. A good number of them work and live abroad. And many of them have been born and brought up many shores away from India. Now they are all in the same boat, “fighting the draconian law” from different platforms. There is a Men’s Cell whose signboards hang on the central verge at traffic junctions in Delhi, asking a direct question: “Are you being harassed by your wife?” And offering the solution: “Contact the Men’s Cell”. A group of victims in the US set up 498a.org in 2006 to fight the “pro-women laws”. In its first month, the website had 100,000 hits. There are groups and helplines, offering help and sharing tragic tales.
The stories have similar beginnings and endings: “She didn’t like my parents, she didn’t cook, she was always bossy, she ignored me, she already had a lover, she didn’t want kids, she wanted to run away, she wanted my money... she filed a fake case”. For some reason the problem always begins with a small thing: a burnt toast, a leaking tap, a sharp taunt or a tight slap. And then she files a fake case. In all these stories - told in first person and posted on the Net - the women are always scheming sluts who are protected by the law for some strange reason. In all these stories, dowry is almost a myth.
But in India and wherever Indians live, dowry is not a myth. It’s a fact of life. It’s a curse. It takes life. It ruins families. Every year, thousands of women are done to death - burnt alive for a big car, hacked to pieces for cash and jewellery, thrown from a running train for a colour TV and pushed into a river for a bicycle. There are millions of stories - told, hushed up and muffled - of women being tortured for dowry. It’s also a fact that domestic violence against women is on the rise. That’s why there is a law to check it. But it has failed to do so. And, in many cases, it’s being misused.
Some women seem to have learnt a few lessons from men on how to extort money. Trapped in bad marriages or married against their will, they use 498A to get out of it with some money in their purse. This is subversion of the law meant to protect women from harassment. Now, with the new anti-dowry law being proposed, all eyes are on 498A. The women would like the law to be harsher. The dowry seekers would like it to be scrapped. Innocent victims of 498A would like it to be “balanced and reasonable”. And the lawyers and policemen would want a bigger mess, as they are the biggest beneficiaries in this battle of the sexes.
The promises made in the dark and gloomy prison cells last for a long time. Hardcore criminals make professional pacts with the kids locked up for picking pockets. And the bond is stronger if the men are innocent. Slurping a cup of pale tea while evading the prying eyes of hardened killers, or being heckled by petty thieves while standing in queue for lunch, such men often wonder: what am I doing in this place?
The days somehow crawl and pass off. But, when night darkens the stinking cells and dirty corridors and the warders begin to beat their wooden sticks against the metal bars, such ‘innocent’ men are gripped by panic. They share their grief with other such men. The stories are always similar: “I had a life, a good job, a happy family and some dreams. Now it’s a life of minuses: jobless, penniless and hopeless.” Many of them have one more thing in common: They all have been done in by the accusing finger of a woman - their wife, actually - for “harassing her for dowry”.
Enter section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. A woman files an FIR. The man goes to jail. There is no bail. He thinks he is guilty by suspicion. And there is no chance of proving his innocence because the law is “pro-women”. The accusation is enough to prove his guilt.
So, when such men - accused of harassing their wives for dowry - meet, they spit fire on 498A. They are not so angry with the women who put them in such terrible position, but they are at war with the law which fails “to distinguish between real and fake cases of harassment for dowry”.
Sitting under a tree with their lawyers just outside the court or pushing a wad of currency notes into the hands of an officer in a dank police station or talking to each other in hushed tones in murky jails, their tongues turn venomous against 498A: “It’s a marriage splitter; it’s been made to harass the innocent; and this is legal terrorism.”
There is nothing new about the instances of abuse of the dowry harassment law. It has already become a pan-Indian phenomenon. Even the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, has cautioned against the misuse of the anti-dowry Act. But there are new fears now. With a new anti-dowry law - with harsher punishment - on the anvil, the men who claim to be victims of 498A are already getting nervous. They think their hopeless situation may now sink into an endless abyss.
The worries are written clearly on their faces. Many of them meet every week in Delhi’s Patiala House court premises. They discuss their stories. They all have something horrible to tell - stories of disintegration. Amit Kumar had a flourishing business. And then his wife slapped a dowry case on her family. He, his mother and sisters spent weeks in jail. Now he spends time with his lawyer trying “to get out of this mess”. Suraj Prakash lost his job, money and his father within a month of his wife taking him to court. Azam Shaikh’s story is almost the same. So is Kevin D’souza’s.
Now, they are members of a group called Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF), which fights for the rights of men “falsely implicated in dowry cases”. “If the government makes it a bailable offence, half the problems will be solved automatically,” says Rakesh K Lakra who represents many SIFF members. “Women file fake cases to take money from their husbands and get out of marriage,” says Lakra, with an air of authority on marital issues. He looks determined to help his “innocent clients”.
Almost all of these men are educated, many of them English-speaking professionals working with good firms. A good number of them work and live abroad. And many of them have been born and brought up many shores away from India. Now they are all in the same boat, “fighting the draconian law” from different platforms. There is a Men’s Cell whose signboards hang on the central verge at traffic junctions in Delhi, asking a direct question: “Are you being harassed by your wife?” And offering the solution: “Contact the Men’s Cell”. A group of victims in the US set up 498a.org in 2006 to fight the “pro-women laws”. In its first month, the website had 100,000 hits. There are groups and helplines, offering help and sharing tragic tales.
The stories have similar beginnings and endings: “She didn’t like my parents, she didn’t cook, she was always bossy, she ignored me, she already had a lover, she didn’t want kids, she wanted to run away, she wanted my money... she filed a fake case”. For some reason the problem always begins with a small thing: a burnt toast, a leaking tap, a sharp taunt or a tight slap. And then she files a fake case. In all these stories - told in first person and posted on the Net - the women are always scheming sluts who are protected by the law for some strange reason. In all these stories, dowry is almost a myth.
But in India and wherever Indians live, dowry is not a myth. It’s a fact of life. It’s a curse. It takes life. It ruins families. Every year, thousands of women are done to death - burnt alive for a big car, hacked to pieces for cash and jewellery, thrown from a running train for a colour TV and pushed into a river for a bicycle. There are millions of stories - told, hushed up and muffled - of women being tortured for dowry. It’s also a fact that domestic violence against women is on the rise. That’s why there is a law to check it. But it has failed to do so. And, in many cases, it’s being misused.
Some women seem to have learnt a few lessons from men on how to extort money. Trapped in bad marriages or married against their will, they use 498A to get out of it with some money in their purse. This is subversion of the law meant to protect women from harassment. Now, with the new anti-dowry law being proposed, all eyes are on 498A. The women would like the law to be harsher. The dowry seekers would like it to be scrapped. Innocent victims of 498A would like it to be “balanced and reasonable”. And the lawyers and policemen would want a bigger mess, as they are the biggest beneficiaries in this battle of the sexes.
SC refuses to permit bull fight during Pongal
SC refuses to permit bull fight during Pongal
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to permit 'Jallikattu' event involving bull fight during the Pongal festival in Tamil Nadu.
"We are not inclined to vacate the stay ordered by the court on the event," a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said.
However, it allowed the 'Rekla' race involving bullock carts under the supervision of authorities.
While prohibiting the event of 'Jallikattu', the Bench said any event, which involved cruelty to animal, would not be permitted.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to permit 'Jallikattu' event involving bull fight during the Pongal festival in Tamil Nadu.
"We are not inclined to vacate the stay ordered by the court on the event," a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said.
However, it allowed the 'Rekla' race involving bullock carts under the supervision of authorities.
While prohibiting the event of 'Jallikattu', the Bench said any event, which involved cruelty to animal, would not be permitted.
Smoking fine may go up in Delhi11 Jan 2008
Smoking fine may go up in Delhi11 Jan 2008, 0332 hrs IST,Abantika Ghosh,TNN
NEW DELHI: Next time you light up inside an autorickshaw, on the road or even inside your own car, beware. In a bid to achieve the target of making all public places in Delhi smoke free by 2010, the state health department is planning to increase the fine for smoking in public places to Rs 500 from the existing Rs 100. The department also recently gave all gazetted officer the power to fine people who are found smoking in public places. Efforts are underway to give similar power to more officials. The department has eight anti-smoking squads and about 400-odd people at its disposal to enforce the ban on smoking in public places but for a city with a population of 1.7 crore, the number of people fined for smoking in public places - a common enough sight in the city - has not been very high. According to the government estimates, prevalence of smoking is 45% in men and 7% in women and is growing at the rate of 5-7% per year. The city has some 51 lakh smokers. Of this, during 2007, there were only 7,000 people, including 100 women, who were fined for the offence during raids in 13,000 public places. Of these, 12 people were challaned and produced in front of a magistrate for not being able to pay the fine on the spot. The earlier picture of enforcement was even more dismal, with an average of just 4,000 fines per year. The figure, officials say, has risen only recently. Health minister Yoganand Shastri said: "We are very serious about enforcing the ban by 2010 when the city will see a huge incursion of foreign tourists. Globally, no big city allows smoking in public places and if we are planning to become a global city, it is imperative that we do so too. The fine amount is too less to act as a real deterrent but it is specified in the Central Act. We are looking at putting together and passing a legislation and making it Rs 500." The Central Tobacco Control Act was enacted in 2003 and Delhi’s own legislation - the Delhi Prohibition of Smoking and Non-Smokers’ Health Protection Act, 1996 - was one of the first legislations to be brought into effect by any state government in the country. Under the Acts, there is prohibition of smoking in places of "public work or use", and in public service vehicles apart from prohibition on cigarette advertisements and storage, sale and distribution of cigarettes in the vicinity of educational institutions.
NEW DELHI: Next time you light up inside an autorickshaw, on the road or even inside your own car, beware. In a bid to achieve the target of making all public places in Delhi smoke free by 2010, the state health department is planning to increase the fine for smoking in public places to Rs 500 from the existing Rs 100. The department also recently gave all gazetted officer the power to fine people who are found smoking in public places. Efforts are underway to give similar power to more officials. The department has eight anti-smoking squads and about 400-odd people at its disposal to enforce the ban on smoking in public places but for a city with a population of 1.7 crore, the number of people fined for smoking in public places - a common enough sight in the city - has not been very high. According to the government estimates, prevalence of smoking is 45% in men and 7% in women and is growing at the rate of 5-7% per year. The city has some 51 lakh smokers. Of this, during 2007, there were only 7,000 people, including 100 women, who were fined for the offence during raids in 13,000 public places. Of these, 12 people were challaned and produced in front of a magistrate for not being able to pay the fine on the spot. The earlier picture of enforcement was even more dismal, with an average of just 4,000 fines per year. The figure, officials say, has risen only recently. Health minister Yoganand Shastri said: "We are very serious about enforcing the ban by 2010 when the city will see a huge incursion of foreign tourists. Globally, no big city allows smoking in public places and if we are planning to become a global city, it is imperative that we do so too. The fine amount is too less to act as a real deterrent but it is specified in the Central Act. We are looking at putting together and passing a legislation and making it Rs 500." The Central Tobacco Control Act was enacted in 2003 and Delhi’s own legislation - the Delhi Prohibition of Smoking and Non-Smokers’ Health Protection Act, 1996 - was one of the first legislations to be brought into effect by any state government in the country. Under the Acts, there is prohibition of smoking in places of "public work or use", and in public service vehicles apart from prohibition on cigarette advertisements and storage, sale and distribution of cigarettes in the vicinity of educational institutions.
Prison system and reform
Prison system and reform
The riot in Jalandhar central jail, in which about 1,500 prisoners went on the rampage in protest against the intolerable behaviour of jail authorities, draws painful attention to the uncivilised state of most Indian prisons. The locking of some prisoners in dark cells, the denial of basic facilities, and the forcible shaving of a Sikh prisoner’s hair suggest that for much of the prison establishment, the scope of human rights excludes the jail population. The Jaland har blow-up was not very different from what happened last month in Bihar’s Beur jail; agitated inmates, mainly left-wing extremists, temporarily took control of the prison complex, after staging a protest against alleged maltreatment that drove a fellow prisoner to suicide. In 1983, the All India Committee on Jail Reforms, chaired by Justice A.N. Mulla, spotlighted the “overcrowded prisons…unsatisfactory living conditions, lack of treatment programmes, and allegations of an indifferent and even inhuman approach of prison staff.” Little seems to have changed in 25 years.
The intractable factor that any attempt to improve the system comes up against is overcrowding — a condition that compromises everything, starting with basic hygiene. The Administrative Reforms Commission recently noted that Jharkhand’s jails have 300 per cent more people than the total stipulated capacity; and in Delhi, it is 250 per cent! Aside from immediate steps to reduce overcrowding, any effective reform strategy must include programmes to sensitise jail authorities and transparent mechanisms to bring to book those responsible for the maltreatment of prisoners. While there have been commendable efforts by some individuals — notably by the inspiring Kiran Bedi, who transformed the atmosphere in Delhi’s Tihar jail by introducing vocational education, cultural programmes, counselling sessions, and a system of seeking prisoner feedback — there has been no concerted national or state level policy to improve the prison administration. It is vital to look at such reform through the prism of human rights. A progressive system is one that recognises that prisoners, like other citizens, enjoy basic rights and that the purpose of putting people away is their reform and rehabilitation — not the provision of sadistic pleasure to the jailors.
The riot in Jalandhar central jail, in which about 1,500 prisoners went on the rampage in protest against the intolerable behaviour of jail authorities, draws painful attention to the uncivilised state of most Indian prisons. The locking of some prisoners in dark cells, the denial of basic facilities, and the forcible shaving of a Sikh prisoner’s hair suggest that for much of the prison establishment, the scope of human rights excludes the jail population. The Jaland har blow-up was not very different from what happened last month in Bihar’s Beur jail; agitated inmates, mainly left-wing extremists, temporarily took control of the prison complex, after staging a protest against alleged maltreatment that drove a fellow prisoner to suicide. In 1983, the All India Committee on Jail Reforms, chaired by Justice A.N. Mulla, spotlighted the “overcrowded prisons…unsatisfactory living conditions, lack of treatment programmes, and allegations of an indifferent and even inhuman approach of prison staff.” Little seems to have changed in 25 years.
The intractable factor that any attempt to improve the system comes up against is overcrowding — a condition that compromises everything, starting with basic hygiene. The Administrative Reforms Commission recently noted that Jharkhand’s jails have 300 per cent more people than the total stipulated capacity; and in Delhi, it is 250 per cent! Aside from immediate steps to reduce overcrowding, any effective reform strategy must include programmes to sensitise jail authorities and transparent mechanisms to bring to book those responsible for the maltreatment of prisoners. While there have been commendable efforts by some individuals — notably by the inspiring Kiran Bedi, who transformed the atmosphere in Delhi’s Tihar jail by introducing vocational education, cultural programmes, counselling sessions, and a system of seeking prisoner feedback — there has been no concerted national or state level policy to improve the prison administration. It is vital to look at such reform through the prism of human rights. A progressive system is one that recognises that prisoners, like other citizens, enjoy basic rights and that the purpose of putting people away is their reform and rehabilitation — not the provision of sadistic pleasure to the jailors.
Man gets lifer for killing wife
Man gets lifer for killing wife
Bijnor
A man was awarded death sentence for hacking his wife to death for dowry here, while his father was sentenced to two years imprisonment for torturing the bride on Thursday.
Additional Judge Shiv Sharma sentenced Chetan Kumar to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife Sanjo, while his father Ram Das was given two years rigorous imprisonment for torture and harassment. Both the accused were also fined.
Bijnor
A man was awarded death sentence for hacking his wife to death for dowry here, while his father was sentenced to two years imprisonment for torturing the bride on Thursday.
Additional Judge Shiv Sharma sentenced Chetan Kumar to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife Sanjo, while his father Ram Das was given two years rigorous imprisonment for torture and harassment. Both the accused were also fined.
Insurance company asked to pay damages
Insurance company asked to pay damages
New Delhi: In a major relief for a businessman whose goods were destroyed due to rain water entering his godown, the Delhi Consumer Commission has asked an insurance company to pay a Rs.1.35 lakh claim to him.
Directing the Oriental Insurance Co Ltd to pay the sum to Sanjeev Kumar, the Commission rapped the company for repudiating his claim on a frivolous grounds.
“The conclusions drawn by the company were erroneous as they were drawn on presumptions,” the Commission’s president J D Kapoor said, adding the rejection of the insurance claim was based only on “surmises or conjecture”. Holding Oriental Insurance guilty of “deficiency in service,” the Commission also criticized the company’s decision not to accept the report of its own surveyor, who had categorically corroborated Mr. Kumar’s claim of damage to goods due to rain water. Mr. Kumarwas shocked to see the damage to the stock lying at his godown flooded with rain water on August 14-15, 2001.
New Delhi: In a major relief for a businessman whose goods were destroyed due to rain water entering his godown, the Delhi Consumer Commission has asked an insurance company to pay a Rs.1.35 lakh claim to him.
Directing the Oriental Insurance Co Ltd to pay the sum to Sanjeev Kumar, the Commission rapped the company for repudiating his claim on a frivolous grounds.
“The conclusions drawn by the company were erroneous as they were drawn on presumptions,” the Commission’s president J D Kapoor said, adding the rejection of the insurance claim was based only on “surmises or conjecture”. Holding Oriental Insurance guilty of “deficiency in service,” the Commission also criticized the company’s decision not to accept the report of its own surveyor, who had categorically corroborated Mr. Kumar’s claim of damage to goods due to rain water. Mr. Kumarwas shocked to see the damage to the stock lying at his godown flooded with rain water on August 14-15, 2001.
PIL ON BLUE LINE DEFERRED
PIL hearing on Blueline deferred
The Delhi High Court on Thursday deferred the hearing in a PIL related to the rampaging Blueline buses saying it could hear the matter only after the issue of “judicial restraint” was clarified by the apex court.
A Division Bench of Justices Vikramjit Sen and P K Bhasin said “What is the hurry? Let us wait for the outcome of the petition, filed before the Supreme Court on the issue.”
Dismissing a contention that the apex court ruling did not apply to this case, the court said it could hear the matter only when the issue of “judicial restraint” was clarified by the Supreme Court. News reports
The court then posted the matter, which was earlier instituted as PIL after it had taken suo motu cognizance of news reports relating to road accidents in the Capital involving Blueline buses, to February 5. Senior advocate Kailash Vasudev, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae (friend of court), submitted that the ruling of Justices Markendaya Katju and A K Mathur of the Supreme Court did not apply on this case as “the High Court is not going to frame any law on the Blueline menace.” “The SC ruling says that the judiciary cannot frame laws, but it can only ensure compliance of existing laws,” he said, adding that the earlier apex court rulingshave not been adhered to by operators.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday deferred the hearing in a PIL related to the rampaging Blueline buses saying it could hear the matter only after the issue of “judicial restraint” was clarified by the apex court.
A Division Bench of Justices Vikramjit Sen and P K Bhasin said “What is the hurry? Let us wait for the outcome of the petition, filed before the Supreme Court on the issue.”
Dismissing a contention that the apex court ruling did not apply to this case, the court said it could hear the matter only when the issue of “judicial restraint” was clarified by the Supreme Court. News reports
The court then posted the matter, which was earlier instituted as PIL after it had taken suo motu cognizance of news reports relating to road accidents in the Capital involving Blueline buses, to February 5. Senior advocate Kailash Vasudev, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae (friend of court), submitted that the ruling of Justices Markendaya Katju and A K Mathur of the Supreme Court did not apply on this case as “the High Court is not going to frame any law on the Blueline menace.” “The SC ruling says that the judiciary cannot frame laws, but it can only ensure compliance of existing laws,” he said, adding that the earlier apex court rulingshave not been adhered to by operators.
LAWYER GETTING RI FOR ROBBERY IN DELHI
Lawyer gets three years’ RI for robbery
Staff Reporter
NEW DELHI: A court here has sentenced a lawyer to three-year rigorous imprisonment after convicting him for a robbery that had taken place in 1989. Additional Sessions Judge S. P. Garg sentenced Brahm Singh, who had robbed the driver of a factory owner at Okhla in South Delhi of Rs.1.9 lakh. While awarding the sentence, the court took into account Brahm Singh’s good conduct and the fact that he had been facing trial for 17 years. That the convict was not involved in any criminal activity, was the sole bread winner for his family and was settled as an advocate was also taken into account by the court. The offence
The offence for which Brahm Singh was convicted could have attracted a maximum punishment of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment.
STORY
On July 8, 1989, Brahm Singh, along with an accomplice who died during the trial, had attacked the driver of the factory owner Rajeshwar Kumar and robbed him of Rs.1.9 lakh. Brahm Singh was subsequently arrested and some part of the robbed amount was recovered from him. During trial, 11 witnesses deposed before the court. Rajeshwar Kumar and his driver too testified against Brahm Singh and identified him as the culprit. Brahm Singh had taken the plea that he had been implicated in the case.
Staff Reporter
NEW DELHI: A court here has sentenced a lawyer to three-year rigorous imprisonment after convicting him for a robbery that had taken place in 1989. Additional Sessions Judge S. P. Garg sentenced Brahm Singh, who had robbed the driver of a factory owner at Okhla in South Delhi of Rs.1.9 lakh. While awarding the sentence, the court took into account Brahm Singh’s good conduct and the fact that he had been facing trial for 17 years. That the convict was not involved in any criminal activity, was the sole bread winner for his family and was settled as an advocate was also taken into account by the court. The offence
The offence for which Brahm Singh was convicted could have attracted a maximum punishment of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment.
STORY
On July 8, 1989, Brahm Singh, along with an accomplice who died during the trial, had attacked the driver of the factory owner Rajeshwar Kumar and robbed him of Rs.1.9 lakh. Brahm Singh was subsequently arrested and some part of the robbed amount was recovered from him. During trial, 11 witnesses deposed before the court. Rajeshwar Kumar and his driver too testified against Brahm Singh and identified him as the culprit. Brahm Singh had taken the plea that he had been implicated in the case.
Delimitation to be deferred in five States
Delimitation to be deferred in five States
NEW DELHI: The Union Cabinet on Thursday decided to promulgate an ordinance to defer the delimitation exercise in Jharkhand, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland in the wake of problems encountered there.
Union Minister and Cabinet spokesperson Priyaranjan Dasmunsi said that in Jharkhand, the exercise reduced the number of reserved seats for the Scheduled Tribes, whereas one of the objectives was to ensure that it remained the same as before if not increased.
In the northeast, several rural seats were being converted into urban constituencies.
The delimitation process has been completed for all Lok Sabha and Assembly constituencies in the rest of the country. For it to become operational in time for the 2009 general elections, a common presidential order has to be issued. A Bill would replace the ordinance in the budget session of Parliament.
NEW DELHI: The Union Cabinet on Thursday decided to promulgate an ordinance to defer the delimitation exercise in Jharkhand, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland in the wake of problems encountered there.
Union Minister and Cabinet spokesperson Priyaranjan Dasmunsi said that in Jharkhand, the exercise reduced the number of reserved seats for the Scheduled Tribes, whereas one of the objectives was to ensure that it remained the same as before if not increased.
In the northeast, several rural seats were being converted into urban constituencies.
The delimitation process has been completed for all Lok Sabha and Assembly constituencies in the rest of the country. For it to become operational in time for the 2009 general elections, a common presidential order has to be issued. A Bill would replace the ordinance in the budget session of Parliament.
Medical Councils asked to respond on right to strike
The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered notice to the State Medical Councils seeking their response on the issue of doctors’ right to go on strike. The court is examining whether they can strike work and in the process even refuse emergency treatment to patients.
A Bench consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam issued the notice after it was pointed out that in the event of professional misconduct the Councils could take action against doctors.
The Bench was hearing a petition filed by the People for Better Treatment seeking a direction to initiate disciplinary action against doctors at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, who refused treatment to patients brought to the emergency department in 2006.
Senior counsel M. N. Krishnamani said refusal of treatment amounted to criminal negligence.
Doctors had no right to shut down emergency services even during a strike as the issue involved the fundamental right to life of a patient guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
As important questions were involved in this petition, the court already issued notice to the Centre and the Medical Council of India.
The petitioner submitted that the strike played havoc with defenceless patients, many of whom were left untreated and even emergency services were disrupted. Code violation
As per the Code of Ethics Regulations, adopted under the MCI Act with the Centre’s approval, “a physician advising a patient to seek the services of another physician is acceptable; however, in case of emergency, a physician must treat the patient.” The petitioner said any violation of this code would be deemed professional misconduct and render a physician liable for disciplinary action. Precious lives were lost at the AIIMS due to the refusal by doctors to treat patients in the emergency department.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered notice to the State Medical Councils seeking their response on the issue of doctors’ right to go on strike. The court is examining whether they can strike work and in the process even refuse emergency treatment to patients.
A Bench consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam issued the notice after it was pointed out that in the event of professional misconduct the Councils could take action against doctors.
The Bench was hearing a petition filed by the People for Better Treatment seeking a direction to initiate disciplinary action against doctors at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, who refused treatment to patients brought to the emergency department in 2006.
Senior counsel M. N. Krishnamani said refusal of treatment amounted to criminal negligence.
Doctors had no right to shut down emergency services even during a strike as the issue involved the fundamental right to life of a patient guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
As important questions were involved in this petition, the court already issued notice to the Centre and the Medical Council of India.
The petitioner submitted that the strike played havoc with defenceless patients, many of whom were left untreated and even emergency services were disrupted. Code violation
As per the Code of Ethics Regulations, adopted under the MCI Act with the Centre’s approval, “a physician advising a patient to seek the services of another physician is acceptable; however, in case of emergency, a physician must treat the patient.” The petitioner said any violation of this code would be deemed professional misconduct and render a physician liable for disciplinary action. Precious lives were lost at the AIIMS due to the refusal by doctors to treat patients in the emergency department.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)