Politically Motivated

2009-03-12T05:14:00.003+05:30

2009-03-05T00:27:00.002+05:30

Murder. By Media?

2008-08-19T23:09:00.001+05:30

If you were in India and if you had a TV set in the last few months, there is absolutely no chance of you not knowing about the Aarushi murder case.

Aarushi was found dead with her throat slit and multiple stab injuries on her body in her Noida home. The case pending trial revived the heavy debate on media-trial.Media persons’ role in reporting sub-judice matters (that is, matters which are pending trial in the Courts) has come under the scanner once again.High time.

A Public Interest Litigation petition was recently filed seeking a direction to the media to maintain restraint in reporting sub-judice cases like the Aarushi murder case. A bench headed by Mr Justice Altamas Kabir asked the Centre and the state government to find out if there was the possibility of a mechanism to put some restraint on reporting sub-judice matters.

On one hand, there is justice at stake and on the other, freedom of expression. The debate continues.

Karan Thapar v. Arjun Singh

2008-08-02T10:45:00.001+05:30

A masterpiece of a dialogue. Dominated by Thapar of course.

Karan Thapar: Do you personally also, as Minister of Human Resource Development, believe that a reservation is the right and proper way to help the OBCs?
Arjun Singh: Certainly, that is one of the most important ways to do it.
Karan Thapar: The right way?
Arjun Singh: Also the right way.
Karan Thapar: In which case, let's ask a few basic questions; we are talking about the reservations for the OBCs in particular. Do you know what percentage of the Indian population is OBC? Mandal puts it at 52 per cent, the National Sample Survey Organization at 32 per cent, the National Family and Health Survey at 29.8 per cent, which is the correct figure?
Arjun Singh: I think that should be decided by people who are more knowledgeable. But the point is that the OBCs form a fairly sizeable percentage of our population.
Karan Thapar: No doubt, but the reason why it is important to know 'what percentage' they form is that if you are going to have reservations for them, then you must know what percentage of the population they are, otherwise you don't know whether they are already adequately catered in higher educational institutions or not.
Arjun Singh: That is obvious - they are not.
Karan Thapar: Why is it obvious?
Arjun Singh: Obvious because it is something which we all see.
Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that the NSSO, which is a government appointed body, has actually in its research in 1999 - which is the most latest research shown - that 23.5 per cent of all university seats are already with the OBCs. And that is just 8..5 per cent less than what the NSSO believes is the OBC share of the population. So, for a difference of 8 per cent, would reservations be the right way of making up the difference?
Arjun Singh: I wouldn't like to go behind all this because, as I said, Parliament has taken a view and it has taken a decision, I am a servant of Parliament and I will only implement.
Karan Thapar: Absolutely, Parliament has taken a view, I grant it. But what people question is the simple fact - Is there a need for reservations? If you don't know what percentage of the country is OBC, and if furthermore, the NSSO is correct in pointing out that already 23.5 per cent of the college seats are with the OBC, then you don't have a case in terms of need.
Arjun Singh: College seats, I don't know.
Karan Thapar: According to the NSSO - which is a government appointed body - 23.5 per cent of the college seats are already with the OBCs.
Arjun Singh: What do you mean by college seats?
Karan Thapar: University seats, seats of higher education.
Arjun Singh: Well, I don't know I have not come across that far.
Karan Thapar: So, when critics say to you that you don't have a case for reservation in terms of need, what do you say to them?
Arjun Singh: I have said what I had to say and the point is that it is not an issue for us to now debate.
Karan Thapar: You mean the chapter is now closed?
Arjun Singh: The decision has been taken.
Karan Thapar: Regardless of whether there is a need or not, the decision is taken and it is a closed chapter.
Arjun Singh: So far as I can see, it is a closed chapter and that is why I have to implement what all Parliaments have said.
Karan Thapar: Minister, it is not just in terms of 'need' that your critics question the decision to have reservation for OBCs in higher education. More importantly, they question whether reservations themselves are efficacious and can work.
For example, a study done by the IITs themselves shows that 50 per cent of the IIT seats for the SCs and STs remain vacant and for the remaining 50 per cent, 25 per cent are the candidates, who even after six years fail to get their degrees. So, clearly, in their case, reservations are not working.
Arjun Singh: I would only say that on this issue, it would not be correct to go by all these figures that have been paraded.
Karan Thapar: You mean the IIT figures themselves could be dubious?
Arjun Singh: Not dubious, but I think that is not the last word.
Karan Thapar: All right, maybe the IIT may not be the last word, let me then quote to you the report of the Parliamentary Committee on the welfare for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - that is a Parliamentary body.
It says that looking at the Delhi University, between 1995 and 2000; just half the seats for under-graduates at the Scheduled Castes level and just one-third of the seats for under-graduates at the Scheduled Tribes level were filled. All the others went empty, unfilled. So, again, even in Delhi University, reservations are not working.
Arjun Singh: If they are not working, it does not mean that for that reason we don't need them. There must be some other reason why they are not working and that can be certainly probed and examined. But to say that for this reason, 'no reservations need to be done' is not correct.
Karan Thapar: Fifty years after the reservations were made, statistics show, according to The Hindustan Times, that overall in India, only 16 per cent of the places in higher education is occupied by SCs and STs. The quota is 22.5 per cent, which means that only two-thirds of the quota is occupied. One third is going waste, it is being denied to other people.
Arjun Singh: As I said, the kinds of figures that have been brought out, in my perception, do not reflect the realities. Realities are something much more and of course, there is an element of prejudice also.
Karan Thapar: But these are figures that come from a Parliamentary Committee. It can't be prejudiced; they are your own colleagues.
Arjun Singh: Parliamentary Committee has given the figures, but as to why this has not happened, that is a different matter.
Karan Thapar: I put it to you that you don't have a case for reservations in terms of need; you don't have a case for reservations in terms of their efficacy, why then, are you insisting on extending them to the OBCs?
Arjun Singh: I don't want to use that word, but I think that your argument is basically fallacious.
Karan Thapar: But it is based on all the facts available in the public domain.
Arjun Singh: Those are facts that need to be gone into with more care. What lies behind those facts, why this has not happened, that is also a fact.
Karan Thapar: Let's approach the issue of reservations differently in that case. Reservations mean that a lesser-qualified candidate gets preference over a more qualified candidate, solely because in this case, he or she happens to be an OBC. In other words, the upper castes are being penalized for being upper caste.
Arjun Singh: Nobody is being penalized and that is a factor that we are trying to address. I think that the prime Minister will be talking to all the political parties and will be putting forward a formula, which will see that nobody is being penalized.
Karan Thapar: I want very much to talk about that formula, but before we come to talk about how you are going to address concerns, let me point one other corollary - Reservations also gives preference and favor to caste over merit. Is that acceptable in a modern society?
Arjun Singh: I don't think the perceptions of modern society fit India entirely.
Karan Thapar: You mean India is not a modern society and therefore can't claim to be treated as one?
Arjun Singh: It is emerging as a modern society, but the parameters of a modern society do not apply to large sections of the people in this country.

Baby on Board!

2008-07-01T21:31:00.007+05:30

When your neighbor's kid learns to drive a car at the age of fourteen and whizzes around the layout shaking Gulmohars and Grandmas alike, the first reaction from his parents is that of unbearable pride.

When recently, an unqualified minor, a mere 10th standard student, son of gloating doctor parents performed a cesarean on a patient, it was first reported in the media as an attempt to the Guinness book of world records. When the Medical Council rightly took the parents of the kid to task, the argument of the defense attorney was that the Medical association was "jealous" and was hindering their son's progress. Parents of underage children are widely at fault not only in the above instance but also where children supposed to be running on playgrounds run amok with cars, driving drunk.

With increasing number of road accidents involving vehicles driven by under-age boys (of course without a license), especially ones like what happened on the Gurgaon expressway where three teenagers too drunk to care ran over an under-age boy, I stand by what the Union Minister Renuka Chowdhary had to say " The Road Transport Ministry should amend the law and bring parents into ambit to deal with such cases. The license of the father, for instance, must be revoked to keep a check on such incidents."

After all, there is a reason why they are not allowed to vote and drink and drive on roads.

Defrauded !

2008-01-31T17:14:00.000+05:30

It was interesting indeed that you made the statement ‘Man exists at the mercy of the woman’. I had a pretty much interesting moot problem this week, wherein I had to file an application for annulment of marriage on grounds of fraud by the lady – the contended fraud being, that she had not informed him about an abortion she from a pre marital relationship.

Sunder, a Hindu married Preeti in 2007 at Jaipur. As established by her high school certificate, Preeti was one year younger to Sunder. Immediately after marriage, when Sunder on the advice of a friend took Preeti’s horoscope to a Pundit, he said according to her horoscope, the girl was 5 years older to Sunder. The same day, Preeti fainted in the market and was taken to a Doctor where it was discovered, Preeti was aborted before the marriage. Preeti admitted her guilt to a love affair with a college mate Rehan. The fact of abortion was neither disclosed nor apparent to deduction before marriage. Sunder filed an application for annulment of marriage as he states he was cheated and his consent to marriage was obtained by Fraud.

The term ‘fraud’ is not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It is axiomatic that particularly forced consent or consent obtained by non disclosure of material fact amounts to fraud and Hindu marriage being a sacrament, can be nullified under such circumstances. Fraud here procures the appearance of consent without the reality of consent i.e. where there is no real consent at all.

Fraud, has been defined by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 in relation to the nature and ceremonies or as to any material fact or circumstances concerning the Defendant. The test of validity is the real consent to the marriage as described by Rayden. “Fraud” within the meaning of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act means either deception as to the identity or other material facts of the other party to the marriage, or deception as to the nature of ceremonies being performed. The correct test to be applied is whether the fraud relates to a material fact.

Whether a misrepresentation or false statement or concealment is as to any such material fact, this is to a large extent dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. But it must be something vital touching or affecting the Petitioner and such as it definitely induced or influenced consent.

In the present case, the Defendant endeavored to hide not only her previous illicit relationship with her college mate Rehan but she also withheld the abortion that she had.

It was held in the case of Rama Kanta v. Mohinder Laxmidas Bhandula that the withholding of information about a caesarean operation in addition to previous relationships, amounted to fraud. Similarly, in this case, by withholding the details about her abortion, the defendant has defrauded the petitioner.

The marriage can be annulled on grounds of concealment of material fact

Marriage is a sacrament according to the Hindus, if obtained by fraud; it affects the validity of the marriage.

Concealment of material fact succeeds as a ground for annulment of marriage as provided under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Plaintiff’s consent was obtained by deception, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts as to pre-marital status of the defendant, plaintiff entitled to relief for annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.

Section 12(1)(c) reads :
Section 12 -(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:-
(c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner was required under Section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978, the consent of such guardian was obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent; or
As per Section 12(1)(c) a marriage shall be voidable and may be annulled on the ground that the consent of the Petitioner was obtained by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the Respondent.

Whatever may have been the position prior to the amendment of Clause (c) of Section 12(1) of the Act, there can be no manner of doubt that after the amendment the marriage can be annulled under the amended section if the consent of the Petitioner was obtained by fraud, as to the nature of the ceremony or as to the nature of material fact or circumstances concerning the Respondent.

As has been established, the Defendant withheld a material fact, which if specified could have resulted in the non occurrence of the marriage. The consent of the Petitioner to marriage was therefore in light of absence of such knowledge. As the tests of material fact and real consent have not been respectively fulfilled, the marriage can be annulled as provided for by the Section.

Evidence of pre-marital pregnancy and abortion :

Any Hindu marriage is voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any ground mentioned in Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. If allegation of husband for pre-marital pregnancy of wife proved, marriage can be declared void.

In the present case,the doctor pronounced that Preeti was aborted before marriage and the defendant admitted to her guilt and confessed to a love affair with her college mate Rehan.

There is no rule of law requiring that in a petition under Section 12 of the Act, the evidence of the spouse must receive independent corroboration before it can be accepted as sufficient to justify the passing of a decree for nullity of marriage. Section 134 of the Evidence Act which provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for proof of any fact embodies therein the principle that sufficiency of evidence is not a matter of number or quantity but of quality. Thereby, the sole word of the Defendant herself suffices as evidence of illicit relationship.

The doctor does not necessarily have to be a specialist in gynaecology for his/her evidence to be relied upon to prove that the respondent was pregnant any time before the marriage.Thereby the Doctor’s opinion is valid and final in present context.

The defendant has therefore defrauded the Petitioner into marrying her by hiding the fact of her previous abortion and thereby manipulating his consent for marriage.

If the material facts and circumstances are found to be false, the marriage becomes shaky. Mutual confidence is gone. Then what is the purpose of married life unless the love still remains. The falsity when significant can be called deception or misrepresentation.

There is no matter of doubt that under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act if the consent of the applicant was obtained by fraud as to the statute of ceremony or as to the nature of the material fact or circumstance concerning the Defendant , the marriage can be annulled. The consent of the Petitioner was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation as to material facts concerning the Defendant and that he is entitled to a decree of annulment under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.

The general tendency of courts in cases dealing with fraud seems to be to sustain a marriage as far as possible. While no doubt this is a laudable object, it is also to be remembered that by their reluctance to set aside a marriage brought about by fraud, the courts may be indirectly encouraging fraud.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of annulment on grounds of fraud by the under Section 12(1) (c) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

And in my defense...

2008-01-30T14:59:00.001+05:30

Ah well said, Hakuna. It is quite a woman’s world out there. But being the devil’s advocate that I am, let me take the case of my primary client- Women!

As we have often strangled each other on, the Law by itself is always one sided. And not necessarily on the side that is right. That is, in fact, why we have courts and really old people with funny wigs chairing them. Now, that said, let me get on to this case in hand.

Yes, I do agree the DV law does not give much of a leeway for men. But take a more common-sensical approach to this issue. I will base my arguments on two use cases- the first stating why the law should not be scrapped based on victimizing men and two as to why such a law covering men’s rights does not make much sense in the context.

Quite obviously the law cannot be scrapped citing such superficial reasons as victimizing men.I could simply state that even murder trials have seen innocent victims going down as scapegoats and implications, so it is not much wonder here either. However my point lays foot on even more unshakable grounds.

Take a hike into any average middle class sub-urban household. Broomstick wielding, vessel throwing, tantrum palying women are only all too common. A richer household would torture the emancipated bread winner for yearly holidays, monthly ritualistic shopping and weekly movie haunts. Why, I have experienced an even worse fate with the many that have graced my short bursts at commitment. Being forced into watching some random emotional drama movie that we don’t like, touring down alleys of shops for things we could never buy and worse, I could never wear, meeting hoards of ‘society’ I don’t give a flying unparliamentary word for… Trust me, men are used to domestic violence!

Now its not that simple with women. Being the soft, delicate darlings that they are, pulling them in to watch a Simbu movie could quite prove disastrous. A decent enough girl could stop with pulling her hair apart and breaking up. The types that I hang out with would pull my hair apart and still not break up!

On a more serious note, think about that woman who gets beat up by a drunk husband every night. Think about that young girl who assumed a sweet life ahead and now gets tarnished physically, mentally and emotionally through every day. Think about that woman brave enough to break loose of her husband’s blows, run to the nearest police station and seek the state to save her from a life of distress. Think about the cop giving her a wry smile, doing a jingle and dance step, and telling her there is no law to do anything about.

Now lets take the case of men being victimized. The state does not give much importance to women raping men either. Not that its biologically infeasible, but rather because it is far too uncommon to become an extra chapter for law students to study. The ancient laws of Solomon (the Jewish king, not the guy who comes in Sirappu Pattimandrams) which was the most vast and expansive code of its times did not have a punishment for particide simply because the concept of killing one’s own parents was the rarest of rare happenings, if ever. Later the Mughals continued with it because it became a ritual in their ascension to the throne!

Look up to the skies and swear at the good lord for it, but biology, evolution and civilization have always conspired against men. Women get sexy body changes to amuse themselves at puberty. Men get broken voices. Women get all romantic and sexed up at the sight of sunset and kittens. Men need beer and those romantic , sexed up women for that. Women can cry even in dehydrated conditions in the Sahara. Men need to walk the camels in chivalry to find the water. To top it off, Women get monthly three day holidays and perennial headaches. Men just get urges.

Given this standing, men NEED to be chivalrous. If three guys stalked a girl in the dead of the night and tried to physically abuse her, I would imagine her a nervous wreck and extend my sympathies. If it was me on that lane that night and three girls on my tail, the best I can hope for is a couple of congratulations!

Now what does all this have to do with the topic we have? A lot. Men cannot be victimized simply because no self respecting man would ever accept it. Imagine a guy throws a case in court that his wife beat his ass red and says stuff to hurt him emotionally. Lets even extrapolate to assume he wins. What next? The closest he could ever get to society would be at the gay pub. And to change preferences over a couple of broken pans and bones? I don’t think so!

Coming a bit down south, I really do hope this law takes it big enough to be the cool thing to do. That way wannabe tamils would stop holding up Lalitha Jwellery surcharge necklaces and claim Thaali sentiment dialogs.

And to close my opening statement, let me assume I’m a victim guy being jailed for DV. And I refuse to provide. Now what? You can’t try me for something I’m already doing/ done the time for (Double Jeopardy). Moreover, if the DV is such a nasty tool to women in the country so is the dowry act. And haven’t you already visibly seen the avalance in dowry exchanges? One of my engineering friends from Andhra just got a hotel, a new Merc CLK and a honeymoon in Hawaii. Recession is sure having its effects now!

As a footnote: Guys, if you ever think you’r going to be in for DV just try rape. The time you do is pretty much the same and atleast with rape you don’t need to pay rent!

To Hakuna: “So, the man exists at the mercy of the woman”

And how do you think it is right now???

Domestic Violence Act - State sponsored Harrassment?

2008-01-20T22:36:00.000+05:30

I was talking to Mark IV the other day, and in the course of conversation, I happened to mention to him that 'Under Section 497, I.P.C, the offence of adultery can be committed only by a male and not by a female who cannot even be punished as an abettor'. Interesting eh? Read on....I thought I'd give the men something to complain about....for once, a blog post on the Domestic Violence Act, that doesnt exactly support the womenfolk. The Act I will be discussing about in thi post is one of the biggest women-favoring one sided law that has been passed in the recent times - The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.

Primarily meant to provide protection to the wife or female live-in partner from violence at the hands of the husband or male live-in partner or his relatives, the Act extends its protection to women who are sisters, widows or mothers. Domestic violence under the Act includes actual abuse or the threat of abuse whether physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic. Harassment by way of unlawful dowry demands to the woman or her relatives would also be covered under this definition.

Feminist organizations have unequivocally and unanimously hailed the implementation of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act in India. They claim that this law will empower victims and protect them from abuse.

Most people in their right state of mind would agree that domestic violence in a relationship is not acceptable. It is only fair that for their own mental and emotional health and for the well-being of the children, that the victims be protected from abusive partners.

On the face of it, the law appears to be a blessing for people in abusive or violent relationships. However, a careful analysis reveals that, under the ploy of “women and children welfare”, this law is yet another misguided attempt to enact legislation to grant women legal supremacy over men and to create a society where men are deprived of their rights.

There are three fundamental problems with this law –

a) it is overwhelmingly gender biased in favor of women,

b) the potential for misuse is astounding and

c) the definition of domestic violence is too expansive.

The DV act singles out men as perpetrators of domestic violence and assumes that only women are victims. As per this law, only a woman can file a complaint against her male partner. A man, who is a victim of domestic violence, has no rights under this law. The fact is that it has been comprehensively proven in numerous studies [please see references] that women are no less abusive as men in intimate relationships. Giving such sweeping legal powers to women while withholding protection to male victims is tantamount to systematic legal victimization of men. In the western world, the domestic violence laws are gender neutral and provide protection to the victims, both men and women. The fact that the Indian version explicitly prohibits any male victim to seek relief under this law defies all logic and is beyond comprehension.

The second significant flaw in this law is that it lends itself to such easy misuse that women will find it hard to resist the temptation to “teach a lesson” to their male relatives and will file frivolous and false cases. A similar trend is already being observed in the case of anti-dowry law (498A of Indian Penal Code), which is being misused to such an extent that the Supreme Court has termed it “Legal Terrorism”. To illustrate how easy it is to misuse the DV law, consider the scenarios below. [She means wife/female live-in partner and he means husband/male live-in partner]

a) If she demands any amount of money from him, for any reason whatsoever, he is legally bound to pay that amount in full, failing which he can be imprisoned. Under the pretext of preventing economic abuse of women, this law legalizes the extortion of money by women. Interestingly, if he asks for money from her, he can be jailed for that as well. Furthermore, he is responsible for paying the rent if the couple resides in a shared rented accommodation.

b) As per the law, she retains the right to the residence. This is a very convenient means of getting control of the house regardless of whether she has any legal right on the property. Moreover, if he is booked under DV, he is responsible for paying the rent as well, even though he may not be allowed to live in the house or he might even be in jail.

c) If she decides not to cook and wishes to eat out in a restaurant everyday, he cannot afford not to oblige, lest he invites the DV provision for “not providing food”, for which he could be jailed.

d) If she has an affair and he tries to prevent her from meeting her lover, he could be punished under the DV act, as he is preventing her from meeting someone.

e) He can be booked under the DV act if she feels that she has been insulted. Insult is a relative term, which is totally left to her discretion. Interestingly, if she insults and abuses him verbally or even physically, he does not have any legal recourse in this law

These are just some of the ways in which women can exploit men in a legally permitted manner. The fact that the complaint by a woman will be treated, prima facie, as “true and genuine” opens up a whole new realm of possibilities where innocent men will be accused and implicated in false cases, just because they refuse to give in to her unreasonable demands.

Most people readily agree that the law will be misused. Their counter arguments generally are

a) The number of miuses will be very low OR every law is misused – The objective of any law should be to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The persecution of innocents cannot be justified in any circumstances. As is the case with 498a, this law will be heavily misused in urban India.

b) If she is happy, then why will she file a complaint – Ah ! So, the man exists at the mercy of the woman. If the wife wants to kick out old parents from home or wants to pursue an affair and should the man dare to object, she can get him incarcerated with alacrity. Any law that forcefully subjects a section of a society to conduct as per the pleasure of another section is deemed oppressive and should be vehemently opposed.

c) There are other provisions to deal with the misuse of this law – The fact is that there are other legal provisions to deal with domestic violence as well. If a strict law is made for a specific purpose, then the provisions for dealing with its misuse should be in the law itself.

The third major flaw in this law is that it provides an all-encompassing definition of domestic violence and some terms (insults, name calling) are extremely subjective. The radical feminists claim that 70% of women in India face domestic violence which comes as no surprise as even an insult is considered domestic violence. Interestingly, they are mum on how many indian men suffer domestic violence using the same criteria. This law strikes at the very foundation of marriage by promoting intolerance and litigation for petty domestic disputes. It is universally recognized that from time to time differences arise in a marriage and sometimes people, both men and women, behave in hurtful ways towards each other. Most people, though, are able to work them out and lead a more or less happy life with their loved one. However, this law makes it very easy to escalate the domestic problems in daily life to such a level that it eventually leads to a breakdown in marriage. Once a man has been accused of domestic violence for a something relatively minor (insult), while he might have been subjected to the same treatment from her, he will perpetually feel threatened by his partner and that is the beginning of the end. This law will lead to more divorces, broken homes and the children will pay the ultimate price by getting deprived of a pleasant childhood.

There are degrees of domestic violence and not all conflicts in a relationship can be termed as domestic violence. This law trivializes the issue of domestic violence by including minor differences in its realm and by explicitly denying protection to half of the population.
The law in its current form is grossly inadequate to tackle the problem of domestic violence. It imposes a lot of responsibility on men, without giving them rights. On the other hand, it gives lots of rights to women without requiring them to be responsible. At the very minimum, it should be made gender neutral, offering protection to both men and women. Also, provisions for stringent punishments need to be incorporated into the law to prevent misuse. Moreover, the law needs to be made more practical by differentiating between various degrees of conflicts and by unambiguously defining what constitutes domestic violence.

The fact is domestic violence is a serious problem and a neutral and unprejudiced law is needed to protect the genuine victims of domestic violence, irrespective of gender. The perpetrators of domestic violence need to be appropriately punished and dealt with. At the same time, protection cannot be withheld from real victims for any reason whatsoever, least of all their gender. One can be certain that there is something sinister about a law, when it intimidates and instills fear in innocent people. When a person who has not committed any crime, begins to fear punishment under the provisions of a law, it is not a law anymore – it is state sponsored terrorism.

No wonder, someone in blogosphere termed DV act as a 'Hiranyakshipu's boon to Shoorpanaka'

What the 'Lordships' said...

2007-11-05T16:13:00.000+05:30

Okie, I could either, twill my toes, scoff like I was studying for the exam tommorrow and put off replying to Mark IV's Illegal Law Paradox (about a law that outlaws all laws, thereby creating a paradox over itself) or get myself to choose to retaliate over choosing to study for the exam from (ironically) my IPC aka ee pee co bareact.

Here goes --

See the very situation that a law is passed making following any law illegal, is most improbable and impossible, considering the precautions that have been taken in India.

Let me elucidate in as simple a manner as possible, without splurging your senses with luxurious jargoneese.

Earlier, the Parliament had powers to amend the Constitution as it pleased. But this meant, that tommorrow, they could pass a law that said you had no Right to Equality, or even that you had absolutely no right to go about expressing yourself ( what would mark iv do?!), or say preposterous laws like what mark iv has proposed - 'that you need not follow the law henceforth!' .... As is understandable, it was total mayhem.

On one side, an amending power was necessary to keep the Constitution in pace with changing times. On the other hand, such an arbitrary power could be its very nemesis.

So, in this case initiated by one mallu dude - Kesavananda Bharathi (not Chandrashekhar, and no, definitely not his limit), something called the 'Basic Structure' Doctrine was propounded. It means, the Parliament has powers to amend the Constitution, alright, but there are some basic features - some elemental areas,the basic structure on which the constitution is built,that cannot be amended.For example, the Fundamental Rights, the Preamble. Its like you can remodel the house but you cannot dig up the foundation itself.

Moreover,the Constitution is superior to all other laws of the country. Every law enacted by the government has to be in conformity with the Constitution.

Hence, an idea that a law like 'dont follow the law' could come into existance is highly preposterous dear Mark IV!!

Does that convince, confuse or confound?

The Illegal Law Paradox

2007-11-05T13:33:00.000+05:30

So now that the deed is done and all, a little into the WHY of this blog.
Unlike the other blogs that myself (Mark IV) or Hakuna Matata (Sindu) run, this one is a serious outlet targeted at removing the legal ignorance so common amongst our masses (not inspired by Vijay's Tamizhan, possibly because it ran for exactly 2 hours in the theatres- half hour short of evne the movie's duration!)

So here goes the first question that drove us to create the Ee Pee Company (Fondly abbreviated to EePeeCo)-
Consider a hypothetical situation of a day someone passed a law that makes following any law illegal.
Now if you followed any of the preexisting laws, you could be put behind bars because you are breaking the new law. However if you broke the laws that would mean you are following a law (the new law) and therefore breaking the law that all laws MUST be broken.

Old Hakuna says this wouldn't be possible because of Chandrashekar limit or something like that (isn't that something to do with astronomy?), but i don't readily agree- the new law would make all the old laws obsolete...

Now what are you going to do Mr.Ambedkar? What happens to us good law abiding citizens? Is the cop going to catch us for the red or the green this time? Oh, that doesn't change a thing....

First things First

2007-11-04T00:35:00.000+05:30

THIS DEED OF Partnership made this 3rd day of November 2007 between Mark IV, of http://markalive.blogspot.com/ of the ONE PART, and Hakuna Matata,of http://hakunamtata.blogspot.com of the SECOND PART.

NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH

That it is hereby mutually agreed that the said shall become partners in the trade or business of blogging on 'ee pee co.' upon the following terms and conditions:

The partnership shall commence on the 3rd day of November 2007 and shall continue , until determined in the manner and upon the conditions as hereinafter provided.

The capital of the partnership shall be the consideration of blogposts, posted time to time in the form of discussion or otherwise and shall be contributed by the partners in equal shares and shall belong to the partners in such equal shares.
The profits and losses of the business (including loss of reputation) shall be divided and borne by the partners in equal shares.

That each partner shall be whole time working partner and they shall receive comments as salary for services rendered to the partnership business in equal share.

That this partnership is specifically non exclusive by nature.

Neither partner shall without the consent of the other partner-

Induct another partner to the partnership, assign his share or profits to a third party or mortgage the consideration in any manner without the consent of the other.

If either partner commits any act of any breach of any of the provisions of this deed any act which would be a ground for the dissolution of the partnership by the court or any partner becomes physically or mentally unfit to attend the business, then in any such case, the other partner may within one month after becoming aware thereof, determine the partnership by notice in writing and in such case he or any other partner shall have the option of dissolving the partnership.

All disputes between the partners or the partner and the representatives of a deceased partner in relation to any matter whatsoever touching the partnership affairs or the construction or interpretation of this agreement, and whether before of after the determination of the partnership shall be referred to a single arbitrator to be appointed by and the decision of such arbitrator shall be final and binding. The arbitrator shall be appointed by general consensus in case of such eventuality.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands the day and year first hereinabove written.

OBJECTIONS RAISED AND REBUTTALS :

1. Mark IV : If u n i are the only 2 partners n i get to be the deceased one, then the general consensus that chooses the arbitrator would just be you (and probably my dead body)... which could tend to make the arbitration a little biased....
no fair!
Hakuna : u wud be REPRESENTED! Its specified "or the partner and the representatives of a deceased partner "

2. Mark IV : one of the partners (me) and in a good probability, both the partners, are already mentally unfit to attend ANYTHING...no fair!!
Hakuna : see, the present state is referred to as stability, meaning the opposite wud be grounds for dissolving the partnership, meaning if some dreaded day, u or i bcom sane, the cause rises.

3. Mark IV : comments aa? i see im the only guy commenting on ur posts, n even u dont comment on mine all that often
Hakuna : yedho kadaikaradha share pannalaam naaa!

4. Mark IV : thats Mark IV- with I and V in CAPS....No FAIR!!!!
Hakuna : Changed.

As Mark IV casts with a "where do i place my left thumb impression? what if i got leprosy n dont HAVE a thumb left (or left thumb for that matter????)" , a Blogger's Oath will hafta do instead of the signature!

(In bonafide belief that neither partner had fingers/legs/toes/whatever crossed)
"We are the blogosphere, brothers and sisters, friends and foes, united together in support of freedom. We are diverse voices united in the pursuit of a multiplicity of goals and ideals, based upon our many divergent sets of beliefs and principles. Despite our differences, we together hold firm to this single unifying principle -- freedom of speech is the cornerstone of liberty, and we reject as tyranny efforts by any entity, be it religious, economic, political, or governmental, to regulate or forbid the free exchange of ideas on the internet. We pledge to resist, to the best of our respective abilities, any regulatory scheme which seeks to inhibit or prevent the publication or dissemination of facts and opinions on any matter of public concern, and promise our support to one another in that resistance. We are the blogosphere, and we will not be silenced. "

And here Ladies and Gentlemen, we present eepeeco.blogspot.com- the wrestling bout between the legal loop hole (Hakuna) and the illegal ass hole (Mark IV!)