Panel to decide upper age limit of childhood - THE TIMES OF INDIA
14 Jan 2008, 0248 hrs IST,Sonia Sarkar,TNN
NEW DELHI: When does childhood end? At 18, when a girl can marry; 16, when she can give consent for sex; or 14, when a person can work in hazardous jobs? These legal ambiguities may soon be history, with moves afoot to hammer out a uniform definition of "child" in India. The National Commission for Child Rights (NCPCR) has constituted a committee, comprising representatives from ministries of HRD, labour and women and child development, to redefine the upper age limit of childhood in the country. The committee, chaired by NCPCR member Deepa Dikshit, will place its final suggestions by March this year. And, it's likely to follow the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child while arriving at a common age, after which a person should not be legally regarded as a child. According to Article 1 of UNCRC, "a child means every human being below the age of 18 years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier". The Article, however, grants individual countries the discretion to determine by law whether childhood ceases at 12, 14, 16 or whatever age is found appropriate. Being a signatory to UNCRC, NCPCR in its preamble, vows to protect the rights of anyone under the age of 18. Having a single definition of childhood age will have far-reaching consequences. "There are multiple variations in India about the definition of a child. NCPCR believes that UNCRC's definition of a child should be universally accepted by the government for right to education, prevention of child labour, booking anyone under criminal law or any other purpose. This would certainly be a step forward for protection of child rights in education, as lakhs of children in the age group of 15-18 years will then be able to avail of government schemes of free and compulsory education. Currently, the right to education is restricted to the age of 14, when a child is in Class VIII or IX. There should be compulsory education till 18 years, when they can at least study till Class XII," NCPCR chairperson Shantha Sinha told TOI. There are wide variations regarding the definition of a child in India. For purposes of legal protection against kidnapping and related offences, it's 16 years for boys and 18 for girls. But for special treatment under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, the age is 18 for both boys and girls. And the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 defines a child as any person below the age of 18, and includes an adopted step or foster child. "Article 21 A of the Constitution of India says that the state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children within the ages of six and 14, while Article 45 specifies that the state shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six," Sinha said.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Protest against ‘biased’ reporting on human rights in Kashmir
Protest against ‘biased’ reporting on human rights in Kashmir
NEW DELHI: A demonstration was organised by “Roots in Kashmir” here in the Capital on Sunday to protest against Amnesty International on the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The group accused Amnesty International of being biased in their human rights reports in the last two decades on the issue of Kashmir and its aboriginal people -- the Kashmiri Pandits.
“The organisation has failed to rise to the occasion when it could have played a greater role in raising issues connected with the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits,” said a group member in a statement released to the press.
Criticising Amnesty International for its stance on the Kashmir issue and plight of the Kashmiri Pandit community, Roots in Kashmir demanded reconstruction and renovation of desecrated and destroyed shrines and better rehabilitation for those refugees still languishing in camps. The group also asked Amnesty International to send its representatives to Kashmiri Pandit camps in Jammu and conduct an on ground survey and report on the present situation. They urged the organisation to extend the same privileges to Kashmiri Pandits as they do to other Internally Displaced People across the globe.
According to Roots in Kashmir, to escape persecution more than 500,000 Kashmiri Pandits had to leave their homes back in the Valley and over 50,000 refugees were still languishing in uninhabitable refugee camps in Jammu and Delhi.
“The blind attitude towards the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Pandit community speaks volumes of the discrimination against the Kashmiris,” said another group member of Roots in Kashmir.
NEW DELHI: A demonstration was organised by “Roots in Kashmir” here in the Capital on Sunday to protest against Amnesty International on the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The group accused Amnesty International of being biased in their human rights reports in the last two decades on the issue of Kashmir and its aboriginal people -- the Kashmiri Pandits.
“The organisation has failed to rise to the occasion when it could have played a greater role in raising issues connected with the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits,” said a group member in a statement released to the press.
Criticising Amnesty International for its stance on the Kashmir issue and plight of the Kashmiri Pandit community, Roots in Kashmir demanded reconstruction and renovation of desecrated and destroyed shrines and better rehabilitation for those refugees still languishing in camps. The group also asked Amnesty International to send its representatives to Kashmiri Pandit camps in Jammu and conduct an on ground survey and report on the present situation. They urged the organisation to extend the same privileges to Kashmiri Pandits as they do to other Internally Displaced People across the globe.
According to Roots in Kashmir, to escape persecution more than 500,000 Kashmiri Pandits had to leave their homes back in the Valley and over 50,000 refugees were still languishing in uninhabitable refugee camps in Jammu and Delhi.
“The blind attitude towards the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Pandit community speaks volumes of the discrimination against the Kashmiris,” said another group member of Roots in Kashmir.
Court: suit can be filed against a foreign arbitration award
Court: suit can be filed against a foreign arbitration award -THE HINDU NEWS PAPER DT. 14-1-2008
A suit can be filed in a court in India challenging a foreign award passed by an arbitrator appointed by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) if the award is against public policy and in contravention of statutory provisions, the Supreme Court has held.
Giving this ruling, a Bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and P. Sathasivam held that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would apply to international commercial arbitrations held out of India.
The Bench said: “The provisions of Part 1 of the A and C Act would apply to all arbitrations, including international commercial arbitrations, and to all proceedings relating thereto. We further hold that where such arbitration is held in India, the provisions of Part 1 would compulsorily apply and parties are free to deviate to the extent permitted by the provisions of Part 1.”
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Sathasivam said: “It is also clear that even in the case of international commercial arbitrations held out of India, provisions of Part 1 would apply unless the parties by agreement express or implied, exclude all or any of its provisions.”
The Bench held: “We are also of the view that such an interpretation does not lead to any conflict between any of the provisions of the A and C Act and there is no lacuna as such.”
In the instant case, Venture Global Engineering (VGE) incorporated in the United States of America and Satyam Computer Services Ltd (SCSL) of Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh entered into a joint venture agreement in 1999 to constitute a company named Satyam Venture Engineering Services Ltd.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In February 2005, disputes arose between the parties.
On a request from SCSL, the LCIA appointed an arbitrator and he passed an award directing VGE to transfer the shares to SCSL.
Aggrieved, the VGE filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Secunderabad, to set aside the award and the court passed an interim order of injunction restraining SCSL from seeking or effecting the transfer of shares under the terms of award or otherwise.
On appeal from SCSL, the Andhra Pradesh High Court suspended the trial court’s order but made it clear that SCSL would not affect the transfer of shares until further orders.
Thereafter, the trial court rejected the suit and the High Court dismissed VGE’s appeal.
The present civil appeal by VGE in the apex court is directed against this order.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench said: “Since from the inception of ordering notice in the special leave petition both parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to transfer of shares in issue, the same shall be maintained till the disposal of the suit
A suit can be filed in a court in India challenging a foreign award passed by an arbitrator appointed by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) if the award is against public policy and in contravention of statutory provisions, the Supreme Court has held.
Giving this ruling, a Bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and P. Sathasivam held that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would apply to international commercial arbitrations held out of India.
The Bench said: “The provisions of Part 1 of the A and C Act would apply to all arbitrations, including international commercial arbitrations, and to all proceedings relating thereto. We further hold that where such arbitration is held in India, the provisions of Part 1 would compulsorily apply and parties are free to deviate to the extent permitted by the provisions of Part 1.”
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Sathasivam said: “It is also clear that even in the case of international commercial arbitrations held out of India, provisions of Part 1 would apply unless the parties by agreement express or implied, exclude all or any of its provisions.”
The Bench held: “We are also of the view that such an interpretation does not lead to any conflict between any of the provisions of the A and C Act and there is no lacuna as such.”
In the instant case, Venture Global Engineering (VGE) incorporated in the United States of America and Satyam Computer Services Ltd (SCSL) of Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh entered into a joint venture agreement in 1999 to constitute a company named Satyam Venture Engineering Services Ltd.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In February 2005, disputes arose between the parties.
On a request from SCSL, the LCIA appointed an arbitrator and he passed an award directing VGE to transfer the shares to SCSL.
Aggrieved, the VGE filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Secunderabad, to set aside the award and the court passed an interim order of injunction restraining SCSL from seeking or effecting the transfer of shares under the terms of award or otherwise.
On appeal from SCSL, the Andhra Pradesh High Court suspended the trial court’s order but made it clear that SCSL would not affect the transfer of shares until further orders.
Thereafter, the trial court rejected the suit and the High Court dismissed VGE’s appeal.
The present civil appeal by VGE in the apex court is directed against this order.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench said: “Since from the inception of ordering notice in the special leave petition both parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to transfer of shares in issue, the same shall be maintained till the disposal of the suit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)