498anews

December 24, 2009

Secrecy around the selection process of judges was not unique to India – CJI

This is what our Chief Justice of India tells in the wake of his recent request to our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to protect the judiciary from comman man’s whistle – The Right to Information Act 2005. Apparently our Chief Justice is not comfortable with the queries raised by the common man using this Act. He feels that the public are intruding into the Judicial system and causing erosion of judicial independence. This has made our government to make changes and take off the freedom of the common man to ask questions.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-mulls-changes-in-RTI-Act/articleshow/5308959.cms

Any change to the Right to Information Act 2005 is a serious threat to the freedom of common man, a serious threat to democracy.

Is this Act being misused in any way?
Do we really need changes to the current Right to Information Act 2005?
Is this Act really a threat to the judiciary or for that matter any department?
Are these questions of common man can really erode the independence of our system, if so to what extent?
Does our CJI has a case to change this Act?

Let’s start the discussion now… I welcome you to please comment on these questions…

Any common man approches any department with an application under Right to Information Act 2005 with an intention to collect information for various reasons – It could be out of curiosity, or he wants to know the status of any application that he made to any department, or he wanted to know about the statistics in a particular department which he can use to expose the government’s or any bearucrat’s or any department’s false claims.

Like the exaggerated data claimed by the Women & Child Development ministry regarding the violence against women and the evil of Dowry system. Many people who made applications under this Act to the National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) have shown the paltry genuine cases and exposed the false claims made by the ministry for obviuos reasons of its survival, for want of exorbiant funds to be eaten up by the ministry, the bureaucrats, the women organizations, etc.,

This Act in more than one way has empowered the common man.

The claims of CJI that chronic litigants are troubling the system is a vague statement no backed up by any data. He doesn’t have any case to claim a change in the Act. CJI is asking for more independence, he is unwilling to bring transparency into the system which is a matter of concern. We have barged into the 21st centuary by flying high the flags of democracy, we cannot go back to red ribbon raj days…

I welcome you to put forward your comments on these questions…

Mahesh.M
http://www.498a.org.in

Advertisements

Misuse of Section 498 A – PIB

Filed under: Misuse of Section 498 A - PIB — Fighting Legal Terror @ 5:50 am

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=55062

Lok Sabha

A number of representations have been received from various quarters regarding the misuse of the provision of Section 498A of IPC. Information regarding its misuse is not collected by National Crime Records Bureau. Giving this information in the Lok Sabha to a written question Dr.M.Veerappa Moily, Minister of Law and Justice said that the matter has been referred to the Law Commission of India to study the use of the provision of this section and hold consultation and suggest amendments, if any, to the provision. An advisory has also been issued to the State Governments to prevent the misuse of the said section.

VLK/ska

Women are as much villainous as men

Filed under: Women are as much villainous as men — Fighting Legal Terror @ 5:47 am

Assume that 2 MEN drag a WOMAN in road or quarrel with her, other people who are watching that will stop them. The public will feel that those men are harassing that women and they might cause harm to her.

Similarly if 2 MEN drag a MAN in road or quarrel with him, public will still stop them and mediate them to resolve the issue.

But, If a WOMEN drag another WOMAN in road or quarrel with her, public will not object.

Similarly if a WOMEN drag a MAN in road or quarrel with him, then public will simply watch and enjoy the fun, they will not interrupt. This is the mentality of general public that thinks that no woman can do mistake. This is the psychological thinking of public. Two women in Bangalore took this psychological thinking as an advantage and they kidnapped another woman and forced her to prostitution.

On Nov 25, two women in Bangalore kidnapped a girl in broad day light and forced her to prostitution…

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Women-arrested-for-kidnapping-minor-girl/articleshow/5320184.cms

After reading this article in Times of India, atleast now, public should change their mindset that not every woman is Holy.

Mahesh
http://www.family-harmony.org
http://www.498a.org.in

Legalizing prostitution – A social catastrophe.

Filed under: Legalizing prostitution - A social catastrophe. — Fighting Legal Terror @ 5:44 am

This is the most horrible news I ever read… How can an Apex body like Hon’ble Supreme court make such a statement…

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Legalize-prostitution-if-you-cant-curb-it-SC-to-govt/articleshow/5322127.cms

Legalizing prostitution??? come on… what does SC wants??? Does it want to exploit innocent women who are living happily with their families???

I really don’t understand how it will save the young innocent girls by legalizing the prostitution…

Legalizing prostitution, will create a social catastrophe. Men will not marry women… they will just use the prostitutes. which results in women who want to live in a marriage left with less options.
Women will not marry, they will take this as a career… this will result in men who want to live in a marriage left with less options.

It will create a medical hazard… people will suffer with more veneral dieseases.

Supreme Court has commited a gross error in giving an economic angle into a social problem. Prostitution is a social issue not an economical issue. In US & UK more and more women are taking up prostitution even though they are economically well-off and even though they have social security provided… They are turning to prostitution, because it is easy money there…

Of course, uplifting the people BPL is a priority, but that in no way help in eradicating this social issue of prostitution…

To solve the issue of prostitution, we need to bring a social change… change in the mindsets of people… change the life styles of the people.. making them social security to people and social happiness…

On one side more and more families are getting divided because of increasing number of divorces, misue of law by women using acts like dowry… The court cases take years to resolve making these sex starved people go to prostitues for fulfilling their needs…

I don’t understand on how it will benefit our society by legalizing the prostitution…
Please give your comments…
Mahesh
http://www.family-harmony.org
http://www.498a.org.in

December 21, 2009

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/deccan50yearsago/183

Filed under: Uncategorized — Fighting Legal Terror @ 1:52 pm

Dowry Prohibition Bill passedDecember 17th, 2009 New Delhi, Dec. 16: The Rajya Sabha today passed the Dowry Prohibition Bill but after deleting a controversial explanation, added by the Lok Sabha, thus making the Bill more vigorous. To the definition of Dowry the Rajya Sabha made two other amendments in the Bill, one of which deletes the provision making penal “the demand” of a dowry. The Bill will now go back to the Lok Sabha for its concurrence to the amendments. The deletion of “explanation one” to the definition of the Dowry restores the position to what it was when both the Houses reported to Parliament. The explanation has been added in the Lok Sabha on an official amendment but was deleted by voice vote in the Rajya Sabha after the Law Minister had announced that there was no whip. The explanation sought to exempt from the definition of “dowry” prohibited by the Bill. “Any presents made at the time of a marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or others articles”…. “unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the parties.” The deletion of the clause penalising the “demand” of the dowry was effected by 25 votes to 21. The Law Minister agreed with members who demanded deletion that the provision might give rise to blackmail. The third amendment accepted by the House, by 21 votes to 19, added the words “directly or indirectly” to the definition of dowry, namely, “any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given, directly or indirectly etc.”This amendment also restores the position to what it was in the Joint Committee’s Report.

Blog at WordPress.com.