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
Saturday, January 12, 2008
COURTS ON THE SELECTION OF DOCTORS IN AIIMS
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)