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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)