Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Indian Beta Males demand right to peaceful existance
The United States based One Step institute New York has sponsored a new academic discipline titled "Male Studies”. On April 7, 2010, there will be an unprecedented symposium at Wagner College, broadcast live via the Internet to participants throughout the world. The subject, Male Studies: A New Academic Discipline, brings the world's leading scholars together to discuss Male Studies at the university level. Leading US based MRA Paul Elam states that "Male studies programs are the answer to the feminist hegemony that has dominated academia and has been poisoning the education system for more than a generation." He goes further to state that American Militant Feministi institutions like NOMAS, AMSA and the AAUW are just three of many groups which have given us the plague of fabricated wage gaps, distorted, male-demonizing approaches to domestic violence and a host of other corrupted agendas aimed at the destruction of men and boys.
The Indian situation
With over 56000 husbands being driven to suicide annually according to the date released by the NCRB ,and millions more suffering from depression caused to apathy on all fronts , Indian men today are in dire need of serious attention . Indian men are emotionally castrated from birth and seldom receive any kind of sympathy support from the society, the government or the Judiciary. The situation of men’s rights in the US and India have many similarities although the problems in India are much more severe. Unlike the US India is also cursed with a glacial pace of justice and has a far less evolved criminal justice system. Indian laws and judges still live and breathe Manusmrithi . India too has its fair share of militant feminist organizations some having affiliations to the political parties while most are some funded by the center and operating under the guise of women’s welfare agencies. The Annual Budget for WCD ministry in India is Rs 7500 crores and the Annual Budget of the Anti Men NCW is Rs 9 crores. India too since independence has never allocated any money for men's' issues , men’s welfare or has sponsored men’s studies although India allocated Rs 1206 cores every year for Animal Welfare efforts. The government has not even taken any steps to stem the suicides of Indian husbands .The Alpha males at the center have used the feminists and the state machinery as weapons to control the Beta Males and has always considered them disposable . The Feminists on the other hands have ensured that the alpha males are happy so that their funding remains secure. This sort of symbiotic relationship between militant feminists and the alpha males has led to slow strangulation of Indian beta males from all fronts. From being denied opportunities to stand in elections on account of being a male , to being denied bail on accounts of being husbands , to being considered criminals even without charges being proven in Domestic Violence cases, to paying more tax on the same income the Indian Beta male today has a noose so tight around his neck that his neck may snap at any minute and hence there arises an urgent need to firstly fund male studies to understand the problems and issues that boys and men face before taking steps to eradicate them so that beta men too can have a chance to peaceful existence.
The Indian situation
With over 56000 husbands being driven to suicide annually according to the date released by the NCRB ,and millions more suffering from depression caused to apathy on all fronts , Indian men today are in dire need of serious attention . Indian men are emotionally castrated from birth and seldom receive any kind of sympathy support from the society, the government or the Judiciary. The situation of men’s rights in the US and India have many similarities although the problems in India are much more severe. Unlike the US India is also cursed with a glacial pace of justice and has a far less evolved criminal justice system. Indian laws and judges still live and breathe Manusmrithi . India too has its fair share of militant feminist organizations some having affiliations to the political parties while most are some funded by the center and operating under the guise of women’s welfare agencies. The Annual Budget for WCD ministry in India is Rs 7500 crores and the Annual Budget of the Anti Men NCW is Rs 9 crores. India too since independence has never allocated any money for men's' issues , men’s welfare or has sponsored men’s studies although India allocated Rs 1206 cores every year for Animal Welfare efforts. The government has not even taken any steps to stem the suicides of Indian husbands .The Alpha males at the center have used the feminists and the state machinery as weapons to control the Beta Males and has always considered them disposable . The Feminists on the other hands have ensured that the alpha males are happy so that their funding remains secure. This sort of symbiotic relationship between militant feminists and the alpha males has led to slow strangulation of Indian beta males from all fronts. From being denied opportunities to stand in elections on account of being a male , to being denied bail on accounts of being husbands , to being considered criminals even without charges being proven in Domestic Violence cases, to paying more tax on the same income the Indian Beta male today has a noose so tight around his neck that his neck may snap at any minute and hence there arises an urgent need to firstly fund male studies to understand the problems and issues that boys and men face before taking steps to eradicate them so that beta men too can have a chance to peaceful existence.
Man Proposes - Your Honor disposes
Public has a short memory and this has been proved time and again. “Irretrievable breakdown of marriage” was quite in discussion until some time ago and caught a high with the case of Smriti Shinde – daughter of ex-law minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde – filing a Public Interest Litigation to make the same as a ground of divorce as well but now the topic is completely out of discussion.
And further unfolding of the case revealed that it was actually a case of a “Mutual Consent” Divorce filed and one of the spouses refusing to abide by the mutual consent agreement even after a part of the agreement, based on which the consent was drawn, being fulfilled and thus divorce not being granted.
The performance of the judiciary in the society in general and in matrimonial cases in particular has not been something laudable. More often than not, the judges are driven by emotion and pre-defined stereotypic gender notions in arriving at their decisions leading to not only ignorance of evidence placed on record and the data available, but also at arriving upon socially harmful interpretations of law and at times overstepping their constitutional limitations and boundaries. It has also led to judges acting as “Social Workers” proving Harold Laski correct in the Grammar of Politics – “Judges do not deliver judgments; they only give decisions. They only decide which side argued better”.
The issue of non-compliance of mutual consent divorces by either of the spouses even after the full/partial execution of the terms of the consent, leading to agony to the other spouse is not limited or exclusive to women. Husbands are more at the receiving end of such practices wherein often they end up executing the payment part and then keep running from pillars to post for divorce which is held back at the whims and fancy of the wife.
Taking note of the gravity of the situation and realizing that it is more of a social problem and not a gender problem, a men’s rights activist from Bangalore, Pandurang Katti, wrote to the same bench before which the PIL was filed by Smriti Shinde. The letter requested the bench to consider elevating the letter to a PIL for setting general guidelines in mutual consent cases and offered help to the judiciary in assisting to arrive at a just conclusion.
More than a month has passed after the letter was officially received by the bench; the man is yet to hear from the bench. And then the judiciary keeps complaining of backlog of cases and being overburdened etc.
1. Well, if one does not work, what remains to be said?
2. If truly, the judiciary is overloaded, then why do they work only 5 hrs in a day, why not 10 hrs?
3. Why do they take more vacations than schoolchildren?
4. Why do they keep giving adjournments after adjournments rather than using their judicial discretionary power to keep delay of cases in control?
5. Why don’t they come up with a filtration mechanism in admission of cases?
6. Why don’t they invoke provisions under section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code to punish people who file false cases?
7. Why don’t they entertain perjury petitions to enable litigants to take action against people lying on oath, misleading the courts for their sinister and selfish agenda to be realized and waste precious judicial time?
8. Why are they so afraid of transparency and accountability and run away from the Right to Information Act provisions?
9. And, why does it take them decades to decide on petty issues like granting divorce or deny granting the same?
10. Do they fail to understand that a couple is no longer interested in staying together and it is just and prudent to allow them to lead lives peacefully rather than just being forced to hang around in courts loitering for non-existent justice?
Even in this particular case, the Bench is unable to decide whether to accept the letter and elevate it into a PIL or to dispose it. It further drives home the message that the judiciary is not at all ready to LISTEN to men.
A copy of the letter sent is available at,
Letter Part1
Letter Part 2
And further unfolding of the case revealed that it was actually a case of a “Mutual Consent” Divorce filed and one of the spouses refusing to abide by the mutual consent agreement even after a part of the agreement, based on which the consent was drawn, being fulfilled and thus divorce not being granted.
The performance of the judiciary in the society in general and in matrimonial cases in particular has not been something laudable. More often than not, the judges are driven by emotion and pre-defined stereotypic gender notions in arriving at their decisions leading to not only ignorance of evidence placed on record and the data available, but also at arriving upon socially harmful interpretations of law and at times overstepping their constitutional limitations and boundaries. It has also led to judges acting as “Social Workers” proving Harold Laski correct in the Grammar of Politics – “Judges do not deliver judgments; they only give decisions. They only decide which side argued better”.
The issue of non-compliance of mutual consent divorces by either of the spouses even after the full/partial execution of the terms of the consent, leading to agony to the other spouse is not limited or exclusive to women. Husbands are more at the receiving end of such practices wherein often they end up executing the payment part and then keep running from pillars to post for divorce which is held back at the whims and fancy of the wife.
Taking note of the gravity of the situation and realizing that it is more of a social problem and not a gender problem, a men’s rights activist from Bangalore, Pandurang Katti, wrote to the same bench before which the PIL was filed by Smriti Shinde. The letter requested the bench to consider elevating the letter to a PIL for setting general guidelines in mutual consent cases and offered help to the judiciary in assisting to arrive at a just conclusion.
More than a month has passed after the letter was officially received by the bench; the man is yet to hear from the bench. And then the judiciary keeps complaining of backlog of cases and being overburdened etc.
1. Well, if one does not work, what remains to be said?
2. If truly, the judiciary is overloaded, then why do they work only 5 hrs in a day, why not 10 hrs?
3. Why do they take more vacations than schoolchildren?
4. Why do they keep giving adjournments after adjournments rather than using their judicial discretionary power to keep delay of cases in control?
5. Why don’t they come up with a filtration mechanism in admission of cases?
6. Why don’t they invoke provisions under section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code to punish people who file false cases?
7. Why don’t they entertain perjury petitions to enable litigants to take action against people lying on oath, misleading the courts for their sinister and selfish agenda to be realized and waste precious judicial time?
8. Why are they so afraid of transparency and accountability and run away from the Right to Information Act provisions?
9. And, why does it take them decades to decide on petty issues like granting divorce or deny granting the same?
10. Do they fail to understand that a couple is no longer interested in staying together and it is just and prudent to allow them to lead lives peacefully rather than just being forced to hang around in courts loitering for non-existent justice?
Even in this particular case, the Bench is unable to decide whether to accept the letter and elevate it into a PIL or to dispose it. It further drives home the message that the judiciary is not at all ready to LISTEN to men.
A copy of the letter sent is available at,
Letter Part1
Letter Part 2
JUDICIAL REFORMS IN INDIA- WILL THIS EVER HAPPEN?
CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORMS
Resolution passed at the
3rd National Convention on “Making the Judiciary Accountable and Responsive to the
People”
6th - 7th February 2010
Nehru Memorial Library, Teen Murti House, New Delhi
The two day 3rd National Convention on “Making the Judiciary Accountable and
Responsive to the People” organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms was held at the Nehru Memorial Library, Teen Murti House, New Delhi on the 6th - 7th of February 2010. The Convention was attended by over 200 people representing various organisations and movements from across the country. The Convention was addressed by a range of distinguished speakers on the twin issues of judicial accountability and reforms specifically dealing with the issues of appointment of judges and complaints against and removal of judges, the judiciary and public discourse, the judiciary and the environment development dichotomy, the judiciary and civil liberties as well as the judiciary and the poor. At the conclusion of the convention, the Campaign resolved as follows:
The present system of appointments by the Collegium of Judges suffers from nepotism, arbitrariness and lack of transparency. We need a full time Judicial Appointments Commission for selecting judges of the higher judiciary as well as members of Commissions, Tribunals, etc. This should not comprise merely of retired judges, but should include other eminent members of civil society. This Commission must first lay down the criteria for selection and the method for selection as per the criteria. In particular the understanding of and sensitivity towards the social conditions of the common people must be an important criteria for judging the suitability of judicial appointments. The selection process must be transparent and the credentials and qualifications of the prospective appointees must be in the public domain.
The difference in the retirement age of High Court and Supreme Court judges has made many High Court judges subservient to the Collegium who decide their elevation. This has led to lobbying among High Court judges and Chief Justices as well. The Campaign believes that there is no justification for a different retirement age for High Court and Supreme Court Judges.
The fact that there is considerable corruption in the higher judiciary is evident from the string of recent scandals such as the Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam, the Chandigarh cash at judges door scam, the Justice Soumitra Sen and Justice Dinakaran cases, etc. The present system of impeachment has proved to be totally impracticable and ineffective for disciplining judges. There should be a similar commission for dealing with complaints against judges. This must have its own independent investigative machinery and should be empowered to examine the complaints and recommend the action against the errant judges, which would include removal and registration of criminal cases against them. The commission may appoint a tribunal of three jurists to adjudicate on the misconduct of judges before its final decision. These complaints must also be dealt with transparently. A code of conduct for judges must be framed with full public consultation and made strictly enforceable.
The Campaign notes that misconduct of the bar has also grown enormously in recent times. The Bar Council of India has completely failed in disciplining misconducting lawyers due to conflicts of interest and corruption within the Bar Council of India. The Bar too must be made accountable to a completely independent statutory body. This is important because the bar is also an important actor in the administration of justice. It is the principle feeder cadre for judges and is often complicit in judicial corruption. We feel there is no justification for retaining “scandalising the court or lowering the authority of the court” in the definition of criminal contempt and this should be deleted. Respect for or public confidence in the judiciary depends upon how the actions of the judiciary are perceived and not on preventing people from making any kind (including harsh) criticism. The laws of civil and criminal defamation are adequate to protect judges from scurrilous abuse.
The Campaign notes with regret that though the judiciary had itself declared the Right to Information as a fundamental right and had applied it to various institutions including candidates contesting elections, it is now dragging its feet and resisting the application of the RTI Act to itself. This is being done by framing rules which deter citizens from asking for information and put unreasonable restrictions on the disclosure of administrative or financial information about the court. This is also being done by the interference of the Courts with judgments of the Central Information Commission ordering disclosure of information with the judiciary such as for appointments of judges and complaints against judges, etc. The judiciary is thus defeating the object of the Right to Information Act which is to make every institution including the judiciary accountable to the people.
The Campaign finds that the judiciary has of late rendered many decisions displaying gross insensitivity to human rights and civil liberties particularly of the weak and the poor. Draconian laws such as POTA, TADA, AFSPA has been upheld and progressive laws such as the IMDT Act have been struck down and other pro people laws such as Contract Labour Act, Industrial Disputes Act are not being implemented. The insensitivity towards human rights is also apparent from the fact that even where prosecutions of innocent persons were found to be malafide and based on fabricated evidence, no action was ordered against the offending police officers. This has led to impunity in the police and the spectre of innocent persons being framed in a large number of bogus cases. The Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that laws made by Parliament should be interpreted in accordance with the economic policies of the executive government. In certain instances, this has led to a peculiar situation where economic policies of the government are given the judicial stamp. This often strangulates political debate, as well as mobilisation of public opinion.
In particular, in the area of workmen jurisprudence and land acquisition disputes, the
Campaign notes the attitude of the judiciary as being dismal. The current judicial system is getting far removed from the needs and rights of the poor and deprived section of society in substantial deviation from the directive principles of state policy as enshrined in the Constitution of India and even restricting the interpretation “right to life” as delineated in earlier pronouncements of the court. In fact the common people have virtually no access to the judicial system being unable to afford lawyers and also often because the language of the court is alien to the culture. The security obsession of the superior courts is also preventing access even to visitors thus destroying the very concept of open courts. With the current technology is would be easily possible to video record and indeed web telecast court proceedings which must be started immediately.
Courts have often been used to execute the desires of the incumbent government even against the law. Thus jhuggis along the Yamuna Pushta were demolished on the orders of the court to pave the way for the common wealth games village and the Akshardham Temple , in violation of formal government policy.
The Courts have acted whimsically and arbitrarily on environmental matters and have often invoked environment to demolish jhuggis, displace forest dwellers, etc. However the same considerations have not prevented them from allowing the use of the same spaces for corporate interests. There is a clear need for the courts to strengthen and rationalise the systems of environmental appraisal and clearance. Environmental approval committees should be given statutory status and appointed in a transparent manner to represent particularly the interests of the concerned masses rather than “technical corporate or bureaucratic interests”. The statutory appellate authority should also be transparently appointed through the judicial appointments commission.
Resolution passed at the
3rd National Convention on “Making the Judiciary Accountable and Responsive to the
People”
6th - 7th February 2010
Nehru Memorial Library, Teen Murti House, New Delhi
The two day 3rd National Convention on “Making the Judiciary Accountable and
Responsive to the People” organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms was held at the Nehru Memorial Library, Teen Murti House, New Delhi on the 6th - 7th of February 2010. The Convention was attended by over 200 people representing various organisations and movements from across the country. The Convention was addressed by a range of distinguished speakers on the twin issues of judicial accountability and reforms specifically dealing with the issues of appointment of judges and complaints against and removal of judges, the judiciary and public discourse, the judiciary and the environment development dichotomy, the judiciary and civil liberties as well as the judiciary and the poor. At the conclusion of the convention, the Campaign resolved as follows:
The present system of appointments by the Collegium of Judges suffers from nepotism, arbitrariness and lack of transparency. We need a full time Judicial Appointments Commission for selecting judges of the higher judiciary as well as members of Commissions, Tribunals, etc. This should not comprise merely of retired judges, but should include other eminent members of civil society. This Commission must first lay down the criteria for selection and the method for selection as per the criteria. In particular the understanding of and sensitivity towards the social conditions of the common people must be an important criteria for judging the suitability of judicial appointments. The selection process must be transparent and the credentials and qualifications of the prospective appointees must be in the public domain.
The difference in the retirement age of High Court and Supreme Court judges has made many High Court judges subservient to the Collegium who decide their elevation. This has led to lobbying among High Court judges and Chief Justices as well. The Campaign believes that there is no justification for a different retirement age for High Court and Supreme Court Judges.
The fact that there is considerable corruption in the higher judiciary is evident from the string of recent scandals such as the Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam, the Chandigarh cash at judges door scam, the Justice Soumitra Sen and Justice Dinakaran cases, etc. The present system of impeachment has proved to be totally impracticable and ineffective for disciplining judges. There should be a similar commission for dealing with complaints against judges. This must have its own independent investigative machinery and should be empowered to examine the complaints and recommend the action against the errant judges, which would include removal and registration of criminal cases against them. The commission may appoint a tribunal of three jurists to adjudicate on the misconduct of judges before its final decision. These complaints must also be dealt with transparently. A code of conduct for judges must be framed with full public consultation and made strictly enforceable.
The Campaign notes that misconduct of the bar has also grown enormously in recent times. The Bar Council of India has completely failed in disciplining misconducting lawyers due to conflicts of interest and corruption within the Bar Council of India. The Bar too must be made accountable to a completely independent statutory body. This is important because the bar is also an important actor in the administration of justice. It is the principle feeder cadre for judges and is often complicit in judicial corruption. We feel there is no justification for retaining “scandalising the court or lowering the authority of the court” in the definition of criminal contempt and this should be deleted. Respect for or public confidence in the judiciary depends upon how the actions of the judiciary are perceived and not on preventing people from making any kind (including harsh) criticism. The laws of civil and criminal defamation are adequate to protect judges from scurrilous abuse.
The Campaign notes with regret that though the judiciary had itself declared the Right to Information as a fundamental right and had applied it to various institutions including candidates contesting elections, it is now dragging its feet and resisting the application of the RTI Act to itself. This is being done by framing rules which deter citizens from asking for information and put unreasonable restrictions on the disclosure of administrative or financial information about the court. This is also being done by the interference of the Courts with judgments of the Central Information Commission ordering disclosure of information with the judiciary such as for appointments of judges and complaints against judges, etc. The judiciary is thus defeating the object of the Right to Information Act which is to make every institution including the judiciary accountable to the people.
The Campaign finds that the judiciary has of late rendered many decisions displaying gross insensitivity to human rights and civil liberties particularly of the weak and the poor. Draconian laws such as POTA, TADA, AFSPA has been upheld and progressive laws such as the IMDT Act have been struck down and other pro people laws such as Contract Labour Act, Industrial Disputes Act are not being implemented. The insensitivity towards human rights is also apparent from the fact that even where prosecutions of innocent persons were found to be malafide and based on fabricated evidence, no action was ordered against the offending police officers. This has led to impunity in the police and the spectre of innocent persons being framed in a large number of bogus cases. The Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that laws made by Parliament should be interpreted in accordance with the economic policies of the executive government. In certain instances, this has led to a peculiar situation where economic policies of the government are given the judicial stamp. This often strangulates political debate, as well as mobilisation of public opinion.
In particular, in the area of workmen jurisprudence and land acquisition disputes, the
Campaign notes the attitude of the judiciary as being dismal. The current judicial system is getting far removed from the needs and rights of the poor and deprived section of society in substantial deviation from the directive principles of state policy as enshrined in the Constitution of India and even restricting the interpretation “right to life” as delineated in earlier pronouncements of the court. In fact the common people have virtually no access to the judicial system being unable to afford lawyers and also often because the language of the court is alien to the culture. The security obsession of the superior courts is also preventing access even to visitors thus destroying the very concept of open courts. With the current technology is would be easily possible to video record and indeed web telecast court proceedings which must be started immediately.
Courts have often been used to execute the desires of the incumbent government even against the law. Thus jhuggis along the Yamuna Pushta were demolished on the orders of the court to pave the way for the common wealth games village and the Akshardham Temple , in violation of formal government policy.
The Courts have acted whimsically and arbitrarily on environmental matters and have often invoked environment to demolish jhuggis, displace forest dwellers, etc. However the same considerations have not prevented them from allowing the use of the same spaces for corporate interests. There is a clear need for the courts to strengthen and rationalise the systems of environmental appraisal and clearance. Environmental approval committees should be given statutory status and appointed in a transparent manner to represent particularly the interests of the concerned masses rather than “technical corporate or bureaucratic interests”. The statutory appellate authority should also be transparently appointed through the judicial appointments commission.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Memorandum to Union Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=03_02_2010_163_010&mode=undefined
http://www.theindiapost.com/2010/02/02/ministry-for-mens-welfare-on-the-lines-of\
-ncw-siff/
Monday, January 25, 2010
Memorandum to DG Chandigarh against 498A misuse
Check the details of the Memorandum handed to the DG Chandigarh Police by members of Save Indian Family Foundation Chandigarh at the below links:
http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/22757/143/
http://www.internationalnewsandviews.com/?p=7700
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100123165242mand.nb/topstory.html
http://baretnews.com/story/20100123165301001b.html
http://www.theindiapost.com/2010/01/25/save-indian-family-foundation-submits-memo/
http://www.himalyanpost.com/2010/01/25/save-indian-family-foundation-submits-memo/
http://www.indianewscalling.com/tip.php?tipid=4872
http://redtram.com/go/237242629/
http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:8ccfb0687deca3b804785f66e2aa8ad1:65d2961a07c182c53640d44b03ce7df6/Save-Indian-Family-Foundation-Submits-Memo
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100122/cth2.htm#9
http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/22757/143/
http://www.internationalnewsandviews.com/?p=7700
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100123165242mand.nb/topstory.html
http://baretnews.com/story/20100123165301001b.html
http://www.theindiapost.com/2010/01/25/save-indian-family-foundation-submits-memo/
http://www.himalyanpost.com/2010/01/25/save-indian-family-foundation-submits-memo/
http://www.indianewscalling.com/tip.php?tipid=4872
http://redtram.com/go/237242629/
http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:8ccfb0687deca3b804785f66e2aa8ad1:65d2961a07c182c53640d44b03ce7df6/Save-Indian-Family-Foundation-Submits-Memo
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100122/cth2.htm#9
Saturday, January 23, 2010
BECHARA PATI KYA KARE?
Agar aurat par haath uthaya to ZAALIM , agar na uthaya to BUZDIL
Aurat ko kisi ke saath dekh kar daante to JEALOUS , agar na kare to BE-GAIRAT
Ghar se bahar rahe to AAWARA, Hamesha ghar mein rahe to NAKARA
Bachchon ko daante to ZAALIM , agar na daante to BE-PARWAH
Biwi ko job se roke to SHAKKI , aur na roke to "KAMAI KHANE WAALA"
Kamini Auraton ki duniya mein "PATI KARE TO KYA KARE???"
Aurat ko kisi ke saath dekh kar daante to JEALOUS , agar na kare to BE-GAIRAT
Ghar se bahar rahe to AAWARA, Hamesha ghar mein rahe to NAKARA
Bachchon ko daante to ZAALIM , agar na daante to BE-PARWAH
Biwi ko job se roke to SHAKKI , aur na roke to "KAMAI KHANE WAALA"
Kamini Auraton ki duniya mein "PATI KARE TO KYA KARE???"
Friday, January 22, 2010
CANDLE LIGHT PROTEST AGAINST DOWRY LAWS
CANDLE LIGHT PROTEST AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT AND IPC 498A MISUSE
CALL HELPLINE: 9646389140, 9815294659
SIFF CHANDIGARH
Memorandum to DGP Chandigarh by SIFF
Section 498-A Misuse
NGO submits memo to DGP
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, January 21
Members of the Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF), an NGO, fighting against
the misuse of pro-women laws, submitted a memorandum to DGP SK Jain at the UT
Police Headquarters in Sector 9, here today.
UT SP (Operations) RS Ghumman accepted the memorandum and assured that adequate
steps would be taken to stop the misuse of all pro-woman laws, especially
Section 498-A of the IPC, in the city.
Ghumman reportedly assured members of the NGO that the orders had already been
issued to the authorities concerned and officials to conduct free and fair probe
and arrest anybody only after exhausting all resources available.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100122/chd.htm
NGO submits memo to DGP
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, January 21
Members of the Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF), an NGO, fighting against
the misuse of pro-women laws, submitted a memorandum to DGP SK Jain at the UT
Police Headquarters in Sector 9, here today.
UT SP (Operations) RS Ghumman accepted the memorandum and assured that adequate
steps would be taken to stop the misuse of all pro-woman laws, especially
Section 498-A of the IPC, in the city.
Ghumman reportedly assured members of the NGO that the orders had already been
issued to the authorities concerned and officials to conduct free and fair probe
and arrest anybody only after exhausting all resources available.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100122/chd.htm
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Effect of Divorce on Indian Men:
Effect of Divorce on Indian Men:
Most dangerous stage for men is, awaiting for divorce than after divorce as marriage disputes in India, irrespective the man is right or wrong (they had been abused, blackmailed, treated as Free ATM machine in front of society/police/court every where in India as in India the marriage disputes had been termed as crime for men, not for women) and waiting for divorce and the suicide stastics of crime bure report reflects the same.
Before marriage the men suicide in the rang of 56K vs women 28K
After divorce in the range of 600, both for men vs women.
After divorce the men’s life became more comfortable or worse, it depends purely on how troublesome was his marriage, what type of Divorce litigations he faced.
Perception shift:
Till 1990 or 2000, the basic perceptions were, a divorced woman is means she is a liberated women and a divorced men means he is a wife beater/abuser.
But 2000 onwards the same got changed and the society slowly accepted that A divorced men also can be victims of Domestic violence in terms of finciancial abuse, mental abuse, sexual abuse , physical abuse and the same reflects in the Suicide stastics of Men vs Women. As the divorce rate will increase more and more the same perception change will increase more, some one like it or hate it, that is the fact of irony.
Effect of Divorce on Men:
1. Finciancial effect: Huge irrespective he is right or wrong.
2. Government support : No men welfare ministry and no shelter homes.
3. Emotional effect: Depend on type of trouble he faced and type of divorce he got.
4. Loss of child access: Major problem and maximum divorced men suicide related to that.
5. Social effect: It is not exactly loss, his the social and networking circle got changed, attract towards more unclear family instead of joint family.
6. Future effect: Suicide after divorce: since 2004 it is decreasing.
7. JOB satisfactions: Get better and able to concentrate more on Professional front.
Remarriage:
1. Enjoy their work place much better than previous.
2. Spend more money for their self satisfactions of life.
3. Get less angry for small issue.
4. Became less expected in life.
5. 90% got remarried with in less than 3 years.
With the present set up , when the country like USA , who had more than 50% divorce, their child taken the marriage more workable and the rate is reducing, the country like India and Asian country is increasing and that is the cycle , as we always think the rivers other side is better than our side.
Most dangerous stage for men is, awaiting for divorce than after divorce as marriage disputes in India, irrespective the man is right or wrong (they had been abused, blackmailed, treated as Free ATM machine in front of society/police/court every where in India as in India the marriage disputes had been termed as crime for men, not for women) and waiting for divorce and the suicide stastics of crime bure report reflects the same.
Before marriage the men suicide in the rang of 56K vs women 28K
After divorce in the range of 600, both for men vs women.
After divorce the men’s life became more comfortable or worse, it depends purely on how troublesome was his marriage, what type of Divorce litigations he faced.
Perception shift:
Till 1990 or 2000, the basic perceptions were, a divorced woman is means she is a liberated women and a divorced men means he is a wife beater/abuser.
But 2000 onwards the same got changed and the society slowly accepted that A divorced men also can be victims of Domestic violence in terms of finciancial abuse, mental abuse, sexual abuse , physical abuse and the same reflects in the Suicide stastics of Men vs Women. As the divorce rate will increase more and more the same perception change will increase more, some one like it or hate it, that is the fact of irony.
Effect of Divorce on Men:
1. Finciancial effect: Huge irrespective he is right or wrong.
2. Government support : No men welfare ministry and no shelter homes.
3. Emotional effect: Depend on type of trouble he faced and type of divorce he got.
4. Loss of child access: Major problem and maximum divorced men suicide related to that.
5. Social effect: It is not exactly loss, his the social and networking circle got changed, attract towards more unclear family instead of joint family.
6. Future effect: Suicide after divorce: since 2004 it is decreasing.
7. JOB satisfactions: Get better and able to concentrate more on Professional front.
Remarriage:
1. Enjoy their work place much better than previous.
2. Spend more money for their self satisfactions of life.
3. Get less angry for small issue.
4. Became less expected in life.
5. 90% got remarried with in less than 3 years.
With the present set up , when the country like USA , who had more than 50% divorce, their child taken the marriage more workable and the rate is reducing, the country like India and Asian country is increasing and that is the cycle , as we always think the rivers other side is better than our side.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
What the HELL is - Legally Wedded Wife?
A married woman can just be a wife. If she is not covered under this single word then the only second possible word for her is - BITCH.
Then why create chaos for the term - "Legally wedded wife"
This explains the difference:
A wife in addition to acquiring the legal status of wife after marriage and
resultant rights as per the provisions of various laws of the land has also
certain duties and marital obligations towards her husband and family. A pious
wife, as one of the parties to a marriage, undoubtedly has the obligation to, as
far as possible and as long as possible, maintain the marriage by her
sanctimonious acts and deeds. The institution of marriage is more than a legal
relationship which is based on trust, faith, devotion and loyalty, being the
pillars of this association.
A cruel wife morally devoids herself of any benevolence. A lady who is cruel
and not sincere and pious in her relationship with her husband and family
ethically loses all her rights and privileges, although she continues to enjoy
and exercise the legal status of wife. She through her acts of continuous
bickering and perpetual bitterness leading to immorality wrecks the relationship
beyond the hope of salvage.
A legally wedded wife who deserts her husband without any just cause and
reason, performs acts of cruelty and thereafter intends to join the matrimonial
relationship has at least the obligation to justify her previous actions of
cruelty. A legally wedded wife having the sole objective of settling personal
vendetta against the her husband and his parents cannot be allowed to continue
the acts of cruelty and torture without any justification and reasons there-for
under the pretext of being a legally wedded wife and taking undue favour of her
legal rights.
Then why create chaos for the term - "Legally wedded wife"
This explains the difference:
A wife in addition to acquiring the legal status of wife after marriage and
resultant rights as per the provisions of various laws of the land has also
certain duties and marital obligations towards her husband and family. A pious
wife, as one of the parties to a marriage, undoubtedly has the obligation to, as
far as possible and as long as possible, maintain the marriage by her
sanctimonious acts and deeds. The institution of marriage is more than a legal
relationship which is based on trust, faith, devotion and loyalty, being the
pillars of this association.
A cruel wife morally devoids herself of any benevolence. A lady who is cruel
and not sincere and pious in her relationship with her husband and family
ethically loses all her rights and privileges, although she continues to enjoy
and exercise the legal status of wife. She through her acts of continuous
bickering and perpetual bitterness leading to immorality wrecks the relationship
beyond the hope of salvage.
A legally wedded wife who deserts her husband without any just cause and
reason, performs acts of cruelty and thereafter intends to join the matrimonial
relationship has at least the obligation to justify her previous actions of
cruelty. A legally wedded wife having the sole objective of settling personal
vendetta against the her husband and his parents cannot be allowed to continue
the acts of cruelty and torture without any justification and reasons there-for
under the pretext of being a legally wedded wife and taking undue favour of her
legal rights.
Women Reservation Bill - A Murder of Democracy
The Women's Reservation Bill has been at the center stage of debate since over a decade. Having introduced for the first time in 1996, the bill has undergone several layers of criticism. And in the last general elections, every political party promised the bill just to garner votes from the women lobby. But still, the political parties failed miserably in displaying integrity as no political party could cross the 10% "glass-ceiling" limit of fielding women candidates.
And now, in order to set record straight, the Govt. is headed to make the 81st Constitutional Amendment to make way for the bill. In layman words, the constitutional amendment reserves 1/3rd of Lok Sabha seats for women candidates and each constituency would be reserved once in every three election terms on a rotation basis.
Put other way round, men in the reserved constituencies will not be allowed to contest elections i.e. their choice to contest elections would be trampled upon only because of their gender. This is nothing but direct discrimination against men and that too those men who never stopped any woman from contesting elections nor have raised any objection to election tickets being given to women by the political parties. Not only that, the citizens of that particular constituency would be forced to select their political representative from a group of women only i.e. their choice to have their own representative will also be done away with.
Now the political parties, allowing them to be hijacked by fund chasing gender obsessed radical feminists, are infringing on the Constitutional Right of men to stand up in elections from their constituency. But the real problem does not lie with the men whose constitutional rights are being attacked. The real problem lies with the political parties and the stubborn old male politicians. The stubborn old male politicians (currently comprising 90% in the power circles) are simply not ready to give up their "Power Positions" to women and this deficit is not being filled by disallowing male politicians to continue in politics but by sabotaging the future prospects young potential male politicians.
It is analogous to a doctor performing by-pass surgery for knee fracture only because a heart surgeon is available and the orthopedic is too stubborn to perform the surgery or just because I do not have an underwear, I will take another person's shirt. Does that make any sense?
When Sonia Gandhi herself is not ready to risk a major revolution inside Congress parties by fielding 100 women candidates, why are the citizens, especially men, being told to risk a mutilated constitution. This act cannot be termed anything short of "Broad daylight murder of democracy" in order to retain power positions.
Moreover, even the Upper House of the Parliament - the Rajya Sabha has only 10% representation of women. What is stopping the Rajya Sabha members to imbibe more women into their cabinet when the Rajya Sabha is independent of the national elections and the electorate? It is clearly evident that the favorite activity of subverting men and their rights is actually being piggybacked in the name of this Constitutional Amendment under the carpet of Women's Reservation bill and being labeled as "Women Empowerment".
Is "Women's Empowerment impossible without Male Entrapment?"
When Kiran Majumdar Shaw can contest elections from any constituency of Bangalore, then even Vijay Malaya should be able to, but with the current constitutional amendment, if the constituency of Bangalore South gets reserved for women, then still Kiran Majumdar Shaw would be able to but Vijay Malaya would not be able to. Why should men put up with such bias?
Some more points worth noting:
1. Even after tabling the bill twice, the Congress party failed to inspire any confidence of higher representation of women [1], what is the guarantee that they will not fail again, after mutilating the Constitution?
2. If truly and actually they have the will to increase the participation of women in mainstream politics, why do they need a bill for that?
3. If the old male politicians are not allowing increased women participation why the price should be paid by the citizens?
4. Why should the future unborn generations of men, for all time to come, suffer from a raped Constitution and be disallowed to have their choice to contest in elections or select their representative only because of their gender?
5. Are women being considered any less capable than men that they cannot live without reservations and extra-concessions? And if that is so, then any amount of concessions is not going to work. In such a scenario how long are men being forced to live life like second-class citizens?
Earlier, the Govt. could easily pass another unconstitutional anti-male law and satisfy the fund chasing gender obsessed radical feminists in order to retain the power positions of the stubborn old male politicians. But, now things have changed. Now, citizens have launched a powerful tirade against such biased anti-male laws and thus, now the Govt. has come up with another sinister master-plan to retain power positions for stubborn old male politicians.
It is going forward to amend the Constitution so that all future generations of men pay the price of the stubbornness of this current generation of old males who cannot forego power even in their dusky days.
It is very clear, that under the barb and paradoxical veil of "Women Reservation Bill", actually the Govt. is murdering democracy in order to satisfy the greed and power hunger of stubborn old male politicians.
The onus now lies on citizens. Do they accept a mutilated constitution and allow democracy to be murdered in broad daylight or voice their opposition against "Reservation of Constituencies"?
If you feel you should speak up against this proposed murder of democracy and rape of Constitution, feel free to spread this article everywhere and to all and sundry.
And now, in order to set record straight, the Govt. is headed to make the 81st Constitutional Amendment to make way for the bill. In layman words, the constitutional amendment reserves 1/3rd of Lok Sabha seats for women candidates and each constituency would be reserved once in every three election terms on a rotation basis.
Put other way round, men in the reserved constituencies will not be allowed to contest elections i.e. their choice to contest elections would be trampled upon only because of their gender. This is nothing but direct discrimination against men and that too those men who never stopped any woman from contesting elections nor have raised any objection to election tickets being given to women by the political parties. Not only that, the citizens of that particular constituency would be forced to select their political representative from a group of women only i.e. their choice to have their own representative will also be done away with.
Now the political parties, allowing them to be hijacked by fund chasing gender obsessed radical feminists, are infringing on the Constitutional Right of men to stand up in elections from their constituency. But the real problem does not lie with the men whose constitutional rights are being attacked. The real problem lies with the political parties and the stubborn old male politicians. The stubborn old male politicians (currently comprising 90% in the power circles) are simply not ready to give up their "Power Positions" to women and this deficit is not being filled by disallowing male politicians to continue in politics but by sabotaging the future prospects young potential male politicians.
It is analogous to a doctor performing by-pass surgery for knee fracture only because a heart surgeon is available and the orthopedic is too stubborn to perform the surgery or just because I do not have an underwear, I will take another person's shirt. Does that make any sense?
When Sonia Gandhi herself is not ready to risk a major revolution inside Congress parties by fielding 100 women candidates, why are the citizens, especially men, being told to risk a mutilated constitution. This act cannot be termed anything short of "Broad daylight murder of democracy" in order to retain power positions.
Moreover, even the Upper House of the Parliament - the Rajya Sabha has only 10% representation of women. What is stopping the Rajya Sabha members to imbibe more women into their cabinet when the Rajya Sabha is independent of the national elections and the electorate? It is clearly evident that the favorite activity of subverting men and their rights is actually being piggybacked in the name of this Constitutional Amendment under the carpet of Women's Reservation bill and being labeled as "Women Empowerment".
Is "Women's Empowerment impossible without Male Entrapment?"
When Kiran Majumdar Shaw can contest elections from any constituency of Bangalore, then even Vijay Malaya should be able to, but with the current constitutional amendment, if the constituency of Bangalore South gets reserved for women, then still Kiran Majumdar Shaw would be able to but Vijay Malaya would not be able to. Why should men put up with such bias?
Some more points worth noting:
1. Even after tabling the bill twice, the Congress party failed to inspire any confidence of higher representation of women [1], what is the guarantee that they will not fail again, after mutilating the Constitution?
2. If truly and actually they have the will to increase the participation of women in mainstream politics, why do they need a bill for that?
3. If the old male politicians are not allowing increased women participation why the price should be paid by the citizens?
4. Why should the future unborn generations of men, for all time to come, suffer from a raped Constitution and be disallowed to have their choice to contest in elections or select their representative only because of their gender?
5. Are women being considered any less capable than men that they cannot live without reservations and extra-concessions? And if that is so, then any amount of concessions is not going to work. In such a scenario how long are men being forced to live life like second-class citizens?
Earlier, the Govt. could easily pass another unconstitutional anti-male law and satisfy the fund chasing gender obsessed radical feminists in order to retain the power positions of the stubborn old male politicians. But, now things have changed. Now, citizens have launched a powerful tirade against such biased anti-male laws and thus, now the Govt. has come up with another sinister master-plan to retain power positions for stubborn old male politicians.
It is going forward to amend the Constitution so that all future generations of men pay the price of the stubbornness of this current generation of old males who cannot forego power even in their dusky days.
It is very clear, that under the barb and paradoxical veil of "Women Reservation Bill", actually the Govt. is murdering democracy in order to satisfy the greed and power hunger of stubborn old male politicians.
The onus now lies on citizens. Do they accept a mutilated constitution and allow democracy to be murdered in broad daylight or voice their opposition against "Reservation of Constituencies"?
If you feel you should speak up against this proposed murder of democracy and rape of Constitution, feel free to spread this article everywhere and to all and sundry.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
LINKS TO CANDLE LIGHT PROTEST IN CHANDIGARH
http://www.theindiapost.com/2010/01/05/we-unwelcome-year-2010-victims/
http://www.internationalnewsandviews.com/?p=7010
http://www.himalyanpost.com/2010/01/05/we-unwelcome-year-2010-victims/
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100104151548mand.nb/topstory.html
http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-22260.html
http://www.centralchronicle.com/viewnews.asp?articleID=23310
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:Qv-dpEqcnrIJ:www.uniindia.com/unilive%255Cunisite.nsf/All/619EA14FB1F7C50D6525769D004CBFD0+candle+march+by+dowry+victims&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in
http://newsrack.in/stories/indiatogether/Human+Rights/3?start=21
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100101/cth1.htm#14
http://www.indianewscalling.com/print.php?tipid=4205
http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:8ccfb0687deca3b804785f66e2aa8ad1:1a4e9900a7d86396494d45c4840da28b/We-Unwelcome-Year-2010-Victims
http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:8ccfb0687deca3b804785f66e2aa8ad1:1a4e9900a7d86396494d45c4840da28b/We-Unwelcome-Year-2010-Victims
http://www.uniindia.com/unilive/unisite.nsf/All/619EA14FB1F7C50D6525769D004CBFD0
http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20091231/1416182.html
http://www.internationalnewsandviews.com/?p=7010
http://www.himalyanpost.com/2010/01/05/we-unwelcome-year-2010-victims/
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100104151548mand.nb/topstory.html
http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-22260.html
http://www.centralchronicle.com/viewnews.asp?articleID=23310
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:Qv-dpEqcnrIJ:www.uniindia.com/unilive%255Cunisite.nsf/All/619EA14FB1F7C50D6525769D004CBFD0+candle+march+by+dowry+victims&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in
http://newsrack.in/stories/indiatogether/Human+Rights/3?start=21
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100101/cth1.htm#14
http://www.indianewscalling.com/print.php?tipid=4205
http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:8ccfb0687deca3b804785f66e2aa8ad1:1a4e9900a7d86396494d45c4840da28b/We-Unwelcome-Year-2010-Victims
http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:8ccfb0687deca3b804785f66e2aa8ad1:1a4e9900a7d86396494d45c4840da28b/We-Unwelcome-Year-2010-Victims
http://www.uniindia.com/unilive/unisite.nsf/All/619EA14FB1F7C50D6525769D004CBFD0
http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20091231/1416182.html
Monday, January 4, 2010
CANDLE LIGHT AGAINST 498A IN CHANDIGARH
Chandigarh, December 31
Around 50 persons took out a candle march against the misuse of Section 498-A (dowry harassment) at the Sector 17 plaza here this evening.
They expressed resentment against the apathetic attitude of the government and judiciary towards their sufferings. These persons, who were implicated in “false” dowry harassment cases, termed 2009 as “Black Year”.
They urged the government to curb this “legal terrorism”.
They claimed that hundreds of families were being ruined by the blatant misuse of the law. They appealed to the government to take stern action against those, who misused the law to settle their scores.
(AS PUBLISHED IN THE TRIBUNE ON 1-1-10)
Around 50 persons took out a candle march against the misuse of Section 498-A (dowry harassment) at the Sector 17 plaza here this evening.
They expressed resentment against the apathetic attitude of the government and judiciary towards their sufferings. These persons, who were implicated in “false” dowry harassment cases, termed 2009 as “Black Year”.
They urged the government to curb this “legal terrorism”.
They claimed that hundreds of families were being ruined by the blatant misuse of the law. They appealed to the government to take stern action against those, who misused the law to settle their scores.
(AS PUBLISHED IN THE TRIBUNE ON 1-1-10)
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
SLEEPING JUDICIARY WAKES UP IN CHANDIGARH
CHANDIGARH: Backtracking on dowry allegations in court proved costly for a woman as she got entangled in her own web of lies, following which, a
show-cause notice was served to her for giving false evidence.
According to information, the Sector-25 based woman had levelled dowry charges against her 27-year-old husband, a resident of Sector 51, in May 2007.
In her police complaint, the woman alleged that soon after she got married, her husband started misbehaving and using derogatory language with her for bringing insufficient dowry.
She also alleged that she was thrashed and locked up in rooms on several occasions.
Subsequently, a case under sections 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust) and 498-A (husband or relative of a husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the IPC was registered against her husband on July 5, 2007.
However, the case took a new turn when during the court hearing on Monday, the complainant outright denied that she was harassed or maltreated by her husband or her in-laws.
The woman went on to state that a 'misunderstanding' had cropped up between the couple, due to which her relations turned sour with the in-laws, resulting in the two getting divorced.
Much to the surprise of the jury, the woman's parents also supported her statement and denied that she was never maltreated or harassed by her husband and his family.
Shocked at the turn of events, the prosecution declared the complainant hostile, while the judicial magistrate questioned her why she shouldn't be punished for giving false evidence in the court?
The magistrate in his judgment stated, "The complainant deliberately suppressed the truth and made a false statement knowing it could be used in the court proceedings. This clearly amounts to perjury."
He further said, "The complainant should be tried for giving false evidence in legal proceedings. A show-cause notice must be served to her under Section 344 of the CrPC, wherein she must explain why she should not be punished. Separate proceedings must be also initiated against her."
Meanwhile, the court acquitted the woman's husband by giving him the benefit of doubt.
show-cause notice was served to her for giving false evidence.
According to information, the Sector-25 based woman had levelled dowry charges against her 27-year-old husband, a resident of Sector 51, in May 2007.
In her police complaint, the woman alleged that soon after she got married, her husband started misbehaving and using derogatory language with her for bringing insufficient dowry.
She also alleged that she was thrashed and locked up in rooms on several occasions.
Subsequently, a case under sections 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust) and 498-A (husband or relative of a husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the IPC was registered against her husband on July 5, 2007.
However, the case took a new turn when during the court hearing on Monday, the complainant outright denied that she was harassed or maltreated by her husband or her in-laws.
The woman went on to state that a 'misunderstanding' had cropped up between the couple, due to which her relations turned sour with the in-laws, resulting in the two getting divorced.
Much to the surprise of the jury, the woman's parents also supported her statement and denied that she was never maltreated or harassed by her husband and his family.
Shocked at the turn of events, the prosecution declared the complainant hostile, while the judicial magistrate questioned her why she shouldn't be punished for giving false evidence in the court?
The magistrate in his judgment stated, "The complainant deliberately suppressed the truth and made a false statement knowing it could be used in the court proceedings. This clearly amounts to perjury."
He further said, "The complainant should be tried for giving false evidence in legal proceedings. A show-cause notice must be served to her under Section 344 of the CrPC, wherein she must explain why she should not be punished. Separate proceedings must be also initiated against her."
Meanwhile, the court acquitted the woman's husband by giving him the benefit of doubt.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
LIVE-IN RELATIONS - THE aasaan raasta
You can not afford to be more foolish to MARRY , if u born as an Indian male.
The practical situation is " IF BORN IN INDIA - DO NOT MARRY"
STATS OF LIVE-IN RELATIONS IN INDIA
Due to fear of 498a,DV all these biased laws following are the stats of living relations increased rather than marriage in Mumbai
Even you can find advertisements also on the nets,newspapers& hoardings & slogan is
"Bewkoof mat bano ,,asaan rasta chuno"
IN 2004 : 5479 people out of 1 lac
In 2007 : 23788 people out of 1 lac
In 2009 :118940 people out of 1.5 lac
The practical situation is " IF BORN IN INDIA - DO NOT MARRY"
STATS OF LIVE-IN RELATIONS IN INDIA
Due to fear of 498a,DV all these biased laws following are the stats of living relations increased rather than marriage in Mumbai
Even you can find advertisements also on the nets,newspapers& hoardings & slogan is
"Bewkoof mat bano ,,asaan rasta chuno"
IN 2004 : 5479 people out of 1 lac
In 2007 : 23788 people out of 1 lac
In 2009 :118940 people out of 1.5 lac
PATHETIC INDIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM
A seven-year-old has been charged in a dowry case in Bihar.
Santosh, a class four student has paid the price for a crime he did not commit.
"They framed me in a dowry case. I study in class 4. Police came to my house and asked for money. They threatened to send me to Munger otherwise," he said.
Santosh was named in a dowry harassment case last year along with his parents and his elder brother.
His parents and brother got bail after his father reached a compromise with the complainant. But given Santosh's tender age, the court didn't pass any specific bail order in his name.
Santosh's lawyer says there were serious lapses in the way the case was handled.
"The age of none of the accused has been mentioned in the entire case diary," said Vijay Maharaj.
Police admit they made a mistake but say the witnesses in the case had a role to play.
"None of the witnesses mentioned that the accused is under age. I agree that we have made a mistake in this case," said Amit Lodha, SP, Begusarai.
Police say Santosh can breathe easy irrespective of the outcome of the case. But this comes as cold comfort for someone who has learnt a bitter lesson so early in life.
Santosh, a class four student has paid the price for a crime he did not commit.
"They framed me in a dowry case. I study in class 4. Police came to my house and asked for money. They threatened to send me to Munger otherwise," he said.
Santosh was named in a dowry harassment case last year along with his parents and his elder brother.
His parents and brother got bail after his father reached a compromise with the complainant. But given Santosh's tender age, the court didn't pass any specific bail order in his name.
Santosh's lawyer says there were serious lapses in the way the case was handled.
"The age of none of the accused has been mentioned in the entire case diary," said Vijay Maharaj.
Police admit they made a mistake but say the witnesses in the case had a role to play.
"None of the witnesses mentioned that the accused is under age. I agree that we have made a mistake in this case," said Amit Lodha, SP, Begusarai.
Police say Santosh can breathe easy irrespective of the outcome of the case. But this comes as cold comfort for someone who has learnt a bitter lesson so early in life.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
SC scared of RTI Act.
This itself shows their insecurity!
If they do everything in the correct way, then why are they afraid of making
the process transparent for the citizens to audit? How can asking for any
information be treated as an interference, unless there's something which is
going to be exposed?
------------------------------------------------------------------
New Delhi: An appeal from the Supreme Court to itself may sound odd but its
unease with CIC’s orders has pushed the apex court to exercise the unusual
option. The SC moved the SC on Monday with appeals challenging orders of the
Central Information Commission
(CIC) asking it to divulge details relating to appointment of judges and
correspondence between the Chief Justice of India and Justice R Regupathy of
Madras HC on the alleged interference of a Union minister in a court case.
It had earlier moved the Delhi high court questioning a CIC order
directing opening up of information relating to declaration of assets by SC
judges. The appeal has been filed in the SC because of the feeling that the
apex court, being the final arbiter, should lay down guidelines on
applicability of RTI Act to matters relating to administration of justice.
Assailing the direction to make public information which were available
only with the CJI, the apex court in its two petitions, settled by attorney
general G E Vahanvati and drafted by advocate Devdatt Kamat, said the CJI
held the information pertaining to appointment of judges in a fiduciary
capacity, and hence it should be exempted from being made public under
Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
The short-cut taken by the apex court’s central principal information
officer (CPIO) in moving the SC instead of the normal course of approaching
the HC, is sure to raise eyebrows. The CPIO said it decided to come straight
to the SC because this is an issue of farreaching consequences and
substantial questions of law of general public interest, which have to be
ultimately and conclusively determined by the Supreme Court itself as the
top court of the country.
In one appeal, it challenged the CIC order directing SC to give details
of the decision not recommending the elevation of Justice A P Shah, Chief
Justice of Delhi HC, to SC even as the collegium headed by the CJI suggested
names of Chief Justices of four other HCs for appointment to the apex court.
In the second appeal, it sought setting aside of the CIC order asking SC
to furnish details to RTI applicant S C Agrawal of the correspondence
between the CJI and Justice R Regupathy of Madras HC on the incident in the
court in Chennai when the judge had alleged that a Union minister had tried
to influence him in a case pertaining to grant of anticipatory bail to a
person.
*Questions of law raised by the SC CPIO in both the appeals:
*Whether RTI applicant has a right to information relating to
appointment of judges under Section 2(J) of RTI Act
Whether the principles of independence of judiciary demand that the
functioning of judiciary should not be interfered with by ‘strangers and
busybodies’
If they do everything in the correct way, then why are they afraid of making
the process transparent for the citizens to audit? How can asking for any
information be treated as an interference, unless there's something which is
going to be exposed?
------------------------------------------------------------------
New Delhi: An appeal from the Supreme Court to itself may sound odd but its
unease with CIC’s orders has pushed the apex court to exercise the unusual
option. The SC moved the SC on Monday with appeals challenging orders of the
Central Information Commission
(CIC) asking it to divulge details relating to appointment of judges and
correspondence between the Chief Justice of India and Justice R Regupathy of
Madras HC on the alleged interference of a Union minister in a court case.
It had earlier moved the Delhi high court questioning a CIC order
directing opening up of information relating to declaration of assets by SC
judges. The appeal has been filed in the SC because of the feeling that the
apex court, being the final arbiter, should lay down guidelines on
applicability of RTI Act to matters relating to administration of justice.
Assailing the direction to make public information which were available
only with the CJI, the apex court in its two petitions, settled by attorney
general G E Vahanvati and drafted by advocate Devdatt Kamat, said the CJI
held the information pertaining to appointment of judges in a fiduciary
capacity, and hence it should be exempted from being made public under
Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
The short-cut taken by the apex court’s central principal information
officer (CPIO) in moving the SC instead of the normal course of approaching
the HC, is sure to raise eyebrows. The CPIO said it decided to come straight
to the SC because this is an issue of farreaching consequences and
substantial questions of law of general public interest, which have to be
ultimately and conclusively determined by the Supreme Court itself as the
top court of the country.
In one appeal, it challenged the CIC order directing SC to give details
of the decision not recommending the elevation of Justice A P Shah, Chief
Justice of Delhi HC, to SC even as the collegium headed by the CJI suggested
names of Chief Justices of four other HCs for appointment to the apex court.
In the second appeal, it sought setting aside of the CIC order asking SC
to furnish details to RTI applicant S C Agrawal of the correspondence
between the CJI and Justice R Regupathy of Madras HC on the incident in the
court in Chennai when the judge had alleged that a Union minister had tried
to influence him in a case pertaining to grant of anticipatory bail to a
person.
*Questions of law raised by the SC CPIO in both the appeals:
*Whether RTI applicant has a right to information relating to
appointment of judges under Section 2(J) of RTI Act
Whether the principles of independence of judiciary demand that the
functioning of judiciary should not be interfered with by ‘strangers and
busybodies’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)