Saturday, December 7, 2013

Faux pas lies in the law of the land





 Protagonists of women’ rights  have strongly discountenanced the disclosure of the name of the intern concerned at many places in the operative portion of three-judge Supreme Court Panel Report in the Justice Ashok Ganguly case.  They seem to be highly indignant as to how such a faux pas/ gaffe could have been allowed by the highest court of the land. However, I feel that it is ripe time to put the record straight from the standpoint of the law of the land. The Supreme Court inquiry panel arrived at a conclusion that the statement of the intern, both written and oral, prima facie discloses an act of unwelcome behavior (unwelcome verbal/non-verbal conduct of sexual nature) by Mr. Justice (Retd) A.K. Ganguly with her and that said intern was not an intern on the roll of the Supreme Court and that concerned judge had already demitted office on account of superannuation on the date of incident.
     Hence, it can be culled out that alleged  act of grave impropriety and misdemeanour  i.e.sexual harassment reportedly by Justice Ganguly does not come with in the purview of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and further section 16 whereof prohibits the disclosure of the identity and addresses of not only of  the aggrieved woman but also of  respondent (person against whom aggrieved woman makes a complaint) and contravention of this provision has been made punishable under section 17 thereof.
            Moreover, alleged act attracts section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 inserted recently by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. It is also brought out that section 228A of the IPC also further amended by the Act of 2013 forbids the disclosure of identity of the victim of offence of rapes in its various degrees as held punishable in various sections 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376E of the IPC.  Further, section 327 of the CrPC mandates that inquiry into and trial of rape cases shall be conducted in camera. Thus, it can be said that law of the land except in the cases of rape and sexual harassment as envisaged by  Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 does not enjoin upon, in other cases of sexual crimes against women, to keep secrecy, more so, in a case where said law intern hereself ventured out to bring to fore her plight in the virtual world that has attracted lot of well-deserved attention in the real world.
However, dithering shown by the Delhi police in registration of FIR in the case inspite of a formal complaint by Ex Dean of Faculty of law of Delhi University squarely goes against the recent constitution bench pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme court that mandates   registration of FIR either on the basis of the information furnished by the informant or on any information received other than by way of an informant.
Moreover, it is no gainsaid to emphasize that sexual harassment results into violation of fundamental rights of women to equality under articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and her right to life and to live with dignity under article 21 of the Constitution and right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business which includes a right to a safe environment free from sexual harassment.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

News Report is wrong and shocking


The News Report “Wll invalid unless signed by 2 witnesses & registered : SC”  published in the "TRIBUNE" ,March 30, 2013 purportedly to the effect that Supreme court of India held that any will not signed by two witnesses and un-registered was “only a piece of paper in the eyes of law, having no legal effect” is factually and legally wrong and is the brainchild of serious misquotation of the clear & unambiguous dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the part of legal correspondent.  The question before the Supreme Court was whether the alleged document  was a will or in the nature of transfer of property.  The Court held that “it was neither in the nature of a Will nor in the nature of transfer of the property because the said writing was neither registered as required under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (as it must have been so in case of transfer of immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upward, S. 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908) nor was attested by two witnesses as it should have been done, had it been a Will.”
      It is to be noted that as per section 18 (e) of the said Act the registration of will is optional and Supreme Court of India nowhere throughout the judgment discountenanced it.  The record needs to be put straight by publishing a necessary corrigendum and clarification so that public at large is not misinformed & misled by such erroneous and preposterous news report particularly in the back drop that news report carried in this esteemed daily are taken with utmost earnestness and credibility.