Tag: law and order

Crime and media

Media has a responsibility in what it shows and how it shows. If anything that TV channels do gives a boost to crime, TV channels refrain from doing it.
If some people call TV reporters and tell them at a particular they will go to a particular place and damage public or private property there or beat people, TV reporters should not go to cover that event but report to the police. The people want publicity for their crime and if there is no publicity there will not be crime.
Sometimes some events are reported out of proportion. People engaging in hooliganism get publicity. Publicity is the oxygen they need and without it they are like fish out of water.
A topic is discussed on a TV channel for three days successively. Sometimes irrelevant and ridiculous questions are asked. Then there is a related programme in which two persons are asked questions for two days. On the fourth day there is an interview which is “exclusive”. The person is interviewed on another channel as well.
Sometimes I see one person on two persons appearing on two channels at the same time. Both channels seem to have live discussions. If anything is recorded beforehand it is not mentioned.
Sometimes TV anchors are told they give too much importance to some people or events and they should ignore them. During their discussions they ask panellists about it. If one says ignore people or events two others say media is doing a good job by covering crimes even when they are told beforehand. Anchors know whom to select for their panels.
English news TV anchors should interview people who speak English.
There should be no publicity to threats that a certain film will not be allowed to be shown or a city belongs to certain people.
Law and order is a state subject. Crime thrives because state governments do not take action. When they want they can provide security to a person. Many times police are hand in glove with criminals who engage in vandalism and hooliganism. When police enforce law the criminals run away.
If a person announces that he will set himself on fire and does so all the reporters and cameramen who cover it should be put behind bars.
Link to e-book King – a novel: http://go4quiz.com/vincent/king

Fall of CBI

On 14 December 2009 Jammu & Kashmir High Court said CBI report is not gospel truth. The report was about Shopian case dealing with rape and murder of two women. The CBI report said there was no rape and murder and deaths were due to drowning and the evidence of rape and murder was fabricated. The people of Kashmir are angry. Previously Kashmir sex scandal case was handed over to CBI and CBI’s record in that case had made the people of Kashmir lose confidence in CBI.

Over the years CBI has lost credibility. In many cases state police did a good job. After the case was handed over to CBI it was disaster. Cases of Aarushi-Hemraj murders, Scarlett Keeling murder and Telgi fake stamp paper cases suffered after they were handed over to CBI. Rajesh Talwar, Aarushi’s father, who was under arrest, was let off by CBI. CBI arrested three persons but did not file chargesheet within 90 days and the three got bail. In Rizwanur Rahman murder case CBI said it was suicide. In Telgi fake stamp paper case the amount of Rs.37,000 crores got reduced to few hundred crore rupees. There was narco test and name(s) of some politician(s) had come out but there was no investigation on that front.

Most of the time CBI is used for cover-up or to harass the opponents of the people in power at Centre.

CBI investigated Jain hawala case under the supervision of the Supreme Court. Nothing came of it. All were ultimately acquitted.

CBI’s stand on Taj corridor case kept changing depending on who was in power at the Centre and in UP and the equation between the two.
People who are fools ask any crimes to be investigated by CBI.

Bangalore lawyers and law

Bangalore lawyers had called for a day-long boycott of courts on 9/11/2009 in protest against Karnataka Chief Justice P. D. Dinakaran and disrupted court proceedings on that day. In Court Hall No. 1 of the High Court Justice Dinakaran and other Justices were hearing cases. Over 200 advocated barged in and ordered all lawyers to leave the hall. Dinakaran pleaded with the lawyers to allow him to do his work but was shouted down. The advocates attacked media persons who were present. Most of the judges quickly agreed to the demands of the lawyers. In Court Hall No. 2 Justice V. Gopal Gowda and Justice B. V. Nagarathna refused to leave. The lawyers shouted slogans, threw pens and paper, banged bookcases and raised chairs. They locked all four doors of the room. Gopal Gowda and Nagarathna were not allowed to leave for lunch. At 2.15 p.m. Dinakaran pleaded with the lawyers to allow the two judges to go. The judges were allowed to go. Some months back lawyers of Madras High Court had created a similar situation. The police went to restore order. The High Court delivered a judgment punishing the police. Lawyers have no right to disrupt court proceedings. Dinakaran should have been ordering them instead of pleading with them. Too bad most of the judges stopped hearings. If ordinary people had done this they would have been punished for contempt of law. Law must take its courts and lawyers who disrupted the proceedings must be punished. Those who locked Gopal Gowda and Nagarathna must be punished for illegal confinement. Corruption cases against Dinakaran have led to this stage. He would have been promoted to Supreme Court. Supreme Court should quickly decide on accusations against him. Article 124 of the constitution of India say that every judge of the Supreme Court, other than the Chief Justice, shall be appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Supreme Court judges through their judgment turned consultation into consent and talked of a collegium of five judges to appoint judges. This was an amendment of constitution through interpretation. Even when the President found a judge recommended by the collegium unsuitable the judges insisted on the appointment. Lawyers many times go on strike for days. That causes delays and inconvenience. Misbehaviour with judges should not be tolerated. The country should think of judicial system without lawyers. Judges can hear two sides and deliver judgments