The modern thinking Indian

Labels: Court, Court judgment, Domestic violence, India, Laws in favor of woman, Misuse of law, Strong laws

Labels: Alimony, Court, Court judgment, Divorce, Equal status, Equality, High court, India, Separation

Labels: Court, Decision, India, Judgment, Marriage, Sex, Sexual relationship

A democratic country believes by certain principles; one of the most important ones is to recognize freedom of speech, and make that a corner-store of policy. There are certain real world considerations that come into this freedom of speech (one classic example is that of hate speech, where you would certainly like to control such freedom of expression), but such considerations should be only after a lot of thought, not based on political thinking.
The ban and entire treatment of Jaswant Singh's book was totally an expression of politics. The book, 'Jinnah - India, Partition, Independence' tries to portray a different thought on the role of the key players at the time of partition, and re-evaluates the role of Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, Nehru, and Jinnah. In official reading of history from the Indian side, Jinnah is the arch-villain, and Nehru was the one who reluctantly agreed to partition, even though it cast a huge emotional hole in him.
Jaswant Singh takes a fresher look at all this, portraying each of these monumental figures as people with a grey side to their character, in the sense that Nehru and Sardar Patel also had a role to play in the movement towards partition. And it was this depiction of history, especially the role of Patel, that caused a huge uproar. Without any due process, just on the basis of a book (and almost repeating what Advani had said earlier about Jinnah), Jaswant Singh was cast aside from the BJP and not even given a chance to present his case. And in further political moves, the Gujarat Government promptly banned the book for causing the depiction of Sardar Patel in a negative light.
It is this decision by the Gujarat Government that was over-turned by the court, claiming that the decision was invalid, and did not present a valid case. However, since the court allowed the Gujarat Government to file a fresh notification, one can expect that the Government will do so again. The Gujarat Government does not want it depicted that a high ranking BJP member wrote a book denigrating Sardar Patel and the Government was not seen to be taking any action.
All this is nothing but politics. From what I have read of the book, it does not go into any kind of hate speech, and does not provoke any kind of lowering of respect of the nation. At the same time, we as a nation should be strong enough to handle any such book that could present other sides of our previous god-like leaders.

Labels: Ban, BJP, Case, Court, Gujarat, Jaswant Singh, Modi, Political, Politics

Mukesh Ambani would never have thought that finding a massive gas would continue to cause him so much problems; maybe, to make huge amounts of money, you need to have massive problems at the same time. A few years back, Reliance had participated in the Oil exploration scheme of the Government, and got allotted some of the deep sea blocks of the Krishna-Godavari basin fields, and in some time, struck a massive gas field. This promised untold riches to the company, and to the Government of India, since the Government of India owned the gas field and Reliance was the operator. As per the agreement, the Government controls who can get the gas, and at what price; and since the Government gets a cut of the price, the Government has a key stake in the price.
The Ambani brothers got into a huge dispute, which was eventually resolved after a settlement involving the division of the family controlled business. As a part of this agreement, the more complex agreement involved the provision of gas from the RIL to the Anil Ambani controlled RNRL at $2.34 mmBtu for 17 years from the setting up of the Dadri power plant. This price was based on the then decided price (the same price at which the gas was to be then provided to the Government run power utility). This was an agreement between the 2 brothers and their controlled entities, and did not seek any approval of the Government, which after all, owns the gas.
However, with the revision of the gas price upwards all the over world, Reliance eventually refused to supply the gas to RNRL when the gas came online last year. The Government also refused to hold the agreement as valid, since it was not consulted and the price was deemed to be decided by the Government. The case, as everybody knew it would, went to the court (and everybody knows that the case would go to the Supreme Court). Reliance also has a lot of political power, which means that for the Government to decide in favor of either brother, would mean that it would have to take the risk of alienating the other brother (and the political power wielded by the brother). Further, if the Government sided with either side in a way that seemed to lose money, the opposition would attack it very strongly (along with the media).
Amidst all this, the High Court in Mumbai ruled that the family agreement was valid, and that RNRL was entitled to get the gas at the low price. This was a shock to RIL, since this would mean a lower earning, and also meant that the gas available for the Government to allocate to fertilizer and energy units would be that much reduced. Now, the case heads to the Supreme Court; will it decide in favor of the family agreement, or will it hold that the gas is owned by the Government and it has the right to decide on the price and allocation.

Labels: Congress, Court, Oil and Gas, Reliance, Resource, Supreme Court

The world over, different countries have different concepts revolving around homosexuality. There are states in the United States that have made marriage between homosexuals as having the same legal sanctity as that between a man and a woman, there are other states where this is a matter of huge debate and controversy (with the Catholic and Protestant churches being against it), countries in parts of Europe are liberal while those where the Church has a stronger influence are less likely, and there are the Islamic countries where the concept is abhorrent - forget marriage between homosexuals, even the concept of a relationship was unacceptable (for example, in Iraq, insurgents would target homosexuals for murder).
What about the thought of homosexuality in a country such as India, which has a long history, and where there is a lot of debate even among historians about whether homosexuality was prevalent in the past. India, till today, had a law called Section 377, that made homosexuality a crime (even among consenting adults). This law meant that even among groups with a higher risk pattern for AIDS (such as gays), it was difficult to really follow anti-AIDS programs since a number of people would hide their homosexuality, or not be open about it.
For the past several years, there has been a debate stoked by AIDS campaigners and gay rights groups about revoking this section of the penal code (it was introduced by the British in British ruled India in 1861, and is no longer prevalent in the Britain of today). However, attempts by the Government to do a debate on removing this section of the penal code runs aground due to opposition by religious groups (and there are enough people in each religious group to be outraged by the thought of homosexuality), so it would have seemed difficult by the Government to move fast on such a law. And then came this stunning judgment by the Delhi High Court (and interestingly, it uses the same argument as used by several US state courts, using the theory that such laws are violative of many of the equality and fundamental rights of citizens) (link to target):

In a breakthrough judgment, the Delhi High Court on Thursday legalised gay sex among consenting adults holding that the law making it a criminal offence violates fundamental rights. "We declare section 377 of IPC in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 15 of the Constitution," a Bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Murlidhar said.
It further said that this judgement will hold till Parliament chooses to amend the law. "In our view Indian Constitutional Law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconception of who the LGBTs (lesbian gay bisexual transgender) are. "It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster dignity of every individual," the Bench said in its 105-page judgement.

It is pretty much sure that there will be appeals to the Supreme Court by many sections of society, one only hopes that the Government will not try to get this judgment over-turned. At the same time, this is a judgment by the Delhi High Court, and is applicable in the capital city (even though it is a precedent that can be used by organizations all over the country); ultimately it is either the judgment of the Supreme Court or a law passed by Parliament that can ensure coverage across the entire country.

Labels: Court, Equality, Homosexual, India, Judgment, Sex

Drinking and driving is a universal problem, with different countries having different ways of checking / controlling this habit. A sizable percentage of accidents are known to happen after drinking and driving, and countries have different levels of enforcement about this habit. So, for example, if you take the case of countries such as Singapore or the US, drinking and driving is not cool. You can get into severe problems if detected. It is not unknown to have to spend a night in the slammer and have points deducted from the driving license if caught drinking and driving.
The same rules apply in India, and in the recent past, the Mumbai Police has been enforcing some of these rules to a stronger degree; they have actually got magistrates to jail some of the offenders and got licenses suspended for a period of time. However, this is just Mumbai. Other parts of the country have very little policing of drunk driving (or other road related laws), and there does not seem to be much effort ongoing in that direction either. In a lot of cases, people go outside to bars or restaurants to drink, and then drive home from there even if they have had too much to drink. There is very little custom of arranging for a non-drinking person to drive one home, or to take a taxi to go home.
Now, a High Court has jumped into the gap and made suggestions regarding setting up of safe drinking and driving options (link to article):

The Delhi High Court wants strict checking of drunk customers heading home, just outside the bar/pubs in the capital, in order to prevent instances of drunken driving, leading to mishaps. After going through a report by excise department and traffic police that said almost 90% of customers frequenting bars drive home themselves, Justice J R Midha on Monday asked the Delhi Police to get cracking on drunk drivers.
"When your own report gives such a figure, it is the duty of police to enforce checks and it is in larger public interest to introduce a condition in pubs/bars serving alcohol shall have replacement drivers and shall serve liquor to a customer (self driven) only after the guest pays to book a replacement driver,'' it observed, asking the police to get cracking. On its part the police protested, arguing that both the concepts replacement drivers and checking at pubs could not be implemented instantly as these are policy decisions. Appearing for the police, counsel Mukta Gupta said, "Unless backed by a judicial order, cops can't be posted at each and every pub or bar. We are prosecuting drunk drivers and the accident rate has therefore come down."

Drunk driving cannot be cured only through enforcement (although enforcement would play a big part); the way to move ahead is to accept that people will go out and drink. A campaign that encourages the safety measures along with providing alternatives such as taxis and safe drivers would go a long way in ensuring that the deaths and injuries due to drunk driving reduce.

Labels: Court, Drinking, Driving, Drunk, Education, Law, Penalty, Punishment, Traffic, Transport

Medical negligence is something that is penalized the world over. When a patient goes in for a medical procedure, the person is entrusting their lives to the doctor (s) attending on them. It used to be said earlier that a Doctor is a very respected person, and that it would be unfair to penalize a doctor for some problem that occurs during a medical procedure; this is now countered by the argument that modern hospitals and the medical industry charges market rates for their procedures, and hence are not doing any favors to patients. Further, how do you compensate a patient for a case when the hospital has goofed up or indulged in medical malpractise ? Consider this case where a bright IT person was paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair after a medical procedure (link to article):

In the highest compensation ordered by an Indian court in a medical negligence case, a techie who found himself paralyzed waist down after a surgeon damaged his spinal chord during an operation to remove a tumour in the chest, was awarded Rs 1 crore in damages by the Supreme Court on Thursday. The victim, Prashant S Dhananka, 39, who spiritedly argued his case from a wheelchair he has been confined to since the operation 19 years ago, had sought a compensation of Rs 7 crore.
Dhananka, a senior manager with Infosys earning Rs 1.5 lakh a month and residing in Bangalore, gave vivid details of the gross negligence he suffered at Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS), Hyderabad, and demonstrated the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the high court. NIMS, a semi-government set up, is rated as one of the premier hospitals in the country. While increasing the compensation to Rs 1 crore, the bench comprising Justices B N Agrawal, H S Bedi and G S Singhvi showed both its disgust at blatant attempts by NIMS to wriggle out of its responsibility for the victim's condition and acknowledged the need to provide for the huge medical expenses that Dhananka has had to incur every month since 1990.

It was only some years ago that the Supreme Court had almost refused to penalize the medical fraternity for mistakes made; even now the Court expresses worry at the increasing tendency of bringing medical cases into the legal system, yet there is a necessity to do this, as the Court itself acknowledges - when the institution makes blatant mistakes and then tries to cover up, there is no other option than to order the required punishment.

Labels: Compensation, Consumer, Court, Judgment, Legal, Medical, Punishment, Supreme Court

The case of Varun Gandhi and his detention by the Mayawati Government is reaching a critical point. As a lot of people may be aware, Varun Gandhi, in a speech made some time back, sought to inflame people by speaking against the Muslim community. It is difficult to justify what he is stated to have said, since his speech was supposed to have been very provocative (and I am sure that people will point out that other people have made equally provocative or more provocative speeches and got off lightly, but that is a separate matter). He was condemned by wide sections of the press and political parties, and the Election Commission took note of what he had said (but did not have powers to do much about a speech).
However, what happened next was the troubling part. An FIR was lodged against him, and he was taken in custody. Next, the Mayawati Government stated that it would lodge a case under the National Security Act (meant to be used against terrorists or habitual dangerous criminals) against Varun. And soon enough, the UP Government filed a case against him, using the violence that happened when Varun was being lodged in the jail after surrender.
The NSA is an Act with strict provisions, such as "Under the provisions of the NSA, a person cannot get bail atleast for six months"; if this had happened, Varun would have had to remain in jail till elections are over. However, there is a right to appeal in the Supreme Court, and also the state advisory panel takes a decision on the persons against whom the NSA has been filed. In both cases, the Mayawati Government has not been able to justify the harsh measure used for what is basically a 'hate speech' (not to reduce the significance of what Varun had said, but there are criminals and terrorists against whom the NSA has not been applied). Here is an excerpt of what the state advisory panel stated:

The Mayawati government in Uttar Pradesh did not apply its mind and violated cannons of natural justice in invoking National Security Act on BJP leader Varun Gandhi raising a question of bias, says the state advisory board which struck down the NSA against him. The Board said "there was non-application of mind and breach of rules of natural justice" by the authorities which raises a question of "bias" and "legal malafides" for invoking NSA against the 29-year-old BJP leader who was not supplied with the copy of the order and material, including the CD of the alleged hate speeches which were the basis for taking stringent action.

The board further points out that the District Magistrate, the competent authority to pass the NSA order, based these orders on 2 FIR's that were not filed by anybody else but the DM (to re-state, the DM filed 2 FIR's, and then used these 2 FIR's to show as evidence to pass the NSA orders).
Most people have no doubt that the reason that the DM passed the NSA order was so that the Mayawati Government, in order to shore up its secular credentials, could show that it was aggressive in protecting the interests of minorities. While I cannot condone the speech by Varun, it is equally hard to agree when somebody twists laws and justice for furthering their own agenda and scoring political points.

Labels: BJP, Court, Crime, Election, Mayawati, Minority, Police, Politics, Punishment, Secular

Protests have been seen as a sign of legitimate dissent, about raising the voice of ordinary people against some action; in many cases, a protest is about having a good outlet for the frustrations of people. However, it is also true that protests have been hijacked by people with vested interests, and in many cases by lumpen elements. So, for every scene of people walking peacefully with placards, you have scenes of youth rampaging, burning vehicles, disturbing the lives and economic well-being of city-dwellers (think about the daily wage earner or streetside vendor who loses out on the daily income on the day that a protest shuts down all other activity).
As we have seen in the past, the Government, of whom it is expected that they ensure law and order on the street, does not intervene in many cases. In some cases, the protests have been called by the ruling party, or by other elements (which the Government does not really want to put down). Consider the case of the Gurjar agitation of last year in Delhi; in broad daylight, the media could see that the agitators were blocking major roads and burning vehicles, and the police had no interest in actually preventing them from doing such things.
In the past, the Supreme Court (and other courts) has actually levied fines on political parties who have sponsored such violent agitations, but not consistently, and of course, there has been very little other prosecution of the people involved in such violence. However, the Supreme Court has now come out with clear guidelines on how to identify the people involved in such violence (link to article):

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday put in place stringent guidelines to deal with violent agitations that mandate the police to videograph each and every protest to bring to book mischief mongers who take advantage of a crowd and destroy public and private properties. The Bench, while putting the suggestions of the two committees as guidelines, said its directions would operate till Parliament or assemblies enacted suitable laws replacing the apex court's directions for prevention of vandalism of the kind seen during the Gujjar agitation in 2007.
The new guidelines include a provision that says those seen indulging in violence in video footage would be presumed to be the offenders and the onus would shift on them to show that they are innocent. Focusing on compensating the people whose properties were damaged by the protestors, the apex court said not only should the violent protestors pay the cost of damaged property, but they be also saddled with exemplary cost.

This was also a subtle reminder to the authorities that it is their duty to enforce law and order, which includes both preventing people from breaking the law, and prosecuting those who do break the law. One has to wait and see how the actual enforcement of the law proceeds.

Labels: Agitations, Court, India, Judicial, Law, Police, Politics, Punishment, Responsibility, Security, Violence

For some time now, the Mumbai police has been waging an intense campaign against drunk driving, including the use of jail time (anywhere from 1 day to multiple days) as part of the measures against drunk driving. This had surprised many people since observing traffic laws (including road safety laws such as not drinking and driving) is a common problem that India faces, and not too many states had done serious prosecution of such cases (contrast this with the measures taken in states such as Singapore and the United States where you better not be caught drinking and driving). The high number of cases of accidents and fatalities where drunk driving is a factor are incredible; it is absolutely necessary that such campaigns continue.
Here is a case in Mumbai where the police prosecuted a drunk motorcyclist as well as the pillion rider for the crime of drunk driving and got them sent to simple custody for a period of 7 days. This punishment is the longest period of punishment for the crime of drunk driving so far in Mumbai, and the terms of the punishment were also enhanced due to a fine as well as the driving license of the motorcyclist being suspended for a period of 6 months (link to article):

A Girgaum metropolitan court on Monday sentenced a pillion rider to seven days' imprisonment for abetting drunk driving. This is the longest sentence awarded in such cases so far. "The biker too got the same punishment. Both were in an inebriated state,'' an official said. The drunken duo, Abdul Karim and Kadir Shaikh, was also asked to pay a fine of Rs 2,000. The driving licence of Karim, who was riding the bike, has been suspended for six months by the court. The two will now have to cool their heels in the Byculla jail for a week.
Tests showed 245 mg of liquor in Karim's blood and 83 mg of liquor in Shaikh's blood. Shaikh was booked under Section 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act,'' a policeman said. "We argued in court that Shaikh had not stopped Karim from riding the bike despite being aware that the latter was drunk and could cause an accident,'' sub-inspector P K Naik of Tardeo traffic division said. Abetting drunk driving attracts the same punishment as the offence of drunk driving (Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act). No lawyer represented the duo in court.

Drunk driving not is a menace to society because of the danger to others, but also threatens the drunk drivers themselves; who can forget the cases in Delhi where many young adults have been needlessly killed when their cars (being driven by drunk people) have crashed at high speeds. The nation can ill afford these losses.

Labels: Court, Crime, Driving, Punishment, Social Issue, Traffic

Pakistan is again in the middle of incredible political turmoil, something that the country thought it had escaped from after the previous election that brought Zardari and the Pakistan Peoples Party to power. Zardari has made a strong pitch for keeping his powers strong and unchallenged, by trying to crush the movement led by Sharif against the Government. The issues are politically inter-locked and very complex.
This movement was precipitated by the judgment by the Pakistani Supreme Court that ruled the Sharif brothers ineligible to stand for elections, a judgment that deals a death blow to the political ambitions of Nawaz Sharif and which he is blaming on influence by the Zardari Government. The latest reports from Pakistan are that Nawaz Sharif has been placed under house arrest for 3 days in an attempt to quell the movement and stop the campaign. The political paralysis can cause the Pakistani Government to take its eye off the major problems that face Pakistan.
- Pakistan is facing an incredible movement by the terrorists and Islamic fanatics to take over increasingly large sections of the country and bring these regions under their influence. This is a violent campaign that is very brutal, and which the army and the political leadership are unwilling to fully face (and supposedly because the army is unwilling to abandon the religious warriors, seeing them as an instrument that can help shape the strategic aims of Pakistan in Afghanistan and Kashmir). The takeover by the Taliban of the Swat valley is still unfolding before the international community, and everybody is still shocked.
- After the latest terror attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team, Pakistan is now thoroughly dubbed as a very unsafe place, and all sort of tourism and foreign interest is now off.
- The traditional tensions between the 3 power centers, the Army Chief, the President and the Prime Minister are again escalating. Gilani, the Prime Minister, is trying to make political space for himself by aligning with the interests of the army and moving away from Zardari. Army chief Kayani in turn is starting to make his pressure public now, with increasing reports about warning the politicians to settle things down
- The tussle between Zardari and Sharif is the biggest problem. These 2 had made an uneasy truce and alliance when they wanted to bring down General Musharraf, but then separated soon after (and they have a long history of animosity - Zardari after all spent about a decade in jail during Sharif's rule)
- The US and other western countries want the country to be focused on fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and have a great deal of influence and are not wanting in exercising authority. Hence, constant use of missiles from drones that attack inside Pakistan even though it is unpopular in Pakistan, and using their influence to try to arrange political deals inside Pakistan (to the extent that no politician can be truly anti-American and be a strong leader)
In these times, this tension between Zardari and Nawaz Sharif is a truly dangerous escalation of the political conflict, and one that can only lead to a worsening of the situation.

Labels: Al-Qaeda, America, Conflict, Court, Judgment, Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan, Political, Politics, Swat, Taliban, US, Zardari

In earlier cases such as the case dealing with Quattrochi and Bofors, or the murder case against Shibu Soren, it was pretty evident that the Congress Government at the Center was quite familiar with the idea of not treating everybody as equal before the law. If a person was needed by the Government or was close to it, it was pretty evident that the case would be weakened, or allowed to die a slow death by not fighting it as strongly as the Government would fight a case where the person facing the case was opposed to the Government. And this is not something that Governments shirk from doing, earlier Governments and State Governments also do the same thing, but they rollback when faced with pressure from the media or from the courts.
However, in the above cases and in many other cases, it was like the Government was willing to brazen out the outcry and continue with its actions; and in cases, you will see how they have succeeded. In the Bofors case, all the outcry eventually fizzled out, in the Shibu Soren case, the case was so badly weakened that the High Court let him go.
And now you have this case about the disproportionate assets of Mulayam Singh and his family. The case seems to have followed the graph of the closeness of the politician to the Congress Government. When Mulayam was distant from the Congress, the CBI followed the case as per a complaint from a Congress worker. However, when the Congress needed Mulayam to provide critical support at the time of the nuclear deal, it was pretty clear that the CBI case would start to weaken, and so it happened; the Government suddenly decided that it has re-evaluated the case and has decided not to proceed. However, the Supreme Court is not amused, and has castigated the Government and the CBI on its flip-flop:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up CBI for "acting at the behest" of the Centre in the disproportionate assets case against former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav. "You (CBI) are acting at the behest of Central Government and the Law Ministry. You are not acting on your own," a Bench comprising Justice Altmas Kabir and Justice Cyriac Joseph said.
Amid allegations of Centre trying to bail out the former UP CM, the investigating agency replaced Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium with Parasaran to represent it. The decision to replace Subramanium with Parasaran had also surprised the Bench which made it clear that it will not allow any last minute changes in counsel. However, the investigating agency during the hearing on January 6 was criticised by the Bench which had said it would not like the agency to become an instrument of the government.

This is perfect; however, when the Government of the day is not interested, then even the Supreme Court cannot ensure that the investigation is carried out properly and as per law. As a result, it becomes more difficult for other parties to believe the intentions of the Government and hurts the overall judicial and law environment in the country. It may soon come to pass that the CBI is made more distant from the control of the Government.

Labels: Congress, Corruption, Court, Governance, Investigation, Law, Politics

The current Chief Election Commissioner (the CEC, Mr Gopalaswami) set the cat among the pigeons by recommending recently that an Election Commissioner, Mr. Navin Chawla be removed. This recommendation was made on January 16, 2009, but became public news on the 29th of January, 2009 when it got published as headline news. And it set off a political fire-storm with political parties, constitutional experts, prominent lawyers, all jumping into the arena.
The BJP has made no secret about its displeasure with the Election Commissioner Navin Chawla, accusing him of being very close to the Congress (he was closely associated with the Congress during the excesses of the emergency, he took funds from Congress MP's for a charity promoted by him, etc). They have filed petitions against him for quite some time now, and this action by the CEC is a fallout of those protests.
There were questions raised about the timing of the move by the CEC, but it was soon revealed that the timing was dictated by the reply from EC Chawla (which finally came in December after many months of delay). This handles the issue about the timing of the recommendation.
The Law Minister Mr. Bhardwarj made some rather rotten comments about the conduct of the CEC, but that is understandable given that Mr. Chawla is a favorite of the Congress. Conversely it is alleged that Mr. Gopalaswami is close to the BJP, but one does not have too much knowledge or proof of that. What is true that if the CEC has made numerous allegations about the bias that he has seen in Navin Chawla, then it only just that these are investigated.
The question about whether the CEC has the power in the Constitution to recommend the removal of an Election Commissioner is something that is not for the Government ot decide, and given the multiple opinions by constitutional experts and leading lawyers, this is a question to be decided by the Supreme Court of India.

Labels: Congress, Court, EC, Politics

The subject of this post can be captured using the word 'Critical'. Are the highways projects being undertaken by the National Highway Authority of India critical for the development of the country ? And does the current pace of development so bad that it can be termed critical. The answer is yes to both questions, and outlines the problems that this country faces in terms of infrastructure.
The development of good, fast highways is an extremely important part of the infrastructure of the country; it helps in keeping the movement of goods across large distances, enables greater mobility of people, reduces the dangers of perishable items expiring, reduces cost fluctuations caused by distance factors, improves the life of vehicles and tyres, reduces fuel consumption, and a few others. In India, one of the best things that the BJP Government is remembered is for the massive road projects that it launched, and with the Highways Minister Col. Khanduri running it, the projects were on track. Given the importance of this area, one would have thought that the Congress Government would ensure that the projects are on track. However, for some time now, it has been clear that these projects are not on track, and here is a severe admonishment of the Government from the Delhi High Court:

The Delhi High Court seems to have hit upon the root cause of why crucial highway projects across the country have been moving at a snail's pace in the past few years. And the discovery has left the court both shocked and angry. The HC found that the ministry of surface transport and highways was indulging in "day to day interference" into the affairs of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), a statutory body granted functional autonomy by Parliament.
"The actions of the Union of India...indicates that not only autonomy granted to NHAI by Parliament through a statute enacted in this regard has been curtailed and eroded, but NHAI is sought to be reduced to a mere department of the ministry of road transport and highways," an anguished HC noted. The court discovered through evidence tabled before it how the ministry kept forwarding bidders to NHAI, asking the latter to re-evaluate their applications even though NHAI had finalized its bidding process for the Hyderabad project.

Unfortunately, this is not the only case where the Congress Government interferes with institutions. The strictures on the Health Minister over its interference in AIIMS, the severe crippling of the autonomy of the CBI, and numerous other cases are already there; in many of these cases, there has been adverse opinions from various courts that the Government shrugs off.

Labels: Congress, Court, Development, Governance, India, Responsibility, Transport

In India, the police derive their powers from laws enacted during the British time. These laws were meant to enforce the power of the state (and the rulers), and this sentiment drives the power and role of the police. Throughout India, if citizens are polled over the role of the police, you will find it hard to find people who have positive views. This is also my personal view; my interaction with and observations of the police have convinced me that they are generally inclined to enforce the law and protect the rule of law (and there are many honest and great police officers as well), but they also see the law and the threat of force as a way to get benefits for themselves and their masters (who certainly are not the citizens of this country). Further, as every small trader / streetside vendor / other small businessman would volunteer, if you do not keep the local policemen happy, then things will be tough:

AHMEDABAD: Supreme Court has asked additional director-general of police Rajan Priyadarshi to pay Rs 8 lakh towards compensation to the person he assaulted blinding him in one eye, during a demonstration in 1987.
The incident took place on February 1, 1987, when Priyadarshi and then inspector RJ Yadav resorted to lathicharge during a protest demonstration. In this, a Congress leader, who has recently joined BJP, Dr Prafull Thaker was injured and lost his right eye. He moved the court seeking compensation for the injury.

This must be a shock to the police officer, since the police assume that the right to use any amount of force during suppressing a protest is their given right (all the way from the brutal attack on Lala Lajpat Rai during the rule of the British), and the fact that a court could force them to pay compensation was unheard of. In the more advanced nations, powers given to the police are with responsibility and they can be prosecuted for excesses.

Labels: Compensation, Court, Law, Police, Punishment, Violence

The year was 1999, with the month being January. The Nandan clan was a well known clan, with the senior, the grandfather being a former naval chief of India, S M Nanda; the father was a very rich arms dealer, Suresh Nanda. With such a household, and with plenty of riches, getting a BMW car for the son Sanjeev Nanda (19 years old at that time) was not something that was seen as difficult, and the son used to drive it. And it was driving it that he ended the lives of 6 innocent people, and caused his and other's family untold grief.
This is a case that shows how the delays of the Indian judicial system have a way of subverting any case. The decision was by the trial court (the lowest such court) and that too 9 years after the incident. Give a rich family like this enough time, and it is a wonder that the case still reached a conclusion where Sanjeev Nanda was found guilty. Witnesses were got after and they consequently changed their testimony, even the prosecuting attorney (and a very respected one) colluded with the defense to try and get a witness to change his testimony.
And yet today, wonders of wonders, he was judged guilty and his term in prison will be set tomorrow

NEW DELHI: A trial court on Tuesday deferred the sentencing of convict Sanjeev Nanda in the BMW hit-and-run case to September 5. Sanjeev, grandson of former Naval chief S M Nanda, was found guilty of committing manslaughter or ‘‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’’. Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Kumar held that the vehicle that killed those six people early one morning in January 1999 was a BMW car and not a truck, as claimed by the defence, and that Nanda was behind the wheel, inebriated, when he dragged three of them under the bonnet of his car.
Nanda, who had already spent nine months in detention, has been convicted under Section 304(II) IPC which has a maximum penalty of 10 years’ jail.

This is a stiff conviction, that is no doubt true, and the fact remains that he will have to spend some time in jail. This was an important case, and the fact that all the efforts of the defense to try to subvert the case came to nought in this case.

Labels: Alcohol, Court, Judicial

Ragging is a phenomenon that is not unique to India. It is present in many societies, in many forms and with different names. In India, it can sometimes take on a pleasant sense of introductions, of breaking barriers and introducing new people to life in an academic community. However, at the same time, there are many many cases where raqging takes on a more offensive nature, where the senior students consider it their birthright to make the junior suffer and subject them to humiliation and other such behavior. This has often been justified that it breaks the ice between batches, make for a better introduction to college life, and that it is 'harmless fun'. Often, when this results in serious implications for the junior students affected, the institute tries to push it under the carpet (inventing many different reasons), and so on.
For the past few years, this has assumed major proportions. In the absence of major efforts from the educational institutions (Ministry, colleges, etc), it has been left to the courts to 'legislate' in this behalf; and they have done so. The Supreme Court has passed severe restrictions against the practise of ragging, making it a criminal act and holding the educations institutions responsible for such conduct in their premises. And yet the message does not seem to have percolated through:

JAIPUR: The Kanota police have finally lodged an FIR against some senior students of Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine for alleged ragging of a junior – Prateek Bagi. The police are searching for the students who seem to have disappeared since Friday.
His hairs were allegedly cut off and he was forced to move around naked on the college campus. The seniors thrashed him many times as well. Prateek had to quit his hostel room when neither police nor the college administration paid heed to his problem. His parents had to come to Jaipur twice for their son’s rescue, but to no avail. "We had met the college administration, but received cold response. Now, we hope that the police will take an appropriate action in this regard, so that my son can study peacefully," said Parteek's father, Satish Bagi.

The college does not want to come into the limelight, not wanting to have scandal around the image of the college. However, it should be clear that senior students have no god-given right to harass junior students, and if the junior student does not want to do any of the 'activities' under ragging, he or she is well entitled to refuse.

Labels: Court, Education, Law, Penalty, Punishment

There are a number of areas where modern science and problems clash with traditions. In such cases, a reasonable expectation is that there is a compromise between traditions and the needs of today; in some cases, there is a need that the tradition changes. Why did I suddenly think of this topic ? Well, I came across this article that describes how idol immersion, a joyful and integral part of many religious festivals, is actually helping in killing the river systems of the country. Now, there are many reasons why our river systems are getting killed - there is too much flow of effluents (both domestic and industrial), not enough cleaning of these effluents, not enough flow of fresh water to do a cleanup of the pollutants in the river. No one doubts that in many cases, the conditions of our rivers as they move past major cities is that of a sewer, with the water having very high percentages of pollutants.
For those who have taken part in Durga Pooja celebrations or those celebrating Lord Ganesha, the immersion of idols is an important part. This is repeated across the country. But how many of you have read the news articles that describe the dead fish found floating days after a major festival, with these fish poisoned by the chemicals form the immersion ? Read this article in more detail:

Elaborately painted and decorated idols are worshipped before they are taken during mass processions to rivers, lakes and the sea, where they are immersed in accordance with Hindu faith. Environmentalists say the idols are often made from non-biodegradable materials such as plastic, cement and plaster of Paris and painted with toxic dyes.
After the statues are immersed, the toxins then contaminate food crops when villagers use the polluted water for irrigation, said Shyam Asolekar, science and engineering head at the Indian Institute of Technology in Mumbai. Statue remains from festivities last year still float in rivers and water tanks in Mumbai, where the annual "Ganesh Chaturthi" festival culminate in the immersion of some 160,000 statutes -- some up to 25 feet high -- by millions of devotees. Traditionally, idols were made from mud and clay and vegetable-based dyes were used to paint them.

This is a tricky issue. Issues related to religious festivities are treated with care, with efforts being made not to offend the religious. However, there is no getting around the facts of a matter, and this is not an issue that has sprung up suddenly. Even on TV, you do see many times news articles about the importance of making statues with eco-friendly material, but somehow these items do not sink in.
Sometimes direct action needs to be taken, as for example, when the courts ordered the installation of tall fences on the bridges of the river Yamuna in Delhi in order to prevent people from throwing in flowers or complete garlands.
Rivers are the lifeblood of this country (or any country), with dependence on water requiring that water sources be protected. People know this, but somehow the relation with water pollution does not sink in, or maybe many people do not care. How does one ensure that such a message sink in ? You cannot use force to ensure that such a change happens across the breadth and width of the country.

Labels: Citizen, Community, Court, Environment, Health, India, River, Waste

The Section 498(A) of the IPC is meant for prevention of crimes against women, something that this country has struggled with for quite some time now. If you read the actual Section, it talks about: "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine". This was meant to ensure that a woman subjected to harassment in her matrimonial home can take legal measure to protect herself. However, as with any law that favors one side of the dispute, it is subjected to misuse (and there are numerous complaints about the law being misused - refer to this link).
The main complaints against this law (from whatever I have read so far in various articles, web sites, and email) is that:
- the law has allowed the daughter-in-law to subject the entire family of her husband to its provisions
- the police do not investigate the case, but based on the complaint, have been known to drag all the accused (including elderly people and children)
So here is an update from a directive sent out by Bihar police:

There have been talks about misuse of laws relating to crime against women for quite some time now. Bihar police’s CID also admitted this when it directed all the SPs in the state to ensure proper investigation into FIRs lodged under Section 498(A) of the IPC before going in for arrest of the accused. “Sometimes such cases are framed against in-laws or others just to harass or settle old scores. Hence, the precaution against arrests,” ADG (CID) Yashwant Malhotra told TOI recently.
In his letter to district SPs, government railway police, range DIGs and zonal ADGs/IGs, Malhotra said it has been observed that in cases relating to crime against women, particularly those registered under Section 498(A) of the IPC, all the in-laws of the alleged victim are named as accused. And they are arrested without proper investigation into the case, thus marring the interests of justice.

This is actually a mixed step (in reality). One would like to think that, as per judicial and legal standards, the practice of doing an enquiry and then only proceeding against the named people is the right step. If one considers the law to be a just tool, then this is the right step.
However, there needs to be careful attention paid to the actual implementation of the law, since now proceeding on the basis of a complaint would be subject to the individual police officer of the region, and rural and semi-urban regions are known for police officers bucking under pressure, especially when the families and people involved are known / powerful.
What do people think ? Making sure that the provision is subject checks and balances is a good thing, but do people think that this could lead to a much watered down enforcement of the provisions meant to protect women ?

Labels: Court, Dowry, Family, Investigation, Judicial, Law, Morality, Police, Punishment, Security, Welfare, Women