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.
Friday, January 11, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)