- Lack of accountability increases arrogance and reduces quality of judgments.
- One single human error in making a judgement can cost several productive years of a common man.
- Lack of awareness about latest SC judgments of both lawyers and judges can cost several productive years of a common man.
- Placement of judges based on recommendations/influence (even from organizations abroad) is affecting the integrity of the system.
- Lawyers writing judgments denigrates and defeats the purpose!
- Lack of video recording and loud speakers makes litigants unaware of proceedings and subject to exploitation.
- Judges settling or help settle personal scores with litigants makes mockery of the system.
- Lack of analytical and philosophical skills produces only judgments not justice!
To assure the public money is best spent and quality of judgement is maintained, there shall have a central body transparent to public capable of
a) Setting the standard procedure of hiring, maintenance of status and firing
i) Procedure for hiring shall include written test, aptitude test
and internship period
ii) After successful internship a status of “Judge” be given which
shall always be temporary.
iii)Periodic assessments/review shall be performed to maintain
the “Judge” status failing which they shall be put back into
the internship pool.
iv) The internship period salary shall be one fourth of active “Judges”
v) Firing shall be of those who lose “Judge” status more than 2 times
in their life time, and violates code of conduct which includes
but not limited to showing respect towards litigants and lawyers.
b) Setting standard procedure and panel for internal assessments/review of all judgements to ensure quality and eliminate biases
i) There shall be a profile of all those who are hired, maintained by
the central body, consisting of “Professional History”;
which includes, but not limited to, date of hire, status history,
attendance history, number of cases handled, duration of
each case, court name & address, links to judgments, whether
gone for appeal or not, salary info etc.
ii) All reviews and suggestions made by the panel should be published
online and shall come under the RTI act.
c) Video recording with audio and store all court proceedings; links of videos
be added to the corresponding “Professional History”.
d) Ensuring a minimum of 3 judge bench in all the courts including family courts,
lok adalat and tribunals.
e) Ensuring periodic workshops to reduce human biases, which shall be one
of the criteria for maintaining the “Judge” status.
i) Video record with sound and store all periodic workshops; links
of videos be added to the corresponding “Professional History”.
f) There shall be a standard process to address the grievances of public in
all of the above.
Here is the big picture of divorce epidemic in the Indian sub-continent. Though the numbers may not seem alarming to western readers this is indeed a whopping number for Indians. If not checked immediately this is going to grow exponentially and will destroy the foundation of a great nation which has over 10000 years of continuous heritage to claim. Solution is simple… stick to the roots, be who you are…. stick to the principles; as opposed to being copycats.
Satyam vada (Speak the truth.)
Dharmam Chara (Practice righteous dharmam)
Ahimsa paramo dharmam (Non-violence greatest dharmam)
Satyameva jayathe (Truth alone Triumphs)
Matru Devo Bhava (Consider your Mother as a form of God)
Pitru Devo Bhava (Consider your Father as a form of God)
Athithi Devo Bhava Consider your Guests as a form of God)
A lot of people including myself are utter confused about what is going on in India. A good number of them even quit thinking about this or refusing to talk about it.. Not because of lack of interest but instead its brain twisting, tiring and unable to reach a rational conclusion.
When there is a road accident, obviously, the wrong doer has to compensate the victim; who is at wrong is decided by the justice system and there are companies who give insurance coverage for such unexpected incidents in return for a relatively small monthly premium. Take another scenario where a person incurred damage using any products or services the manufacturer or the service provider, whatever the case may be, is made responsible for paying the compensation. If the State is at fault then State is made liable. If there is a natural disaster like earthquake, where no one is at fault, governments do pay reliefs to the victims. See, the logic and economics are very easy to understand, isn’t it?
Now here is another whole different scenario where one party consciously does a crime and the State compensates the victim using tax money. You might have never heard of a deal like this in any other country! Does that sound very promising, where a third of the nation are unemployed and another third makes hardly enough to stay alive. Not done yet; add gender to the equation. Surprisingly enough, this utopian deal is only for those who have certain organs. I know, I know… Article 15(3) of the Constitution allows the State to discriminate based on gender. I’m also aware of the fact that international politics works on the basis of UN defined ‘atrocities’ and “Responsibility To Protect”, “humanitarian bombing” and all the rest of it, where the “definitions” are made by the groups which are of imperial interests. As per recent report of Intelligence Bureau foreign stakeholders are running Dalit movements and Women atrocities movement within the homeland of India. But, is that the reasoning behind 33% ban on male candidates in state police? Is that the reasoning for 50% ban on men, in certain panchayat/municipal constituencies? Is that the reasoning for total ban on men in certain public transportation? Is that the reasoning for no legal protection for men under Domestic Violence Act, Workplace Harassment Act so on and so on… What I failed to understand is, is there any boundary for this provision? Is it open for abuse? Where to draw the line and say enough is enough? In olden days missionary-imperialist nexus consciously and deliberately gave undue privileges to certain groups of people on the basis of physical differences, brand them into various sects in order to divide, rule and wipe out all national identity and cultural heritage. Are we facing the continuation of their same agenda using tactically improved ways towards their unattained goal?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against financial support/relief/compensation/penalty or any such legal jargons. I’m just trying to understand what are we gaining by total systemic neglect towards half of the population? It has gone to the extend that our State records rarely have the word children, its “Girl Child” now! Is this a step forward or several steps backwards? Would un-opinionated people of India, if there are any left, wake up and say no to this propaganda politics and start asking for reasoning?
The following is the information collected through application under Right To Information Act, so far, from a small jurisdiction in India. Please pay attention to the verbiages highlighted and also the figures in the table given below.
- Two hundred years before Alexander’s attack on India (326 BC), Queen Nayanika was ruler and military commander of the Satavanhana Empire of the Deccan region (south-central India).
- In 300 BC, Princess Kumaradevi married Prince Chandragupta, and they ruled their two kingdoms as co-regents.
- In the 13th century, Sultana Raziyya ruled in Delhi.
- 1259 – 1289 A.D. Rani Rudrama Devi belonged to the Kakatiya dynasty on the Deccan Plateau.
- 1524 – 1564 A.D. – Rani Durgawati ruled over Gondwana on behalf of her son Bir Narayan after the death of Dalpat Shah the ruler of Gondwana.
- 1550 – 1599 A.D – Chand Biwi a.k.a Chand Khatun or Chand Sultana.
- 1725 – 1795 A.D. – Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar ruled over Ahmednagar
- 1778 – 1829 A.D. – Kittur Rani Chennamma ruled state of Belgaum in Karnataka
- 1835 – 1858 A.D. – Rani Lakshmi Bai ruler of Jhansi
- 1858 A.D. Rani Avantibai ruler of Ramgarh State.
- 1966 to 1977- Indira Gandhi Prime Minister of India
- 2 October 1963 – 13 March 1967 Sucheta Kriplani Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh
- 14 June 1972 – 3 March 1973 6 March 1974 – 16 December 1976 Nandini Satpathy Chief Minister of Orissa
- 2 August 1973 – 27 April 1979 Shashikala Kakodkar Chief Minister of Goa
- 6 December 1980 – 30 June 1981 Syeda Anwara Taimur Chief Minister of Assam
- 7–30 January 1988 Janaki Ramachandran Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu
- 24 June 1991 – 12 May 1996 J. Jayalalithaa Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu
- 13 June 1995 – 18 October 1995 Mayawati Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh
- 21 January 1996 – 12 February 1997 Rajinder Kaur Bhattal Chief Minister of Punjab
- 1 February 1999, 9 March 1999 – 2 March 2000, 11 March 2000 – 6 March 2005 Rabri Devi Chief Minister of Bihar
- 13 October 1998 – 3 December 1998 Sushma Swaraj Chief Minister of Delhi
- Delhi 3 December 1998 – 8 December 2013 Sheila Dikshit Chief Minister of Delhi
- 8 December 2003 – 23 August 2004 Uma Bharati Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh
- 8 December 2003 – 11 December 2008, 8 December 2013 – present Vasundhara Raje Chief Minister of Rajasthan
- 20 May 2011 – present Mamata Banerjee Chief Minister of West Bengal
Note – Chief Minister is similar to Governor in USA (Though India do have a ceremonial Governor for each State)
[India has a long history approximating 10,000+ years (Archeological evidences of Harappan community shows it was built on Rig Vedic constructs); built on Sanathana Dharma ideologies a.k.a Hinduism having Sanskrit as the root language, Vedic Science, Vedic Math and Ayurveda to constitute a fully developed civilization.]
There has always been multiple arguments about the origin of feminism. Some believe it is owned and funded by capitalists to bring women to the workforce so as to boost the sales and hike the prices/profits. Some believe feminism was formed as a women’s wing of radical communists/socialists to bring them to workforce, tax everyone, dismantle families and take ownership of kids, and there by establish a totalitarian state.
Recently, I happen to listen to Dr. Rajiv Dixit’s speech comparing Indian and Western civilization. He claims to have done plenty of research on European culture and India culture. Most interesting to me, in his speech, was his references to Plato’s concepts of feminism dating back to 420BC! His comments were unbelievably insane; so I decided to do a fact check. Here is what I found in Plato’s one of the great works, The Republic. I’m totally astonished by the way Plato, Socrates and others approach an issue in question and how they reach a conclusion. It is a philosophical marvel that is guaranteed to take you to the higher levels of your thoughts.
This book is all about philosophical answers to “What is Justice?” and “What does one’s ‘right’ mean”? In the process of analyzing and explaining these questions, Plato visualizes an ideal State, its citizens and their roles in the society. It is a highly intellectual discussion took place at the residence of Polemarcus in port of Athens. Socrates, Thrasymachus, Plato’s elder brothers Ademantus, Glaucon and few others were also parties in this discussion. Information provided here are from the book that you see in the picture above; I’ve borrowed only a few lines out of 408 pages and I’m sure this will encourage you to buy and read the whole book.
Plato was influenced by Spartan society and some of the features of his own ideal society are borrowed from it. Spartans were a military caste, in which the individual was rigidly subordinated to the community. When a child was born it was submitted to the inspection of the heads of the tribe, and if they judged it to be unhealthy or weak, it was exposed to die on the slopes of Mount Taygetos. They had a high repute for chastity; but if the government directed them to breed children for the State, they had no scruples in obeying the command, though it should involve a violation of the sanctity of the marriage-tie. Plato calls it Timarchy, and also criticizes its exploitation of the lowest class as a wrong relation between ruler and ruled, liable to lead to serious disunity. He criticizes its intellectual limitations.
The population of Athens when Plato was born was perhaps 200-300000 including men women and slaves; and Athens was by Greek standards large. In its democracy the vote was confined to the adult male citizen population. Greeks never invented representative government, and the sovereign body at Athens was the Assembly, a mass meeting of all adult male citizens. One of Plato’s own criticisms of democracy was that its politicians constantly mislead it, governing by propaganda rather than reason.
‘The Republic‘ has three modules regarding women and family as follows:
The Status of Women
Here it is identified that the only difference between men and women is one of physical function – one begets, the other bears children. Apart from that, both can and both should follow the same range of occupations and perform the same functions; though men will, on the whole, perform them better. They should share all duties, though we should treat the females as the weaker, the males as the stronger. Can you use any animal for the same purpose as another, unless you bring it up and train it in the same way? They figured, we shall have to train the women also, then, in both kinds of skill, and train them for war as well, and treat them in the same way as the men.
For the purpose of argument they also question themselves, what professions or occupations in the structure of society men and women are differently suited by nature? They said, we need not waste time over exceptions like weaving and various cooking operations, at which women are thought to be experts, and get badly laughed at if a man does them better. So in general, one sex is much better at everything than the other. A good many women, it is true, are better than a good many men at a good many things. There is therefore no administrative occupation which is peculiar to woman as woman or man as man; natural capacities are similarly distributed in each sex, and it is natural for women to take part in all occupations as well as men, though in all, women will be the weaker partners. As they are the weaker sex, we must give them a lighter share of these duties than men.
Marriage and Family
Here is the biggest wave that is going to drown you for sure; Plato is of the opinion that if men and women are to lead the same lives, the family must be abolished. But the sex instinct has to be satisfied and controlled, and new citizens produced. Plato therefore substitutes for the family a system of eugenic breeding analogous to that used in breeding domestic animals. He says, “that our men and women Guardians should be forbidden by law to live together in separate households, and all the women should be common to all the men; similarly, children should be held in common, and no parent should know its child, or child its parent. We must, if we are to be consistent, and if we’re to have a real pedigree herd, mate the best of our men with the best of our women as often as possible, and the inferior men with the inferior women as seldom as possible, and bring up only the offspring of the best. And no one but the Rulers must know what is happening, if we are to avoid dissension in our Guardian herd”.
The plan laid out for the kids here is, “officers will take the children of the better Guardians to a nursery and put them in charge of nurses living in a separate part of the city: the children of the inferior Guardians, and any defective offspring of the others, will be quietly and secretly disposed of. They will arrange for the suckling of the children by bringing their mothers to the nursery when their breasts are still full, taking every precaution to see that no mother recognizes her child; if the mothers have not enough milk they will provide wet-nurse. They will see that the mothers do not suckle children for more than a reasonable length of time, and will hand over all the sitting up at night and hard work to nurses and attendants”
Promotion Demotion and Infanticide
What he says about promotion and demotion runs as follows: “ You will remember too that we said that the children of the good were to be brought up, and those of the bad distributed secretly among the rest of the community; and the Rulers were to keep an eye on the children as they grew up and promote any who deserved it, and degrade into the places of the promoted any in their own ranks who seemed unworthy of their position.” Here the ‘secret distribution‘ of the Timaeus is very similar to the ‘quiet and secret disposal‘ of The Republic. To sum up, Plato seems to have sanctioned infanticide(1) of defective children (the grounds here would be eugenic), (2) of children born to over-age Guardians (eugenic grounds again) (3) of children in any sense illegitimate (ie. Conceived in contravention of the laws regulating the relation of the sexes).
Most of you might be familiar with some of the words (not original concepts) mentioned here; eugenics, infanticide, abolishing family, nurseries, day care and all the rest of it. After reading this, you should be aware of its origin and if you still have no clue why you are hearing these in your day to day life, as if someone is trying to implement these ideas on a global scale, I would recommend you to watch this “UN Agenda 21 EXPLAINED, full version”.
If you are interested to watch Rajiv Dixit’s speech you may watch it here in YouTube “Bharat Aur Europe Ki Sabhyata Aur Sanskriti by Sri Rajiv Dixit”
उत्तिष्टता जाग्रता प्राप्यवरण निभोदता
Justice Verma committee recently suggested the government to recognise and penalise rape with in marriage. Feminists across the nation are conducting demonstrations where ever possible to get this enacted. Those who control the media encouraged it to condition the public view regarding this. Media took this as a great opportunity to get some extra viewers and readers. But government rejected the suggestion saying that there is no consensus on this issue yet and the subject which has far reaching consequences is not debated well enough. Let us set aside our impulses, sentiments and prejudices and attempt to check whether or not the demand is valid.
Even though Justice Verma committee report is the first official INDIAN record (to my knowledge) to include the phrase “marital rape”, it was originated from Rockefeller’s UN CEDAW committee. For all practical purposes of this debate, lets take this report as the source and go by that. The CEDAW report suggested to remove the exception of marital rape from the definition of rape in indian penal code. The report lays out all the existing definitions and also cites various supreme court decisions regarding rape. The question what remains is that, whether or not “consent” for the purpose of IPC 375 is implied within marriage for every intercourse.
To answer that, first we should differentiate intercourse within and outside marriage. To differentiate that further, obviously, we should define what ‘marriage‘ is. Undoubtedly, marriage was originally a religious concept which was later hijacked by the State. So what is marriage as per the State? Well, that depends on what kind of religious belief one follows. For Hindu followers, the State has defined Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, followers of Islam didn’t allow the State to hijack their beliefs so they can follow their own Shariah law, followers of Christianity the State has defined Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, for others the State has defined Special Marriage Act. Since majority of the Indian population are Hindus we shall check HMA 1955 first, to see what marriage is…
Section 2 of this Act says, it is applicable to anyone who is governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage.
Section 3(a) defines
the expressions “custom” and “usage” signify any rule which, having been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time, has obtained the force of law among Hindus in any local area, tribe, community, group or family: Provided that the rule is certain and not unreasonable or opposed to public policy; and Provided further that in the case of a rule applicable only to a family it has not been discontinued by the family;
That’s what the State says; lets take a look at what the religion says:
(i)According to the Hindu scriptures marriage is the basis of all religious activities. In the words of author K.M Kapadia marriage is primarily for the fulfillment of duties; the basic aim of marriage was dharma.
(ii) Procreation: In Hindu families the child is given a very important place. According to Rig Veda, the husband accepts the palm of wife in order to get a high breed progeny. According to Manusmrithi, the chief aim of marriage is procreation; Mahabarat has also maintained the same view.
(iii)Sexual pleasure: The Hindu scriptures have compared the sexual pleasure with the relation of divine bliss. According to Vatsyanyan sexual pleasure is the chief aim in marriage.
So, “consent” for the purpose of IPC 375 is already established in those marriages solemnized under HMA 1955. The beneficiaries of this particular Act are those who follow the Hindu beliefs, so it is obvious that they enter in to marriage with those principles laid out in their holy scriptures. That being said, if State wants to recognise marital rape among this community, then it has to repeal Hindu marriage Act to begin with. There is a severe race condition here which makes that impossible! Other religions derived from Hinduism should be following the same principles. So their consent is also implicitly validated.
For those who follow Christianity, even though Bible has no clear definition of marriage, the commonly held beliefs as per http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/a/marriagecovenan.htm
The couple is married in the eyes of God when the physical union is consummated through sexual intercourse.
- The couple is married in the eyes of God when the couple is legally married.
- The couple is married in the eyes of God after they have participated in a formal religious wedding ceremony.
Here also sexual intercourse is considered as an essential ingredient of marriage and hence consent is implied. If State wants to recognise marital rape among this community, then it has to repeal The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872!
What’s left out is the Special Marriage Act. Here also the State is leaving the definitions customs and usages to the religions, so “consent” for the purpose of IPC 375 is already established in those marriages too.
To me it looks like the only option for those spouses who are doubtful about possible rape attempt or rape is to get out of the marriage. There are plenty of women centric laws to make that process easy and fruitful; (male victims please excuse). As mentioned above, conceptually, marriage is a license for sex; either for procreation or physical pleasure. Just the way the license to drive a vehicle is issued; you are allowed to drive, but if you break the rules you get a ticket to pay the fine, not a life sentence. Same way, Domestic Violence Act already deals with sexual abuses that resembles a traffic violation; only drawback is it doesn’t recognise male victims and that is what we need to fix!
I don’t believe that, in a smooth running family all of a sudden one spouse pounce on the other and rape him/her. Forget about violent sex! apparently, what Indian couples face is a serious problem of lack of sex. See this Times of India article Indian couples have less sex? Well, that doesn’t surprise me; in general, sex dies within early years of marriage but the relationship continues based on the emotional bonding and the newly generated biological relationship through kids.
The bottom line is, don’t let United Nations define our internal laws; welfare of women is not their goal; they are up to bringing New World Order and depopulation; family laws should be family friendly; it should not be a tool to break the family or settle scores or to make a deal.
3 member Justice Verma committee wrote 644 pages long report in 18 days [last date to submit deliberations was on Jan 5 and report came out on Jan 23rd, hence 18days; skeptics can add few more days at will] after scrutinising about 80000 deliberations submitted by public!!! Unbelievable huh? Whatever it may be, lets assume that they did it, they did a great job! Let us assume there was no involvement of political hyenas waiting for the right event to push their hidden agenda. Let us not be cynical and go over the report in nondiscriminatory way. Before we peep into this monster report let me remind you the purpose for which this committee was constituted; The report itself says “This Committee was constituted by Govt of India Notification No. SO(3003)E, dated Dec 23, 2012 to look into possible amendments of the Criminal Law to provide for quicker trial and enhanced punishment for criminals committing sexual assault of extreme nature against women”. If your brain is not over-sensitised and biased towards women I would solicit your attention to this critical analysis.
First of all let me point out the unprecedented references to United Nations in the report. Justice Verma, please enlighten me with India’s constitutional liability, if any, towards meeting the UN agreements, rules, regulations, goals and standards. Why would a sovereign nation’s law making process ever consider the UN orders and obligations towards them? Are we subservient to Rockefeller’s United Nations? Were the committee got paid by the tax payers or by the globalists?
Interestingly enough, this committee made an astonishing finding that the main villain is “patriarchy” that impairs the dignity of women. During the 30 days period this committee had contacted several government authorities like Delhi police commissioner, chief minister, CBI, National commission for protection of Child Rights, National commission for women, various registrars of high courts across the nation, so on and so forth; but I couldn’t find any questions asking for the role of this main villain in the offenses committed in their respective jurisdictions. Since their responses are not included in the report I don’t know how did the committee reach this conclusion!
If I get the concept of patriarchy right, it is a form of social code-of-ethics and conduct practiced by some religious communities where men takes the role of protector and provider, and women live a life free of cost. A peculiar setup in which, from cradle to grave everything is provided to women. Now Justice Verma committee recommends to shift that role, not to the sovereign women, but to the government. Remember, this is a government which do not even recognise the value of time, the need to have proper sanitation, even the need of enough public latrines and don’t know how to run the ones that exists! First they make enough draconian laws to boot away men from women and then pull the plug; just the way Aadhaar scam worked, first they announced cash transfer to lure the naive and strip the entire public off of their privacy and valuable information, put them all in a database like criminals, then they say cash transfer is possible only after everyone gets bank account!!! I know, I know you are lost; but don’t worry read on, I will try my best to clear the smoke screen.
There are some excellent recommendations in this report which definitely deserve some applause. In general most of the suggested amendments are gender neutral. Recommendation to introduce separate sections for gang rape, repeated offenses and differentiating rape from other non-violent assaults are laudable. Report also lays out a clear procedure of investigating sexual assault cases. Here I’m listing only those that caught my attention and I feel inappropriate.
This committee lays out a long description about female feticide, infanticide, malnutrition, tradition and religious practices, Khap panchayaths, honor killing and all those typical radical feminazi arguments and failed to quote any references or citations to the basis of those claims. None of these are backed by any scientific studies or surveys and to my knowledge these are not gender issues. And then the report says,
“In view of the above, we come to the following conclusions and make the following recommendations:”
As far as prevention of rape is concerned, (which is obviously not the set goal of this committee) the suggestions set forth by this committee are very silly like installing street lights, provide sanitation, outlaw tinted glasses on vehicles, increase police patrol etc. There is no constructive plans laid out to overhaul the totally dysfunctional justice system.
Committee decriminalise child sex or encourages it?
Committee recommends that the age of consent be reduced to sixteen. It says, this is not to criminalise consensual sex between two individuals even if they are below eighteen years of age. This is because UN convention on child rights 11th December, 1992 said so and Government of India has acceded to that. See, now Rockefeller’s United Nation decides at what age kids in India can have sex! Unless and until we have veto power in UN we should not honor any of the madness they create. Why didn’t the committee recommend to amend marriage acts to reduce the marriageable age? Is it intended to create a community of unmarried teen parents?
When the right of private defense of the body extends to causing death:
The present suggestion to amendment IPC Section 100 is gender neutral and fits quite well in a genuine crime scene. But the suggested clauses like intention of committing rape, unnatural lust, intention of kidnapping or abducting are extremely hard to prove. What is the definition of “unnatural lust”?
Reading it together with the other suggestion of recognising sex without consent inside marriage as rape and the numerous murder cases where men and women are murdered for money or extramarital affairs, this clause, if implemented, will only do more good to such murderers than to genuine rape victims.
166A. Public Servant knowingly disobeying direction of law
This suggestion recommends to punish those officers, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years rigorous imprisonment and fine, who do not record information given to him under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; but it only applies to a handful of sections!!! Is it any less crime if they do so in other offenses?
More over considering the magnitude of the abuse of other women centric laws like domestic violence act, 498(A) and even the existing rape clause “sex based on marriage promise”, this clause, if implemented, will open up new greener pastures for unscrupulous women and will over-burden judiciary and tax payers.
326A.Voluntarily causing grievous hurt through use of acid etc:
This is an attempt to classify a crime based on the tools used for the assault which appears to be very naive and not well-thought. More over, it will bring 10+ years of imprisonment for a crime as minor as leaving a scratch, cut or bruise; to me it looks like an attempt to target the Muslim community as it includes genital mutilation; all under the cover of acid attack!!! Point to be noted is that “Irreversible damage” is not a precondition here. As I mentioned above, now it is gender neutral but worth keeping an eye on.
354. Sexual Assault and Punishment for sexual assault
Committee failed to define the offense in an unambiguous way leaving lots of confusion that can result in total destruction of basic human values and will lead to utter chaos as what happened in domestic violence act and IPC498(A) cases.
(a)Intentional touching of another person when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient’s consent;
What is the definition of “sexual nature” here? Is that depending on the perspective of the judge who hear the case or is that based on the perception of the ‘victim’ or something else? Should the consent be written, oral or should no-news be considered as good-news? At what point a gesture of affection become assault, is totally missed out in this recommendation.
Section 375: Rape
Here, taking out the most absurd clause “sex under the false promise of marriage” is extremely laudable. Hi-fives to Justice Verma. If passed into law, this will definitely reduce heck load of work off the shoulders of police and judiciary for sure. Even though the language of definitions are generally gender neutral and acceptable the following explanation is bit icky.
Explanation III: Consent will not be presumed in the event of an existing marital relationship between the complainant and the accused.
Explanation IV. – Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the person by words, gestures or any form of non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific act.
Provided that, a person who does not offer actual physical resistance to the act of penetration is not by reason only of that fact, to be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.
It is icky not because the definition is unclear or wrong, but because it undermines the legitimacy of a relationship which is considered to be sacred by many. If a couple cannot find agreement in the act of exercising fundamental bondage, they shouldn’t be living together in the first place; neither that relationship is eligible to be called as marriage. In the case of Sexual harassment at workplace bill, the main argument for not making it gender neutral is by challenging the number of incidents of such harassment happened to men. In this particular case of marital rape, it would be easy to collect medical reports if any such violent incident ever occurred, but none got cited here. This provision only helps to simply deny consent as an afterthought and so doesn’t attract any merits. I know this is an imported piece of legislation from morally underdeveloped western countries. Until we lay out a proper investigation procedure and legislating prenuptial agreements, this piece of recommendation has to be totally discarded. No spouse should bet 7+years of their life (possibly their very life itself, if IPC100 recommendation becomes law) to run a family. What is the need to make the institution of family so ugly, dangerous and a hostile environment? If the goal is to reduce population by discouraging marriages, let me tell the committee with all due respect, it’s not to meet this purpose that we tax payers paid you.
Amendment to the proviso to section 160. Lifting the age limit of boys from 16 to 18 is greatly appreciated. The investigating officer will have to record his statement at his own residence.
Insertion of Section 198B:
Wife can accuse husband for rape and court has to take cognizance but if husband does the same courts cannot! Husband has to go the police file a complaint, and convince the police and at the mercy of the officer he may or may not get justice. Is this the constitutionally guaranteed equality before law as per Justice Verma? Embarrassing!!!
AMENDMENTS OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
Amendment to Section 114A
‘114A. (1) In a prosecution for rape under sub-section (2) of section 376 or for gang rape under Section 376C of the Indian Penal Code, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the other person alleged to have been raped and such other person states in his/her evidence before the court that she or he did not consent, the court shall presume that she or he did not consent.
This is the most notorious and shameful suggestion in the whole report. Conviction based on Presumptions and assumptions are a total disgrace to any modern justice system. This contradicts with the basic principles like “treating innocent until proven guilty”, proving an offense “beyond reasonable doubt” and also takes away the inherent right of judiciary to apply its mind!!! If implemented, it will enable any women to file rape suite after any type of intercourse; whether paid or unpaid. It opens up the pandora box for the blackmailers and retaliators totally discarding natural justice!. Shame on you Mr. Verma!
Amendment to Section 146
“it shall not be permissible to adduce evidence or to put questions in the cross- examination of the victim as to his or her general moral character, or as to his or her previous sexual experience with any person.”
Hard coding moral rules into an Act is not a progressive step. I am not a proponent to put restrictions on what to ask or what not to ask. Lawyers should ask this this and this, don’t ask this and that, court should presume this this and this, assume this or that; what is going on here? Is this recommendation coming from a former Chief Justice? Absurd! It may, if otherwise earth is going to stop oscillating, fit in the Bar Council Rules but definitely not in any Act or code.
AMENDMENT TO THE ARMED FORCES (SPECIAL POWERS) ACT, 1958
This one has already gained its fair share of criticism. See what Times of India reported.
“I have almost 1,000 personnel under me, and they are spread across some five kilometres. They could go on leave, or temporary duty. How am I to ensure their sexual conduct throughout the year, 24 hours a day?” asks a Commanding Officer of and army unit.
Some obvious questions.
I hope now you got an insight about the rotten and stinky parts of this report. Do you think it is for the good of the society to have this kind of irrational laws? Do you think it is for the benefit of women in the long run or even in the short run? Do you think these are human errors? Do you think this is a step forward, as a society? Do you think it will improve our civilisation? If your answer to any one of those question is ‘No’ what would you think is the reason for this “mistake”? What are the chances that this report is highly influenced and politically inflated? What is the reason to allocate several pages bragging about constitution, gender equality and what not, but at the same time lay out a SEPARATE bill of rights for one gender? Isn’t this an attempt by a political party to play the good samaritan role; the savior of women; the champion of women empowerment and the chances of that party is so weak and feeble in the upcoming election? Do you have at least 10% hope in implementing 1% of this report? Do you think it is a political gimmick wasting tax-payer’s money? Do you think there is external influence in destabilising our social fabric? What could be the reason to include baseless unscientific unproven feminazi delusions in this report? Why is UN so important for internal law making of a sovereign nation?
New World Order operative’s plan to destroy the foundation of our nation is working out pretty well.
Morons in India are applauding it as women empowerment.
Who is the single largest sponsor of feminism? Rockefeller Foundation…
Where is UN head office sitting? On Rockefeller’s property (though donated)…
Who is running ICICI bank? The Rockefellers…
Who is running Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)? The Rockefellers…
Who wants to implant RFID chip on every human being on earth? The Rockefellers…
What is the first step towards RFID? Aadhaar/UID
Who is Rothchild’s puppet? The Rockefellers…
Who wants to introduce Aadhaar/UID in India… THE BANKS…..
Who is the the Father of RBI? Lord Rothchilds….
Who is the financial advisory of Govt of India? The Rothchilds
Read “Is boy preference a brain product of CFR” and learn more.
उत्तिष्टता जाग्रता प्राप्यवरण निभोदता