Thursday, June 5, 2014

World environmental day


I was still not born when the first world environment day was celebrated in the year 1973. Since then, it has been hosted every year by a different city with different theme. Media and celebrities have encouraged World Environment Day celebrations by endorsing and taking part in it. Every year some or the other campaign is launched and celebrated, and awards given to people who have taken part in environmental activities.

This year I have read some newspapers talking about the motor bike rally as part of world environmental day. What an irony this is! I do not understand how the environmental day and bike rally go together.

When I was growing up there was no TV; I also do not remember any one in our village receiving newspapers on a daily basis. My education towards the environment is not through newspapers or TV news, but through our daily association with nature.

We were told by our parents and elders in the family and the village that the Mango tree gives us mango to eat and to make pickle which can be used while eating meals, leaves to decorate the house door and branches to cook food, stems are used to make  doors, chairs, beds, and of course for shade in the summer and for many other uses. My other best one was the “arrack tree”; it provided natural alcohol to the villagers, succulent fruit and the leaves of which were used to make mattress or for many other household uses including construction. The list is endless, but what  is clear is that the affiliation of the people with the tree is not for one purposel it is multipurpose.

When we used to walk on the road even in mid-summer, the heat would hardly hit  us because both sides of the road were completely covered by trees. When I used to come to my college in Bangalore from my village which is 35 kms from the city in the bus, I could feel as if I am traveling in an AC bus and the smell of different flowers from the old tree was something else. Now, if I drive my car with full AC on, I don’t get that effect anymore. Those days, we would take an hour to reach college in the bus, but now a car drive on the flyover does not get me to my village in this time.
We have many people in this country who have lost their life while protecting the environment, and many of them are losing their life almost on a daily basis.
We have also heard about Timmakka in Karnataka. Popularly known as Saalumarada Thimmakka, shehas planted trees estimated to be worth Rs. 1.5 million. People like Medha Patkar have spent a number of days in different jails in India, got beaten by the police, stood in raising water, did hunger strikes. She has continued to do the same for many years to save forest in middle India. Despite this, we ensure that she loses her election when she contested this year. She is too radical, I guess, for our Parliament.
What about Bechan Lal who wants to save his home, land and the forest from a multinational company which will displace people in the name of development and power production in Maan forest in Madhya Pradesh. He was sent to jail on a clearly false case and released only last evening after 28 days. Did we raise our voice against his arrest, false implication in a criminal case, or did we even hear of him facing something like this in our newspapers who claim to be free and fair. I guess they are too busy with Modi’s swearing in, or Bechan Lal is too small and selfish because he merely wants to save his forest, his land, his home, or is it because Bechan Lal is fighting against our power supply which we use for our AC, music system, our party and our celebration. I guess our celebration is too important than the life of Bechan Lal and his forest, his home, his land.  
It’s not just Bechan Lal; there are many others like him in this country who are jailed, forced to sit in jail as for asking to save the forest. But it is ironic that we are busy planting trees on the world environment day as a mark of symbol. Of course we will not turn up until next year, and would not bother to know what happened to the saplings that were planted earlier.


In any case why do we have to care for world? We destroy our parks meant for running, playing and relaxing because we have treadmill at home, food from hotel/packets, milk from Nandini, water from taps, fruits from shops. This is our only association with the forest. How do we engage ourselves with the world environment day? 

Friday, May 30, 2014

Do we forget what we are and who we are???


What is surprising is the fact that people who live in rural areas and have seen poverty, caste system/caste discrimination and gender violence, have failed to understand how these things work in day to day life, especially after they move to an urban setup, get college education, and are trapped in upward mobilization.
Someone sent me a post on Facebook which reads as follows, “ONE DAY POOR WILL HAVE NOTHING LEFT TO EAT BUT THE RICH”.  This statement is also in Hindi in a poster withthe photos of Prime Minister Modi and Indian businessmen Ambani and TATA on top and people on the floor with faded clothes below.  
This national election has seen BJP win with big margin; there is no individual party which has the required strength to sit in opposition. According to me, this win is not BJP's but this is  the election victory of Ambani, Adani and TATA. They win each election irrespective of parties, their loyalty shifts immediately after the result so they win each time.
People in India are becoming rich and rich day by day and people in India becoming poor and poor day by day. What is visible to us is the rich becoming richer. What is also visible is the fact that few subsides are provided to the poor farmer, few kilogramsof grain are given to dalits, tribals, and these continue to be poor. What is not visible for most of us who live a middle class life and aspire to acquire the status of rich (and who also eventually show our frustration on the poor for eating our tax paid money) is that the interest free loan and the uninterrupted water and electricity provided to the rich, the kind of facility provided to the industry. So how do we respond to all these things? What do we say to these half blinded middle class people who criticize the poor for no rhyme or reason?
When Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister of West Bengal was depicted in cartoons and her policies criticized, some arrests were by the state government under the IT Act.  People are witnessing a similar fate for posting their views against Mr. Modi. Of course, no one is making a cartoon of Mr. Modi but the issues are more serious; there are many anti Anant Murthi postings in the public domain for his remarks on Mr. Modi and these continue. In case people like me express our views on the personal attacks on people like Dr. Ananta Murthi and argue that they have a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution, we have been attacked and restrictions under Article 19(2) invoked.  So are we saying that people who oppose the state and the police are outside the preview of Article 19(1) of Constitution? Or are we saying that Article 19(1) is limited to Mr.Modi/BJP supporter and not for others?

The danger is political polarization and the absence of scope for a healthy debate. If you say something you are being branded as Congerss party worker and the stooge of Ms. Madam and her son. Does that mean that we have already accepted the two party system in this country and that what is available is either you are with us or with them? If earlier one ran the risk of being branded as a leftist or nationalist, and then terrorist or nationalist, now one is either a nationalist or a congress sympathizer. Is this what we have learnt from history?  

Thursday, December 19, 2013

ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂವಿಧಾನ ಮರೆತ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ:


ಬ್ಯಾತ ಎನ್ ಜಗದೀಶ
ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ , ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02.07.2009 gÀAzÀÄ zɺÀ° GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄRå £ÁåAiÀĪÀÄÆwð J.¦.±Á ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁåAiÀĪÀÄÆwð ಮುರಳಿ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 377 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¤ÃrzÀÝ ªÀĺÀvÀézÀ wÃ¥Àð£ÀÄß §¢UÉÆwÛ, ¸ÀA«zsÁ£À ¨Á»gÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉý ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ »jAiÀÄ £ÁåAiÀĪÀÄÆwð ¹AVé gÀªÀgÀ £ÉÃvÀÈvÀézÀ ¦ÃoÀ wÃ¥ÀÄð ¤ÃrvÀÄ.
ಈ ತೀರ್ಪಿನ ವಿರುದ್ದ ದೇಶ ವಿದೇಶಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಜನರು ತಮ್ಮದೇ ಆದ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯೇಯನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಅನೇಕರು ರಸ್ತೆಗಳಿಗಿಳಿದು ತಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರತಿಭಟನೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ, ಪ್ರತಿಭಟನೆ ನಿರತ ಜನರನ್ನು ಅನೆಕರು ತುಚ್ಚವಾಗಿ ತೆಗಳಿದ್ದಾರೆ, ಅವ್ಯಚ್ಚವಾಗಿ ಬೈದಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಇವರಾರು ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ತಮ್ಮಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಧಾರ್ಮಿಕ ಅಂದತ್ವವನ್ನು ಕಳಚಿ ಈ ತೀರ್ಪನ್ನು ನೋಡಿದತ್ತೆ ಕಾಣುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಈ ಕಾಯಿದೆ ಕೆವಲ ಸಂಲಿಗ ಕಾಮಿಗಳನ್ನು ಶಿಕ್ಷಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ, ಶಿಶ್ನ – ಯೋನಿ ಲೈಂಗಿಕ ಸಂಬದ್ದವನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬೇರಲ್ಲ ರೀತಿಯ ಲೈಂಗಿಕ ಸಂಬದ್ದವನ್ನು ನಿಸರ್ಗ ನಿಯಮಕ್ಕೆ ವಿರುದ್ದವಾದುದ್ದು ಎನ್ನುವುದರಮೂಲಕ ಅವೆಲ್ಲವನ್ನು ಶಿಕ್ಷಾರ್ಹವನ್ನಾಗಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.
K¤zÀÄ PÀ®A 377.....?
ಕಲಂ 377 ದಂಡ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಾ ಸಂಹಿತೆಯ ಒಂದು ಕಾಲಂ ಇದು ಅನೈಸರ್ಗಿಕ ಅಪರಾಧಗಳು ಹಾಗು ಅವುಗಳಿಗೆ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆಯಬಗೆಯನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.  PÀ®A 377:- C£ÉʸÀVðPÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ¼ÀÄ (Unnatural offences) ¤¸ÀUÀðzÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄPÉÌ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀÄgÀĵÀ; ¹Ûçà CxÀªÀ ¥ÁætÂAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¸Àé-EZÉÒ¬ÄAzÀ zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¨sÉÆÃUÀ £ÀqɸÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ, CfêÀ PÁgÁªÁ¸À¢AzÀ CxÀªÀ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ªÀgÉV£À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ JgÀqÀgÀ¯ÉÆèAzÀÄ §UÉAiÀÄ PÁgÁªÁ¸À¢AzÀ zÉÆÃr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ dįÁä£ÉUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ UÀÄjAiÀiÁV¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
F PÀ®A C£ÀÄß £ÁgÀhiï ¥sËAqÉñÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ zɺÀ° £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ,
1.     F PÀ®A ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆvÀªÁzÀ dÄrAiÉÆ-Qæ²ÑAiÀÄ£ï £À ªÀiË®åUÀ½UÉ vÀPÀÌAvÉ gÀavÀªÁzÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ EzÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð PÁAiÀÄðUÀvÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÁV eÁjUÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ ºÁUÁ
2.    F PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸Àé-EZÉÒ¬ÄAzÀ E§âgÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨Á¬ÄAiÀÄ(Oral) CxÀªÀ UÀÄzÀzÁégÀ(anal) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄUÉ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÀ£ÁßV¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ
3.    EzÀÄ E§âgÀÄ MAzÉà ¸ÉQì£À ªÀAiÀĸÀÌgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ಸ್ವಹಿಚ್ಚೆಯಿಂದ vÉÆqÀUÀĪÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉ£ÀÄßvÀÛzÉ.
4.    F jÃwAiÀiÁV E§âgÀÄ MAzÉà ¸ÉQì£À ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä EZÉÑUÉ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁV vÉÆqÀUÀĪÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄAiÀÄÄ, ¥ÉÆðøÀgÀÄ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß »A¹¸À®Ä ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ, ºÁUÀÄ EzÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ EzÀÄ C£ÉÃPÀjUÉ ¸ÀgÀ¼ÀªÁV ¸ÀÄ°UÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä C£ÀÄPÀÆ® ªÀiÁr PÉÆlÖAvÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
5.    F jÃwAiÀÄ ªÀvÀð£É¬ÄAzÁV ಸಲಿಂಗ ಕಾಮಿಗಳು (same sex) ªÀiÁqÀĪÀªÀರನ್ನು ಕೀಳುಭಾವದಿಂದ, ಅಪರಾಧಿಸ್ತಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ನೊಡುವುದರಿಂದ, ಸಮಾಜದ ಮುಖ್ಯವಾಹಿನಿಗೆ ಅವರನ್ನು ತರಲಾಗದೆ CªÀgÀ°è ºÀgÀqÀĪÀ UÀÄ¥ÀÛ gÉÆÃUÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, ºÉZï.L.«/Kqïì vÀqÉUÉ CªÀjUÉ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀzÉ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ.
6.    MAzÀÄ ªÀUÀðzÀ d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß C¥ÀgÁ¢üUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ F PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ C¹ÜvÀéªÀ£ÀÄß £Á±À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
7.    £ÉʸÀUÀðEPÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄPÉÌ «gÀÄzÀÞ JAzÀÄ ªÁåSÁ夸ÀĪÀ F PÁ®AUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DzsÁgÀ«®è.
8.    ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀzÀ C£ÀÄbÉÑÃzÀ 15gÀ°è G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÉPïì JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß PÉêÀ® dAqÀgï UÉ ¹Ã«ÄvÀUÉƽ¸À¨ÁgÀzÀÄ CzÀÄ ¸ÉPÀÄìöå¯ï NjAiÀÄAmÉñÀ£ï (sexual orientation) UÀÆ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀÄÝ, F ¤nÖ£À°è ¸ÉPÀÄìöå¯ï NjAiÀÄAmÉñÀ£ïಎಂಬುದು ಒಬ್ಬವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗೆ ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆvÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ.
ªÀÄwÛvÀgÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄRåªÁV ªÁzÀªÀÄAr¹zÀÄÝ EzÀPÉÌ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄ EvÀgÀgÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ªÁzÀªÀÄAr¹zÀÝgÀÄ.

1.     ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄ JA§ÄzÀÄ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯ ªÀÄƯ¨sÀÆvÀ ºÀPÀÌ®è.
2.    £ÀªÀÄä zÉñÀzÀ°è ¸À°AUÀ PÁªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß M¥ÀÄàªÀAw®è ºÁUÀÆ CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæzÀ CrAiÀÄ°è vÀgÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄAwæ¸À¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
3.    SÁ¸ÀVvÀ£ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ J®èQÌAvÀ®Æ ªÀÄÄRåªÀ®è.
4.    ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀzÀ C£ÀÄbÉÑÃzÀ 19(2) gÀ°è £ÉÊwPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ ªÀiË®åUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆvÀ ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤§ðAzsÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÃgÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«zÉ.
5.    ¨ÉÃgÉ zÉñÀUÀ¼À°è C£ÀĸÀj¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ ºÁUÀÄ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä zÉñÀzÀ°è C£ÀĸÀj¸À®Ä PÁgÀtªÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
6.    PÀ®A 377 eÉAqÀgï £ÀÆålæ¯ï; MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É CzÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁQzÀ°è M¦àUÉ E®èzÀ §®vÁÌgÀzÀ £ÉʸÀVðPÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ½UÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV £ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²Që¸À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®è.
7.    PÀ®A 377 ¸À°AUÀ PÁªÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀÄwÛ®è.
8.    ºÉZï.L.«/Kqïì, PÀ®A 377 ¤AzÁV ¤AiÀÄAvÀætzÀ°èzÉ, MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É EzÀ£ÀÄß Qæ«Ä£À¯ï C¥ÀgÁzsÀ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¢zÀÝ°è, EzÀgÀ°è vÉÆqÀV F jÃwAiÀÄ PÁ¬Ä¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉZÁÑUÀĪÀ ¸ÁzsÀåvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
9.    PÀ®A 377 C©üªÀåQÛ ¸ÁévÀAvÀæöåPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ°è zsÀPÉÌ vÀgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
10.  ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÀÌøw F jÃwAiÀÄ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß M¦àPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅ¢®è.
          F J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹zÀ zɺÀ°  GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ 02.07.2009 gÀAzÀÄ    “We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving           minors.” wÃ¥ÀÄð ¤ÃrvÀÄ.
zɺÀ° £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ F CzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀªÁV ºÁUÀÄ ಕೆಲವರು ತಮ್ಮ ¸ÀAWÀl£ÉUÀಳ ಮುಕಾಂತರ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು. MmÁÖgÉAiÀiÁV 23 ವಿವಿದ ಸಂಘಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಹಾಗು ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳು ತಮ್ಮ ತಮ್ಮ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹ ¥Àæ±Éß ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ. EzÀgÀ°è §ºÀĪÀÄÄRåªÁzÀ CA±ÀªÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 10PÀÄÌ ºÉZÀÄÑ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ, ಮುಖ್ಯವಾಗಿ »AzÀÆ¥ÀgÀ, ಇಸ್ಲಾಂ ºÁUÀÆ PÉæöʸÀÛ zsÀªÀÄðzÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ zɺÀ° GZÀÒ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ÃrzÀ F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹ದ್ದು ಒಂದು ಮಹತ್ವದ ವಿಷಯ. ±ÁAwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÉvÀÄ zsÀªÀiÁðAzsÀgÁV ©Ã¢AiÀÄ°è ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ ಕಚ್ಚಾಡುವವರೆಲ್ಲರೂ F wæð£À «gÀÄzÀÞ MmÁÖgÉAiÀiÁV vÀªÀÄäzÉà DzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃgÁlªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAr¹zÀÝgÀÄ. (¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ F wÃ¥ÀÄð ªÀÄ£ÀĵÀågÀ SÁ¸ÀVvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß UËgÀ«¸À¯ÁgÀzÀ J®è zsÀªÀÄðzÀ ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆvÀªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ vÀPÀÌ dAiÀÄ JAzÀgÉ vÀ¥ÁàUÀ¯ÁgÀzÀÄ).
F wÃ¥ÀÄð £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀtð¨sÉÃzÀ ¤ÃwAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ £ÀqÉzÀ ºÉÆÃgÁlUÀ¼À°èUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀÄ Mc Laurin vs Oklahama State Regects 339 US 637(1950) £É£À¦¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
…George Mc Laurin ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁ¸ÀÖgï rVæ ªÀÄÄV¹zÀÝ. NPÀèºÁªÀÄ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ°è  qÁPÀÖgï D¥sï JdÄPÉñÀ£ï ¥ÀzÀ«UÁV Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÝ. DvÀ£ÀÄ PÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀtðzÀªÀ£ÁVzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀ¤UÉ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ¤gÁPÀj¹zÀÝgÀÄ. EzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥Àæ²ß¹zÀÝ eÁeïð ªÉÄPÁèj£ï «dAiÀıÁ°AiÀiÁV «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæªÉñÀªÀ£ÉßãÉÆ ¥ÀqÉzÀ. DzÀgÉ E°è DvÀ¤UÉ PÀÆgÀ®Ä ¨ÉÃgÉ D¸À£ÀzÀ ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ ºÁUÀÄ ©½§tÚzÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÉÃgÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀ°®è.

F jÃwAiÀÄ ¨sÉÃzÀ¨sÁªÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÉÛ ¥Àæ²ß¹zÀ eÁeïð ªÉÄPÁèj£ï UÉ F ¨sÁj U.S. f¯Áè £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ(¥À²ÑªÀÄ f¯Éè, NPÀèºÁªÀÄ) zÀ°è ¸ÉÆîÄAmÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. DzÀgÀÄ ºÉzÉUÀÄAzÀzÉ DvÀ U.S. ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è EzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹zÀ .

CªÀ£À ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß M¦àzÀ U.S. ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ CxÀªÀ ¸ÀPÁðj PÀbÉÃjUÀ¼À°è F gÉÃwAiÀÄ ¨sÉÃzÀ¨sÁªÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¥ÉàAzÀÄ wÃ¥ÀÄð ¤ÃrvÀÄ.

 U.S.£À ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ F wÃ¥ÀÄð D zÉñÀzÀ°è ªÀtð ¨ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁPÀĪÀ°è MAzÀÄ ºÉƸÀ ºÉeÉÓAiÀÄ£Àß ಇಟ್ಟು vÁ£ÁVAiÉÄà PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrvÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ D zÉñÀzÀ ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀPÉÌ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁr JAzÀÄ ºÉý £ÀÄtÄaPÉƼÀî°®è.
ಭಾರತ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಗೆ ಈ ರೀತಿಯ ಕಾನೂನು ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಪ್ರಸಂಗಗಳು ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದೇನಿಲ್ಲ ಅನೇಕ ಭಾರಿ SC ಶಾಸಕರ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗಳಿವೆ. ಇದೇ ನ್ಯಾಯಮುರ್ತಿಯವರು ಸಹ ಈ ರೀತಿಯಾಗಿ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅದರೆ ಈ ಭಾರಿ ಮಾತ್ರ ಇವರು ಈ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಲು ಹಿಂದೇಟು ಆಕಿದ್ದೇಕೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಬಹುದೊಡ್ಡ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ.

DzÀgÉ 11.12.2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀ, CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀAvÉ CªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É zËdð£Àå £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÉ JA§ÄzÁUÀ° CxÀªÀ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ©ü£ÀߪÁV £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß, AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀÄgÁªÉUÀ¼ÀÄ E®è JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀªÀıÀdzÀ°è ¤vÀå ¸ÀÄ°UÉ, ºÀ¯Éè ºÁUÀÄ QüÁV £ÉÆÃqÀ®àqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ d£À¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¤®è¯Éà E®è.

eÁvÁåwÃvÀ, zsÀªÀÄðgÀ»vÀ, ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀzÀ ¥Á®PÀgÁzÀ ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, ಈ ತೀರ್ಪನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ zsÀªÀÄðzÀ, ¸ÀA¸ÀÌçwAiÀÄ ನಡುವೆ ಸಂವಿಧಾನ ಮುಖ್ಯ ವೆಂದು ಹೇಳಲು ಹಿಂದೆಟು ಹಾಕಿದಂತಿದೆ.
5£Éà qɸÉA§gï 2013, ªÀtð¨sÉÃzÀ ¤ÃwAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÉÆÃgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀ, PÁgÁªÁ¸À C£ÀĨsÀ«¹zÀ C»A¸ÁªÁ¢ £É®ì£ï ªÀÄAqÉî £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß CUÀ°zÁÝgÉ.

11.12.2013 : ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ°è vÀĽvÀPÉÌ ±ÉÆõÀuÉUÉ zÀ¨Áâ½PÉUÉ M¼ÀUÁVzÀÝ d£ÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¤AvÀÄ ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÁvÀäPÀ ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀjUÉ zÉÆgÀQ¹ PÉÆqÀĪÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ «¥sÀ®ªÁVzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ d£ÀgÀ C©üªÀåQÛ ¸ÁévÀAvÀæöåPÉÌ CUÁzsÀ zsÀPÉÌAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÉ.


CªÉÄÃjPÁ ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ 1950 gÀ°è ¸ÀȶֹzÀ EwºÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ 2013 gÀ°è ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä »AzÉÃlĺÁQzÉ, ಆಮೂಲಕ ಶೋಶಿತ ವರ್ಗದ ಪರ ನಿಲ್ಲಲು ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಿದೆ.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Our Supreme Court Failed to do, what US Supreme Court did in the year 1950!

Yesterday’s verdict by our Apex Court on Section 377 IPC, took me back to Black’s Fight against racial discrimination in US and their legal fight in US Supreme Court, the case was, McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950), was a United States Supreme Court case that reversed a lower court decision upholding the efforts of the state-supported University of Oklahoma to adhere to the state law requiring African-Americans to be provided graduate or professional education on a segregated basis. The court found that the university's inaction in providing separate facilities, in order to meet Oklahoma state law, allowing McLaurin to attend the institution was a violation of his Constitutional rights.
George McLaurin, who already had a Masters Degree in Education, was first denied admission to the University of Oklahoma to pursue a Doctor of Education degree. McLaurin successfully sued in the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to gain admission to the institution (87 F. Supp. 526; 1948 U.S. Dist.) basing his argument on the Fourteenth Amendment. At the time, Oklahoma law prohibited schools from instructing blacks and whites together. The court found that the university's inaction in providing separate facilities, in order to meet Oklahoma state law, allowing McLaurin to attend the institution was a violation of his Constitutional rights.
The University admitted McLaurin but provided him separate facilities, including a special table in the cafeteria, a designated desk in the library, and a desk just outside the classroom doorway.
McLaurin returned to the US District court and petitioned to require the University of Oklahoma to remove the separate facilities allowing him to interact with the other students fully (87 F. Supp. 528; 1949 U.S. Dist.) The court denied McLaurin's petition.
McLaurin then appealed to the US Supreme Court. On June 5, 1950, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a public institution of higher learning could not provide different treatment to a student solely because of his/her race as doing so deprived the student of his/her Fourteenth Amendment rights of Equal Protection.
Accordingly, the high court reversed the decision of the US District Court, requiring the University of Oklahoma to remove the restrictions under which McLaurin was attending the institution. This case together with Sweatt v. Painter, which was decided the same day, marked the end of the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson in graduate and professional education.

On 02.07.2009 Delhi High Court put an end from his side to the law which was there on the book even after the 59 years of Constitution by saying, “We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution.  The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors. By 'adult' we mean everyone who is 18 years of age and above. A person below 18 would be presumed not to be able to consent to a sexual act. This clarification will hold till, of course, Parliament chooses to  amend  the  law  to  effectuate  the recommendation of the Law Commission of  India  in  its  172nd  Report which we believe removes a  great  deal  of  confusion.  Secondly,  we clarify that our  judgment  will  not  result  in  the  re-opening  of criminal cases involving Section 377 IPC that  have  already  attained finality.” This was a relief to large number of people who are identified themselves either as Gay, lesbian Bisexual Transgenders,  Hijara and Kothis (L.G.B.T) persons. They are no more criminals; their consensual sexual act is no more criminal act, they are no more criminals in the eye of law enacted as early as in the year 1860.
The joy did not lost longer the magical number 11.12.13 was turned disaster to number of those people and not only those people but the people who believe in a freedom of choice. The Apex Court said
54.   In view of the above discussion, we hold that Section 377 IPC does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality and the declaration made by the Division Bench of the High court is legally unsustainable.
55.   The appeals are accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed.
56.   While parting with the case, we would like to make it clear that  this Court has merely pronounced on the correctness of  the  view  taken  by  the Delhi High Court on the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC and found  that the  said  section  does  not  suffer  from  any  constitutional  infirmity. Notwithstanding this verdict, the competent legislature shall be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the Attorney General.
Up course Supreme Court has its reasoning and logic in coming to this conclusion but the judicial system is so blind? Judiciary does not see what is happening in and around?, don’t they get the logic?
But the question remain what US Supreme Court did in the year 1950 Indian Supreme Court fail to do in the year 2013.
It’s completely justifiable to the fact that the Legislator should legislate the law, the fact that they have not done for 63 would have been good reason for Supreme Court to substantiate the order of the Delhi High Court, then setting aside and saying that it’s a job of the legislature not the judiciary.
The difference is that the US Supreme Court could have said the same thing in the year 1950 but they could able to see the problem; they could able to see that the state has failed to do so. What prevented our Supreme Court to make a history? Its not that this is the Supreme Court has not struck down the law before. It’s not that the Supreme Court made the law before. But this time they have really failed. They have failed to understand the feelings of the people who are oppressed, who are discriminated, differenced. 

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

377 IPC

Supreme Court says ‘adult consensual same sex is crime in India’ this is what SC said after 63 years of Constitution and made large number of people who are identified themselves either as Gay, lesbian Bisexual Transgenders,  Hijara and Kothis (L.G.B.T) persons  are criminals in the eye of law enacted in the year 1860 by British Rulers against India.
02.07.2009 was the day of joy for many LGBT Community as the Delhi High Court has said in many words that,
We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors. By 'adult' we mean everyone who is 18 years of age and above. A person below 18 would be presumed not to be able to consent to a sexual act. This clarification will hold till, of course, Parliament chooses to amend the law to effectuate the recommendation of the Law Commission of India in its 172nd Report which we believe removes a great deal of confusion. Secondly, we clarify that our judgment will not result in the re-opening of criminal cases involving Section 377 IPC that have already attained finality”.

 The challenge basically was,
1.     Section 377 IPC is based upon traditional Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards, which conceive of sex in purely functional terms,
2.     The submission is that the legislation criminalising consensual oral and anal sex is outdated and has no place in modern society.
3.     By criminalising private, consensual same-sex conduct, Section 377 IPC serves as the weapon for police abuse; detaining and questioning, extortion, harassment, forced sex, payment of hush money; and perpetuates negative and discriminatory beliefs towards same-sex relations and sexuality minorities; which consequently drive the activities of gay men and MSM, as well as sexuality minorities underground thereby crippling HIV/AIDS prevention efforts.
4.     Section 377 IPC thus creates a class of vulnerable people that is continually victimised and directly affected by the provision.
5.     that Section 377 IPC's legislative objective of penalizing "unnatural sexual acts" has no rational nexus to the classification created between procreative and non- procreative sexual acts,
6.     That the expression "sex" as used in Article 15 cannot be read restrictive to "gender" but includes "sexual orientation" and, thus read, equality on the basis of sexual orientation is implied in the said fundamental right against discrimination.
State and the others at the High Court argued that:
1.     there is no fundamental right to engage in the same sex activities.
2.     In our country, homosexuality is abhorrent and can be criminalised by imposing proportional limits on the citizens' right to privacy and equality.
3.     that right to privacy is not absolute and can be restricted for compelling state interest.
4.     Article 19(2) expressly permits imposition of restrictions in the interest of decency and morality.
5.     Social and sexual mores in foreign countries cannot justify de-criminalisation of homosexuality in India.
6.     that Section 377 IPC is not discriminatory as it is gender neutral. If Section 377 IPC is struck down there will be no way the State can prosecute any crime of non- consensual carnal intercourse against the order of nature or gross male indecency.
7.     that Section 377 IPC is not enforced against homosexuals and there is no need to "read down" the provisions of Section 377 IPC.
8.     that spread of AIDS is curtailed by Section 377 IPC and de-criminalisation of consensual - same - sex acts between adults would cause a decline in public health across society generally since it would foster the spread of AIDS.
9.     that Section 377 IPC does not impact upon the freedom under Article 19(1) as what is criminalised is only a sexual act.
10.                        Indian society considers homosexuality to be repugnant, immoral and contrary to the cultural norms of the country.
And this provision its violates,
1.     that while right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty and guaranteed to the citizens,

The Law: Until the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, a rather narrow and constricted meaning was given to the guarantee embodied in Article 21. Any law interfering with personal liberty of a person must satisfy a triple test:
(i)                            it must prescribe a procedure;
(ii)                         the procedure must withstand a test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation; and
(iii)                       it must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14. As the test propounded by Article 14 pervades Article 21 as well, the law and procedure authorising interference with the personal liberty must also be right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive
Supreme court in Menaka Gandi case said “If the procedure prescribed does not satisfy the requirement of Article 14, it would be no procedure at all within the meaning of Article 21.” And even in Khark Singh: “held that though our Constitution did not refer to the right to privacy expressly, still it can be traced from the right to "life" in Article 21. Justice Subba Rao, J. while concurring that the fundamental right to privacy was part of the right to liberty in Article 21, part of the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a), and also of the right of movement in Article 19(1)(d), held that the Regulations permitting surveillance violated the fundamental right to privacy. In effect, all the seven learned Judges held that the "right to privacy" was part of the right to "life" in Article 21.

And now we have the Court monitoring private life’s of People :-

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Corruption and India



Prevention of corruption Act is going through drastic changes through the act and through the various Judgment wrongly rendered by the high court and Supreme Court,  but I had hardly heard any news from thousands of people who marched along with team Anna and opposition government which said congress government is corrupt, and we will eradicate the corruption.
In Karnataka for the past 5 years we have seen what we have not seen for the past 60 years of independence ruling, especially with respect to corruption. I have argued with number of people that corruption is not THE issue/threat and there are more serious threats in the society. People have debated, debated and said only one issues is corruption and eradication of corruption will solve all other problem. For some reason people believe that present opposition, Loksatta party, Aam Aadmi party are capable of bringing down the corruption. I never accepted this and I think I am correct; the reason why I say this is because no one has said anything about the recent development in eradicating the corruption.
Amendment to the law
Central Government has recently presented amendment to the Prevention of corruption act, 1988, “The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) bill -2013” which has 10 different objectives and by look some of these objectives are great and worth amending the law, but if one goes deep in to it and see the flaw which it created and thereby brought the obstacles to prosecute the public servant is beyond imaginable. I would like to elaborate with few example:
1.      Section 19 of the act talk about the “Previous sanction necessary for prosecution”
Section 19 (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,-

If someone want to file a case under the provision of this act he/she can file either to the authority or to the court asking to direct the investigation under 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), based on the investigation if there is a case then the court will take the cognizance if the person no more public servant or there is an order of sanction to prosecute from authority against that public servant. The present amendment inserted new phrase after the words “who is employed”,  the words "who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed" by this insertion the person will continued to enjoy the benefits even though he is no more public servant.

What is the problem?: the problem is simple if we are talking about the small scale employee in the government department these things do not matter the petition filed against these people are normally enquired and action will be taken. Assuming that the action is not taken if you use the provision of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. an investigation could be ordered an investigation can be conducted fairly and the person can be brought under the scan of law easily. The real issues is with respect to the high rank officials of the department and the ministers, MLA’s, MLC’s and member of parliament and the member of Rajyasabha. We all know that these people will have greater pull in the system. Think if one files a petition to authority it will be closed without any progress, then if we go to court by using Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. even though court order for investigation,  the investigation department will be influenced and favor report will be filed and then the real issues starts. Now if I want to prosecute these people negating the investigation report I need sanction which is the requirement under section 19 of the act. This is the most difficult part to obtain the sanction for prosecution of a public servant who are politicians. However they could have been prosecuted once they remitted the office without sanction. Politician’s maximum terms either 5 years if they are member of lower house and 6 years if they are member of upper house then they have to be re-elected. Now once they finished their term and may be re-elected but it is not called continuation of office hence we don’t need sanction to prosecute these people. However the new act makes it mandatory thought they are not public servant. It means that the processes of prosecution of these people are made more difficult through this amendment.

2.    Increasing the punishment: It’s an excellent idea that the punishment increased for the offences under the prevention of corruption cases. They have also increased the punishment if the offender commits crime again and again. The catch is they have not increased the punishment based on the amount involved, and they have also not increased the punishment if person possess property worth cores of rupees. For example if someone is caught with  giving or accepting the bribe of Rs. 500 or 5000 or 5 lakh the punishment is minimum 3 years. If the person possesses property worth cores of rupees, his/her punishment is not less than 1 year. Which means the act never intended to prosecute the big fish.

Judicial verdict:
The year 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 has seen number of cases being filed under the prevention of corruption act in Karnataka mostly against the ministers or legislators. If I speak for Bangalore city court alone, in the year 2010 about 40 cases got filed and in 2011 about 70 + cases and in the year 2012 about 72 cases got filed and in 2013 also about 40+ cases so far filed in Lokayukta court alone. Though there are number of cases filed in various districts in Karnataka, Bangalore is highest in the list.

Karnataka High Court in B.V. Acharya v/s N Venkatesh (W.P. No:14047 OF 2012) decided on 03.08.2012 declared that, sanction is necessary to file a case under the prevention of corruption act against the public servant, trial court can’t pass order under section 156(3) of Cr. P.C without valid sanction. However this judgment is not followed the principal rendered by the five Judge’s bench of the Apex Court in R.R.Chari v/s State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1951 SC 207). Number of other Judgment rendered by the Karnataka High Court reiterated the same principal, which gave way to the corrupt official and the politicians’ way to do what they want to do.

The issues reached the Apex court challenging the order passed by the Karnataka High court in M.K.Aiyappa V.s Anil Kumar where a case was filed by Anil Kumar against the IAS officer M.K.Aiyappa who was the D.C. Bangalore Urban dist and others include MLA officer for illegal granting land. High court quashed the case registered against M.K.Aiyappa stating that there was no sanction to file complaint before the special court. The complainant Anil Kumar challenged this order before the Apex court. Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court on 01-Oct-2013 in Criminal Appeal Nos.1590-1591 of 2013 [Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa], it has been held that a Magistrate or a Special Judge has no legal power to even direct investigation by the police by recourse to Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C unless there is already a valid sanction from the Government tolerating a police investigation.  However, in R.R.Chari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1951 SCR 312 : AIR 1951 SC 207) said that, when a Magistrate or a Special Judge directs investigation by the police in terms of Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, he would not have taken cognizance of any offence and this is the established law in this country till date. However Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, it has been very erroneously held by the Apex Court, which is going to have an impact on the more than 400 cases pending in Karnataka alone under the prevention of corruption cases and also going to have an impact on the other state for the people who are fighting against the corruption.


Though such wide impact Judgment rendered by the Apex court, though such gross violation amendment has mooted I heard no voice. I assume that people are not aware these devolvement shall I?