Tag: supreme court judges

Fight against corruption must continue

India Against Corruption seems to have lost direction and momentum in fight against corruption. IAC wanted a Lokpal Bill. That did not happen. They wanted right to reject and right to recall. Both are unlikely to happen soon. Anna Hazare seems unable or unwilling to lead the agitation. Other members should resume the fight against corruption.

IAC members need not go on indefinite fast. They can go on chain hunger strike. Arvind Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi and Prashant Bhushan can fast for some hours every day. Then Shazia Ilmi, Gaurav Bakshi and Manish Sisodia can take their turn. Then some other people fast. Every day the cycle is repeated. The fight for Lokpal should be separate from fight for Lokayuktas.

Elections are said to be major reason for corruption. That is partly true. Many people who don’t fight elections are also corrupt. In India elections take place throughout the year in some part or other. IAC must fight for a single election day once in five years. Elections to all Lok Sabha, Legislative Assembly, Zilla Parishad, municipality, panchayat and other local body constituencies should be held on a single day. That will reduce corruption. A candidate should be allowed to contest from one constituency only.

IAC should fight for presidential system. Parliamentary democracy has failed. Coalition compulsions result in wrong people being ministers. Even when there is single party government in states there is dissidence. Someone who is not chief minister tries to become chief minister. President should be elected by MPs and MLAs. Vice President should be elected by MPs. Governors should be elected by MLAs. Direct election to President, Vice President and Governors are expensive.

IAC should fight for an easy process to remove corrupt judges, bureaucrats and other officials.

IAC should fight against corporate debt restructuring. Corporates who have borrowed must pay the debt as per the conditions on which they borrowed. Properties of defaulters should be attached. List of borrowers and defaulters should be public.

IAC should fight for abolition of Rajya Sabha and Legislative Councils. Parties sell Rajya Sabha seats.

IAC should not worry about not being representative of OBCs, Muslims, SCs, STs and so on. Those who talk of such things have lost elections.

Fight against corruption demands fight for a new constitution. IAC should draft a new constitution. Supreme Court judges should be appointed by President after approval by Parliament. High Court judges should be appointed by Governor after approval by Legislative Assembly. Let not IAC worry about self-styled followers of Ambedkar protesting against new constitution. Those followers do not have much following. Ambedkar did not write the constitution. He was the chairman of the drafting committee of the constitution. The followers of Ambedkar have not protested when the constitution has been amended around hundred times.

Consenting adults and law

There are people who say what consenting adults do in private should not be covered by law. This is mainly in reference to Section 377 of IPC which is under litigation in Supreme Court.

By that logic prostitution, sale and purchase of narcotics and psychotropic substances and illicit liquor, corruption, polygamy, transmission of pornographic material and many others matters that take place between consulting adults will be out of the scope of law. Drug traffickers can claim they have right to life and liberty to sell heroin, marijuana and such things to consenting adults in private and they have right to equality. The state will have no right to legislate on marriage, divorce, alimony and child custody. Also concubinage, live-in relationship and palimony will be out of the legal purview.

What happens if a man who is married does not reveal his marital status and marries another woman? What happens if a woman has sex with a man because he promises her something and later he does not keep his promise?

What about doctors and parents who after sex determination test terminate the pregnancy of a foetus knowing it is female? India’s sex ratio is going down. Medical termination of pregnancy is not a crime. Female foeticide is a crime.

Some blame Thomas Macaulay for everything what they claim is wrong with India including Section 377 of IPC. Thomas Macaulay came to India in 1834 and left India in 1838. IPC was promulgated in 1860.

Some give examples of Khajuraho and Ajanta-Ellora as examples of Indian culture and civilization. It is like saying Jarawa women who do not cover their breasts as representative of all Indian women. Khajuraho and Ajanta-Ellora are exceptions. If what they show is a sample of what is Indian then all temples would have shown them.

A vociferous minority supported by sections of media attacks people who stand for heterosexuality. Those who speak of freedom of speech criticize Ghulam Nabi Azad and Baba Ramdev when they exercise their freedom of speech.

Some wrongly speak of gays and lesbians being married and having children. They are bisexuals. There is nothing hereditary being gay. If someone is gay he would not have had children.

It is not for judges to declare what should be the law. Their job is to deliver judgment as per law. Judges who cross their limits do lot of damage.

It is wrong to call gays and lesbians a minority. Minorities are either ethnic, or religious or linguistic. All types of criminals can claim they are a minority. Terrorists can claim they are a minority doing a noble job but misunderstood by the majority. Bandits can claim they are a minority.

If Supreme Court judges do not know what is sex according to order of nature it is penile vaginal intercourse. Terms like unnatural sex have definite meanings acquired over the years. It is not for judges to change the meanings. It is for legislatures to change the law.

The government of India wants to run with the hare and hunt with the hound. On 23/2/2012 Additional Solicitor General P. P. Malhotra told the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices G. S. Singhvi and J. S. Mukhyopadhyay “The issue whether to retain or not to retain Section 377 IPC was considered by the Law Commission of India in its 42nd report and it observed that Indian society by and large disapproves of homosexuality and disapproval was strong enough to justify it being treated as a criminal offence even when adults indulge in it in private.” About privacy he said “Whose privacy is being disturbed? Nobody’s privacy is being disturbed. Privacy is not an absolute right and is always subject to restriction. It is an offence.” Then home ministry came out with a press release that the government is neutral on the issue. It had asked Attorney General to assist the Supreme Court. May be if Shahi Imam or head of Darul Uloom wants to retain Section 377 as it is the government will take a stand in favour of retention.

Kanimozhi bail plea

There were reports that CBI will not oppose Kanimozhi ‘s bail plea. The Supreme Court questioned CBI on the reports and CBI’s lawyer Harin Raval said it would certainly oppose Kanimozhi ‘s bail plea.

Karunanidhi came to Delhi and met Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh on 22/10/2011. On 24/10/2011 CBI did not oppose bail for Kanimozhi, Asif Balwa, Rajiv Aggarwal, Karim Morani and Sharad Kumar. It opposed bail for R. K. Chandolia and Shahid Balwa. On 31/10/2011 Supreme Court judges G. S. Singhvi and H. L. Dattu questioned Harin Raval “Is is true that during the hearing the CBI counsel said that he has no objection to bail for five out of the 14 accused?” and directed him to confirm the next day. On 1/11/2011 Harin Raval confirmed that U. U. Lalit representing CBI had not opposed bail for five accused.

On 3/11/2011 CBI Special Court rejected Kanimozhi ‘s bail plea and other bail pleas in 2G case . CBI had not opposed her bail plea and many had taken for granted that she would get bail. Judge O. P. Saini rejected her plea. Case-fixing by prosecution and defence did not succeed. DMK MPs were in court. Karim Morani’s family members had brought flowers and chocolates. Kanimozhi had applied for bail under Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code which allows bail if the applicant is under 16, or a woman, or sick or infirm. The court said Kanimozhi belongs to upper echelons of society and a Member of Parliament. By no stretch of imagination she can be said to be suffering from any disadvantage on ground of being a woman alone.

There is much talk about bail not jail being the principle. Most of those who say that are lawyers of the accused. If the court feels witnesses need to be protected and granting bail will obstruct justice it is within its right to refuse bail. During TV discussions anchors should mention which lawyer represents whom. It should not be made out as if the panelists are not connected to the case. Comments like denial of bail is a grave miscarriage of justice and a deliberate misapplication of law or when the prosecutor does not oppose bail there is no reason to oppose bail are contempt of court. If the judiciary has shifted from the rule “bail is the rule and jail an exception” to “jail is the rule and bail an exception” it has good reasons. Prosecution’s objection is of no consequence. It was interesting to watch Rajiv Pratap Rudy on Left, Right and Centre. He criticized Congress. When Nidhi Razdan said Jaswant Singh of BJP wanted bail for the accused he replied “Nidhi, did I say Kanimozhi should not get bail. I did not.” That stumped Nidhi Razdan.