Day: September 2, 2017

Government Clears Major Reforms To Be Introduced In Army Soon

Let me begin at the very beginning by pointing out that in a major reform to make the Army ready for fighting modern day warfare, the Centre on August 30, 2017 approved redeployment of 57,000 officers and jawans for combat role by restructuring some services. These changes were recommended by a high powered Committee headed by Lt General DB Shekatkar (retired) to improve “teeth to tail ratio”. They will be concluded by December 31, 2019. 
Government Clears Major Reforms To Be Introduced In Army Soon

                                                         While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that the approval for reforms was given in a meeting of the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi on August 30. This ratio stresses on enhancing operational capabilities in fast changing war fighting with stress on technology backed by a smaller support and administrative structure. The Army currently deploys more soldiers on non-combat administrative and supply chain duties than in the trenches in wartime.
                                                      For my esteemed readers exclusive benefit, let me also inform them that in his report submitted to the Defence Ministry in December in 2016, Shekhawat had recommended 99 measures to cut down flab and reduce revenue (maintenance) expenditure so as to modernize the Armed Forces at a faster pace with additional funds at their disposal. At presently, they are left with just 20 percent of the overall all Defence budget to cater for capital acquisitions. This explains why the drive to modernize the Armed Forces at a faster pace used to get a backseat till now but not any longer especially once the recommendations made by Shekatkar Committee are implemented on the ground! It must therefore be implemented at a war footing. There should be no delay of any kind on this score.     
                                                          It may be recalled that in May 2016, the Defence Ministry had constituted a Committee of defence experts headed by Lt General DB Shekatkar (retired) to recommend measures for enhancing of Combat Capability & Rebalancing Defence Expenditure of the Armed Forces with an aim to increase “teeth to tail ratio”. While announcing the decision after the Cabinet meeting, the Defence Minister Arun Jaitley said 65 out of 99 recommendations were accepted by the Government. More pertinently, while 65 measures of the Committee pertained to the Army, the remaining proposals focus on the Indian Air Force (IAF), Navy and Integrated Defence Staff (IDS).
                                                    Be it noted, Shekatkar expressed the hope that the remaining would also be implemented as “they too were very significant”. Those recommendations relate to the Military Engineer Services, Defence Research and Development Organisation, Directorate General of Quality Assurance, Directorate General of Defence Estates, the Ordnance Factory Board and defence accounts. Shekatkar said a large chunk of money was being spent on these organisations.
                                      Needless to say, these recommendations were also likely to be okayed soon, officials said later. Jaitley said perhaps for the first time after independence, such a big and “far-reaching” reform process is being initiated in the Army. While replying to a question by a journalist that whether the exercise was undertaken keeping in view the Doklam episode, Jaitley said that, “This is not specific to any incident. It had been going on much prior to Doklam.”
                                      It is being widely reported that the Army has recommended the implementation of 80 reforms. We all know that the Army’s massive manpower – some 38,000 officers and 1.1 million soldiers has been a drain on its budget leaving insufficient money for equipment modernization. The pressure to restructure manpower has increased over the last decade, with the Army adding 80,000-90,000 soldiers for two new mountain divisions and a mountain strike corps for the China border. This alone explains why the 57,00 troops saved by the new reforms could be redeployed to these organisations.
                                              To put things in perspective, apart from restructuring various services of the Army including Signals, Workshop bases, Transport units and Ordinance depots, the Government also accepted the Committee recommendation on improving the National Cadet Corps (NCC). It is noteworthy that officers of the three Services besides non-commissioned personnel are posted to the NCC and efforts will be from now onwards to recruit ex-servicemen to man it and free the serving personnel for active duty thereby adding immensely to the operational capabilities of the armed forces. More serving personnel would thus be available to fight the enemies in case of war which would certainly boost more the fighting strength of our armed forces!
                                     Let me hasten to add here that giving details of the structural changes, the Defence Ministry officials said that the Government approved optimisation of Signals Establishments to include Radio Monitoring Companies, Corps Air Support Signal Regiments, Air Formation Signal Regiments, Composite Signal Regiments and merger of Corps Operating and Engineering Signal Regiments. The other steps include restructuring of repair echelons in the Army to include Base Workshops, Advance Base Workshops and Static and Station Workshops in the Field Army. It was also revealed by sources that some of the works may be outsourced so as to save money on maintenance.   
                                       Let me bring out here that changes in Ordnance echelons will include Vehicle Depots, Ordnance Depots and Central Ordnance Depots apart from streamlining inventory control mechanisms. Other wings covered in the reform drive include Supply and Transport echelons and Animal Transport units with focus on better utilisation of these resources. As regards military farms, the process is already on to close them. At present, there are 39 such farms all over the country and 12 of them have already shut down.
                                       Let me also bring out here that these farms were set up during British rule in the Cantonments located far outside towns with the aim to provide basic necessities to people living inside these establishments. Similarly, the Government has decided to close Army postal establishments in peace locations as mean of communications have improved thereby allowing the troops to remain in touch with their respective families. With the deadline of December 31, 2019 to complete the reform process, officials said restructuring is aimed at enhancing combat capability in a manner that the 57,000 personnel will be used for improving operational preparedness and civilians will be redeployed in different wings of the Armed Forces for improving efficiency.
                                           As things stand, the restructuring would be completed by December 2019. The Army has around 40,525 officers and 1.15 million other ranks. While announcing the government’s decision to usher in the much needed reforms, Defence Minister Arun Jaitley told media after a Cabinet meeting the “far-reaching” revamp was aimed at improving Army’s tooth-to-tail ratio – the number of personnel (tail) required to support a combat soldier (tooth). The ‘tooth-to-tail’ ratio refers to the amount of supply and support personnel (termed as tail) for each combat soldier (tooth).
                                        It is indisputable that the Army currently deploys more soldiers on non-combat administrative and supply chain duties than in the trenches in wartime. Improving the ‘teeth to tail ratio’ involves whittling down administrative and logistic units that support combat operations, and redeploying the manpower thus saved into combat units. To increase what the defence ministry terms the Army’s ‘teeth to tail ratio’ by putting a larger percentage of soldiers on the frontline, Defence Minister Arun Jaitley ordered 65 reforms to the structure of the military. The Committee found that the current teeth-to-tail ratio is an unsatisfactory 1:1.5 which means that every 100 combatants directly fighting the enemy had 115 soldiers supporting them logistically and administratively and desired teeth-to-tail ratio which the Committee aims to improve is 1:1 or better.  
                                           All said and done, the Defence Ministry very rightly dubbed the overhaul the first such exercise in Independent India’s military history. Lt Gen DB Shekatkar (retd) who is head of the panel said that, “This is the first time a Committee’s recommendations on military restructuring have been implemented.” He also hailed the revamp saying it would boost the Army’s “combat potential, capability and endurance”. The Committee has rightly suggested that, if implemented over the next five years, the recommendations can result in savings of up to Rs 25,000 crore in defence expenditure. It has also rightly suggested enhancing standards for recruitment of clerical staff and drivers.
                                        On a concluding note, let me say that while I welcome all these reforms suggested by Shekatkar Committee but simultaneously I am also distressed to note that some key recommendations have not been accepted. These include –
1.  Enhancing defence budget from current <2% of GDP to 2.5-3% of GDP.
2.  Early appointment of four-star officer as tri-service commander.
3.  Setting up tri-service ‘theatre commands’ with units from Army, Navy and Air Force.
4.  Setting up cyber command for new-generation warfare.
5.  Tri-service training establishments like Indian National Defence University.
6.  Institution of ‘roll-on-plan’ for unspent budget to devolve to the subsequent year.
One only hopes fervently that the government will do some rethinking again and soon accept these recommendations also. This requires discussions with, and consensus amongst a larger number of stakeholders. Centre must set up tri-service ‘theatre commands’ as China’s People’s Liberation Army has done recently. Centre should never be oblivious of the unpalatable truth that a nation that ignores its forces or maintains a lackadaisical attitude towards its maintenance and upgrading has to pay a heavy price in the longer run when an enemy nation who is better equipped because of its huge spending on defence is able to ruthlessly crush it. Does Centre want this to ever happen? It is for Centre itself to decide!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh. 

Set Up Panels To Curb False Dowry Cases: SC

To begin with, in a big relief to husbands and their families facing false dowry harassment cases, the Supreme Court on July 27 in the matter of Rajesh Sharma and Ors v State of UP and Anr (2017) sought to restrict the untrammelled powers of the police to arrest those accused under IPC Section 498A till such time a Committee comprising legal service volunteers explores the possibility of a settlement. The Supreme Court said that such Family Welfare Committees will be constituted in each district. However, it was made clear that the order of the Apex Court will not apply to cases where the wife has died or sustained “tangible physical injuries”. 

                                                 To put things in perspective, a Bench of Justices Adarsh Goel and UU Lalit passed the order while dealing with a case of dowry harassment filed in Uttar Pradesh against the husband, his parents, unmarried brother and sister. No doubt, the Supreme Court has done well to explicitly direct the authorities to not arrest people or apply coercive means over complaints of dowry harassment without first conducting a preliminary inquiry. It is quite ostensible that the latest directive has come in the wake of many complaints that the police are quick to arrest not only the husband or the in-laws over dowry related first information reports but also their all other relatives including small children without even conducting a basic probe into the allegation as should be done always in all such cases! This is what is most troublesome and loathsome!
                                                Let me hasten to add here that there is no ambiguity over the indisputable fact that the application of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has no doubt been grossly misused in so many cases all across the country. This is what compelled Supreme Court to step in and make sure that in future such gross misuse is checked right at the very beginning. While laying down guidelines to ensure that the random misuse of IPC Section 498A stops, the Bench of Apex Court minced absolutely no words in making it crystal clear that, “It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continues to be filed under Section 498A alleging harassment of married women. Many such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times, such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement. Certain safeguards against uncalled for arrest or insensitive investigation have been addressed by this court. Still, the problem continues to a great extent. To remedy the situation, we are of the view that involvement of civil society in the aid of administration of justice can be one of the steps, apart from the investigating officers and the concerned trial courts being sensitised.” There can be no denying it.
                                              Truth be told, the Bench felt that in many cases chances of a genuine settlement can be examined by the Committee by giving them a month’s time. If settlement is reached, the concerned Magistrate shall close the case and even consider granting bail. It merits no reiteration that what the Bench has felt and suggested is highly commendable which needs to be implemented without any further delay!      
                                               As things stand, while quoting the National Crime Records Bureau’s 2012 data, the Bench said that a quarter of all arrests were those of women – mothers and sisters of husbands – and while chargesheets were filed at an “exponentially high 93.6%” of cases, only 14.4% ended in convictions. This itself is the biggest testimony to the gross abuse of anti-dowry laws in our country! What more should I say on this?             
                                        To be sure, it also must be revealed here that the report projected that out of the 3,72,706 cases pending trial in 2012, 3,17,000 would lead to acquittal. This begs the question: What more bigger proof is required to substantiate the irrefutable fact that anti dowry laws are grossly abused in our country? It needs no rocket scientist to conclude that the Bench of Supreme Court in this case very rightly decided to finally take steps to prevent the future misuse of anti-dowry laws!
                                       Be it noted, the Bench of Supreme Court ordered that trial courts must decide bail applications in such cases on the same day as far as possible. It was also held that, “Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected.” This was considered imperative to check the abuse of anti dowry laws. It also directed that a designated police officer should be appointed to deal with complaints filed under Section 498A. It granted states and Union Territories a month’s time to appoint such officers.
                                    It must be highlighted here that in this latest landmark judgment, the Apex Court broke away from the dominant perception that woman is always the victim to rule that in dowry cases, the account of the alleged victim need not be taken at face value, undercutting the innocence law enforcement agencies had so far assigned to complainants. It directed States to set up family welfare committee (FWC) in each district and tasked it with testing the veracity of every dowry harassment complaint.
                                    According to the ruling, the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) will form the Committee comprising three members who could be para-legal volunteers, social workers, retired persons, wives of working officers or citizens who may be found suitable and willing. A dowry harassment complaint to the police or Magistrate will be referred to the Committee that can interact with the parties personally or through electronic communication. Grant exemption from personal appearance or allow it by videoconference. Don’t make passport impounding or red corner notice routine for people residing out of India. The Committee must submit its report to the authority, which refers the complaint to it within a month.
                                     It was also stipulated that till the report is received, no arrest should be effected. Also, after considering the report on its own merit, the police or Magistrate will proceed with further action. The Apex Court also directed that only a designated Investigating Officer of the area shall investigate dowry harassment cases. Such designations must be done within a month. Referring to the National Crime Records Bureau report of 2013, it noted that conviction rate of cases registered under Section 498A was very low at 15.6% which highlighted that complaints were not backed by evidence.    
                                       Not stopping here, the Apex Court further added that these officers must be trained, which the court held must be completed within four months. Also, it was held that in cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to a District and Sessions Judge or any other senior judicial officer nominated by him in the district to complete the proceedings. Trial Judges should close Section 498A cases based on matrimonial disputes once parties reached a settlement.
                                         The Apex Court also directed that bail applications of husband and inlaws should be decided expeditiously by trial courts, preferably the same day it is filed. It must be recalled here that in 2014, a separate Bench of the Apex Court had criticized the law’s misuse. It held that, “The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives.”
                                         It may be recalled here that a Bench headed by Justice Chandramauli Kr Prasad and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose had given a landmark judgment in Arnesh Kumar v state of Bihar & Anr on July 2, 2014 where the Supreme Court gave certain guidelines to be followed. They are as follows: –
1.  All state governments have to instruct its police officers that they cannot automatically arrest a person under Section 498A of IPC but and under parameters of Section 41 of Cr PC.
2.  These police officers should be given checklist specifying the Section 41(1)(b)(ii).
3.  Then these officers should fully add in the reasons which made them to arrest a person and then produce him before Magistrate without delay for further actions.
4.  Magistrate can then authorize detention of such person only after perusing the reports produced by police officer and then record the same.
5.  If a decision has to be put for not arresting the accused, then it must be done within 2 weeks from the institution of the case.
6.  It has to be in writing to the Magistrate.
7.  Under Section 41A of Cr PC notice of appearance should be served on the accused and it should be done within 2 weeks from institution of the case in writing.
8.   If any police officer fails to comply with these directions then he can be liable for departmental actions and these directions of court will apply even to Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with Section 498A of IPC.
                                          All said and done, the Supreme Court itself in last few years has candidly acknowledged that a women too can now misuse antidowry laws for varied reasons. She too is not now above suspicion. The earlier belief that a women would never come out wrongly in the open against her husband or her in-laws has now been discarded as we see for ourselves that there are so many instances of false reports of dowry harassment.
                                             All States must now follow the latest directive by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma case as also the earlier case of Arnesh just mentioned above! One earnestly hopes that after the latest landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma’s case, there will be now at least some check on the gross abuse of anti dowry laws as a very potent blackmail tool against not only the husband but also his parents and relatives! Of course, a woman can no longer randomly misuse anti dowry laws so easily and yet get away after ensuring jail for not just her husband but also his parents and other relatives! She can now use anti dowry laws but cannot abuse them to falsely implicate her husband, her in-laws and her husband’s relatives because from now onwards there will be proper verifying by a Committee comprising of three Members and the chances of lies being exposed after careful scrutiny are now more than ever before!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

All States Must Emulate Maharashtra’s Law Criminalising Social Ostracism

Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by pointing out that in a very bold decision with far-reaching consequences, the Maharashtra state government has enacted a new law titled “The Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2016. This new law explicitly prohibits the social boycott of individuals, families or any community by informal village councils which otherwise had become very common and pervasive. Social boycott of anyone under any circumstances can never be justified. This alone explains why even media and all leading newspapers have hailed this as a template for other States to follow!
Criminalising Social Ostracism

                                                It is most gratifying to note that this landmark law has received Presidential assent thus paving the way for its implementation. Doubtless, this new Act will help save many people from being boycotted socially by a majority of people. To be sure, this new historic law expressly disallows social boycott in the name of caste, community, religion, rituals or customs.
                                      Truth be told, Maharashtra is the first state in the country to formulate a law to punish social boycott. This is truly historic from all angles. This new Act stipulates punishment which includes a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh and imprisonment of up to three years or both.    
                                                 To put things in perspective, while stating the aims of the landmark Bill, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis while endorsing it very strongly in the State Assembly said categorically that, “There cannot be any compromise on human dignity which is supreme. In a progressive state like Maharashtra, which has glorious legacy of social reforms, there cannot be any tolerance of a social menace that attacks the very basic fundamentals of humanity.” It is tragic that even after more than 70 years of independence we still see many parts of our country totally mired in casteism, communalism, social boycott and a plethora of other social ills that plagued our nation before independence. This has to end now and for this to happen we need a strong national legislation like the one enacted recently by the Maharashtra State Government recently.
                                                   It must be added here that before introducing the Bill for debate and passage in the state legislature, he had held a series of deliberations with various social organizations and political leaders across parties to evolve a broad consensus. According to the Act, social boycott of any person will be treated as a crime and individuals or groups or families or communities indulging in such activity would invite stern action. No one would be spared who indulge in social boycott!
                                                 Needless to say, although there are provisions in existing laws, social boycott was not clearly defined which often saw perpetrators using loopholes to escape punishment. The Cabinet had unanimously approved the draft Bill on March 1, 2016. However, it must be mentioned here that initially, several Cabinet Ministers representing the Shiv Sena party had raised vociferous objections as they were unduly worried that it would interfere with the age-old traditions or ritual and religion.
                                                     But it must be added here that several such misplaced apprehensions voiced by leaders from different political parties were clarified in the subsequent meetings before it was adopted in the Cabinet and the legislature. The new law very explicitly disallows social boycott in the name of caste, community, religion, rituals or customs. It is most pleasing to note that Chief Minister of Maharashtra Devendra Fadnavis minced absolutely no words in making it crystal clear that, “A progressive state like Maharashtra cannot allow social evils in the garb of caste panchayat diktats or rituals. However a law alone is not enough to stop such practices, social awareness is also necessary.” He told the House that a couple was outcast by a Panchayat in Cidco area of Aurangabad and fined with Rs 1.45 lakh for marrying in the same ‘gotra’. He said 11 persons have been arrested in this connection.
                                            Before proceeding ahead, it is imperative to answer some very elementary questions that are directly connected with this new Act that has been enacted in Maharashtra. This will banish all misconceived notions about this new Act. They are as follows: –
1.   What amounts to social boycott under the new law?
                                 It is quite palpable that if any individual or group tries to prevent or obstruct another member or group from observing any social or religions, custom or usage or ceremony or from taking part in a social, religious or community function, assembly, congregation, meeting or procession, the act amounts to social boycott. So is the case of challenging the freedom of individuals in the name of jati panchayats, religion, customs, or denying them the right to practice a profession of their choice. Freedom in this case includes the freedom to marry outside one’s caste, visit places of worship, wear clothes of one’s choice and use any specific language. Discrimination on the basis of morality, political inclination or sexuality also qualifies as social boycott. As does stopping children from playing in a particular space or disallowing access to crematoria, burial grounds, community halls or educational institutions with mala fide intentions.    
2.   How does the Act seeks to prevent social boycott?
                               A Collector or District Magistrate, on receiving information of the likelihood of unlawful assembly for imposition of social boycott can, by order, prohibit the assembly. Conviction of the offence of social boycott will attract a prison term of up to three years or a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh or both. Abetment by an individual or group will invite the same punishment. The offence of social boycott is cognizable and bailable and will be tried by a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate First Class. To ensure speedy justice, trial would have to be completed within a period of six months from the date of filing the chargesheet.  
3. Why it was felt imperative to have such a law in Maharashtra?
                             No prizes for guessing that the radical decision to enact such a strict law was primarily a reaction to unrelenting pressure mounted from growing incidents of atrocities on individuals by jati panchayats or gavkis wielding extra-judicial powers. The highest number of incidents were reported from the districts of Raigad, Ratnagiri and Nasik and the largest number of cases of social boycott were attributed to inter-caste marriages. In 2013-14, Raigad reported 38 such cases. It must be added here that prevailing laws are frequently challenged in the court, or loopholes are exploited by the accused to escape punishment. This new Act also facilitates the framing of charges under IPC Sections 34, 120-A, 120-B, 149, 153-A, 383 to 389 and 511 if there is concrete evidence to substantiate an accusation of social boycott.
                                  It must be appreciated here that Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who took the great initiative to do the cumbersome job of working out a consensus among political parties, argued that Maharashtra which is a state with rich legacy of social reforms, could not allow social boycotts. He very rightly pointed out that, “The Act was required in the backdrop of prevailing atrocities inflicted on people in the name of tradition, caste and community. Social boycott will be dealt with an iron hand. The atrocities inflicted by a handful of people in the name of jati panchayats or groups citing caste and community traditions will not be tolerated if it questions the dignity of a human being.”  
4. What role did social organisations play in the passage of what is essentially a social reform legislation?
                                   It has to be always borne in mind that social organisations played a stellar role in the passage of what is essentially a social reform legislation. It may be recalled here that four years ago, a campaign against the social boycott gained huge momentum and received widespread public support following the so-called “honour killing” of 22-year-old Pramila Kumbharkar. Pramila who belonged to a nomadic tribe and had married Deepak Kamble from a Scheduled Caste was allegedly killed by her father when she was nine months pregnant. The slain rationalist Narendra Dabholkar who had months before his murder, initiated a protest against social boycott and had fought against all sorts of superstition was killed cruelly by the social groups resisting any change of any type in society of ours! Earlier in May 2012, Rahul Yelange aged 30 years who was part of a team from Pune that conquered Mount Everest, faced social boycott in his village Budruk in Raigadh district because his wife wore jeans instead of sari and did not wear the traditional mangalsutra or put bindi on her forehead. In Roha taluka of Raigadh, there have been 22 cases of social boycott since 2010. Some 22 families of Dongri village had faced social boycott for varied reasons. In Raigadh, 34 cases of social boycott have been registered, out of which chargesheets have been filed in 28 cases and investigations are on in rest of the cases.    
5. How many types of social boycotts have been provided under the Act?
                                  The Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2016 provides 15 examples of social boycott. These include obstructing individuals from following their religious practices or customs, severing social or commercial contacts, imposing discrimination within the community and expulsion from the community.
6. Who all can be punished under the Act?
                               The Act makes it abundantly clear that who all can be punished under the Act: Those who directly practice social boycott, instigate others to do so, or participate in any meetings with the agenda of imposing a boycott.    
7. When was the first FIR filed under the Act?
                         The first FIR was filed on July 18 under the Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prtevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2016, at Kondhwa Police Station, Pune, against those who ostracized Rudrap and others like him in the past, including the community-head.
8. When was the Bill passed and when it received the President’s assent?
                                The Bill was passed by the Maharashtra State Assembly on 13 April 2016 and received the President’s assent in July 2017.
9. Has such a law been made for the first time?
                              No. Earlier also Bombay had enacted a law against excommunication in 1949 which aimed to remove any legal disabilities that may be suffered by a person who had been excommunicated from their community, religious or otherwise. But it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1962 as being contrary to Article 26 of the Constitution after the Dawoodi Bohra community convincingly argued that it violated the community’s constitutional right to manage its own religious affairs.
10. In how much time should the trial be concluded under the Act?
                                      To ensure speedy justice and facilitate time-bound results, the law stipulates for conclusion of trial within a period of six months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.
11. Who would be viewed as a caste panchayat?
                                    Any organisation that delivers a judgment or issues fatwas based on caste, would be viewed as a caste panchayat, even if unregistered, the Act says.
12. Can victim file complaint directly with Magistrate or with police only?
                             There is a provision for victims or any member of the victim’s family to file a complaint either with the police or directly to the Magistrate.    
13. Does the Act provide any monitoring mechanism?
                                Yes, a monitoring mechanism has been provided through social boycott prohibition officers to detect offences and assist the Magistrate and police officers in tackling cases.                            
                                               All said and done, the Act will pave the way for the State to strictly enforce it with a larger objective of uprooting social evils in the name of caste panchayats. According to the Act, social boycott will be now treated as a crime in Maharashtra and individuals or groups or families or communities indulging in such activity would invite stern action which includes jail term and fine also! All States must emulate Maharashtra’s law criminalizing social ostracism! We all know how Khap panchayats in northern States like Haryana and Uttar Pradesh among others are running a parallel government and this is especially more visible in villages where very few defy their unchallenged authority and those who dare to do so are stringently punished and all this goes mostly unreported. This too must stop and even the Law Commission too has recommended enactment of a suitable law by Parliament but fearing loss of votebank no party has openly espoused the noble cause of banning social ostracism perpetrated by such khap panchayats! Narendra Modi being our Prime Minister must take a bold decision on this just like his junior Devendra Fadnavis who is also from BJP and is Chief Minister of Maharashtra has done as soon as possible so that the social boycott of the poor, deprived, marginalized and powerless hailing from the weaker sections of society too are saved from social ostracism just like we now see happening in Maharashtra! No delay and no excuse! Do it just like notebandhi! But the billion dollar question that arises here is: Will Modi act now decisively?
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Varun Rightly Questions MPs Right To Hike Own Salaries

Let me begin at the very beginning by expressing my full solidarity and unstinted support for BJP MP Varun Gandhi very rightly questioning a plethora of practices including the lawmakers power to hike their own salaries and pass crucial Bills like the Aadhaar legislation without much debate and discussion. Why only MPs and MLAs have the right to hike their own salaries? Why Army officers or others have no such similar right?

                                              Let me be direct in asking few unpalatable questions: Do only MP and MLAs perform their duty with supreme dedication that they alone have been conferred with this exclusive privilege? Why this raw discrimination? When will this raw discrimination end? Why has this raw discrimination continued for more than 70 years without being questioned?
                                          While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that raising the issue of MPs right to hike their own salaries, Varun Gandhi who is also an MP very rightly pitched for an external body to determine their remuneration and said that it was “shameful” that the number of sittings in the Lok Sabha had dropped from 123 days a year in 1952 to 75 in 2016. The lawmakers had raised their salaries 400 percent in the last decade, Varun Gandhi said while wondering whether they had earned this massive increment?
                                              Let me be upfront in saying:  What I find most shameful is that our Prime Minister Narendra Modi while vowing to extract each and every paise of illegitimate money from all those who garner it is absolutely maintaining a deafening silence on it! Why Modi is endorsing the reprehensible position that MPs have the full right to time and again hike their own salary even if they do just no work or very little work and keep on just shouting whenever Parliament meets? Why is Modi not speaking out on this like Varun Gandhi?
                                       Let me also be upfront in asking: Why Modi in his three years of rule not lashed out against this malpractice of MPs raising their own salary 400 percent in the last decade even though he declared war against corruption and wasteful expenditure of money? Why Modi feels strongly that in India only MPs and MLAs have the right to hike their own salary? Why is Modi not paying attention to what Varun Gandhi has so rightly said? Why MPs and MLAs waste taxpayers money by shouting so much inside House yet they receive full salary? Why their salary is not deducted for their unparliamentary behaviour? Why rowdy MPs and MLAs are not fined?
                                                To put things in perspective, Varun Gandhi very rightly said that, “The Winter Session, 2016, hit a low-point of 16 percent. It is shameful. Taxation Bills, as significant as Aadhaar were passedwithin two weeks without being referred to a Committee”. What wrong has Varun Gandhi said? Why is Centre not deliberating on it?
                                                 Be it noted, while Varun Gandhi hit out at the practice of lawmakers too often raising the demand for a salary hike, he also very rightly pointed out that the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet at its first meeting had taken a collective decision not to avail salaries for six months in view of the people’s sufferings at the time. But what we see now is just the opposite. Our PM Narendra Modi has just no compunctions in putting the common man at inconvenience by ushering in notebandhi but under no circumstances is he is prepared to question MPs right to hike their own salaries whenever they want and that too without working much! Is it fair?
                                                 As things stand, we all know how just recently Narendra Modi and BJP President Amit Shah had expressed their displeasure at MPs being absent from Rajya Sabha despite a whip! Nearly 17 BJP MPs including Ministers were missing from the House when a united Opposition determinedly pushed for certain changes in the Constitution Amendment Bill to set up a National Commission for Backward Classes with Constitutional status! Do they still deserve full salary? Yes, this is what they are getting even after bunking without any valid reason whatsoever!
                                                   It must be revealed here that Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananth Kumar himself told reporters that, “When the party issues a whip, members must be present in the House. The party president has taken a serious view of the absence of members. It should not have happened and must not be repeated.” But we all know that it will be repeated again and again! Why? It is because whether they attend Parliament or not or whether they show up Parliament once in a blue moon like we see in the case of Sachin Tendulkar or Rekha or others still they will get full salary and there will be no deduction of their salary!
                                                Needless to say, I must express my utmost disgust at the manner in which Members of Parliament (MPs) repeatedly misbehave with the Speaker and still get away with either very light punishment or no punishment at all! This must end now once and for all. No more condoning of such unruly behaviour by MPs who are a disgrace to the entire nation! At the first place, why is there so much of tolerance for such a shameful behaviour?  
                                      Truth be told, it may be recalled here that Samajwadi Party lawmaker Akshay Yadav was censured last year after he threw bits of paper at Speaker – Sumitra Mahajan as Opposition parties continued their protests against the old 500 and 1000 notes ban by the Centre when the Parliament convened. We all saw how an angry Ms Mahajan adjourned the House. She was visibly upset by such atrocious conduct!
                                              Truly speaking, when the House reassembled, the Speaker Sumitra Mahajan reprimanded Akshay Yadav for his conduct. Sumitra minced no words in saying that, “This conduct is not proper on the part of the member and also for the dignity and prestige of the House.” He was let off lightly after a warning from Speaker to refrain from such activities in future.
                                                Let me not shy away from asking: Why should MPs be let off even after they misbehave with Speaker? Why are they being encouraged to indulge in such reprehensible acts by letting them off very lightly? Why should they not be permanently barred from entering Parliament or at least barred for the remainder of their term?
                                          Let me also ask some more unpalatable but pertinent questions here: Why in other services like Army or Civil Services are the officers immediately dismissed if they dare to throw papers at their seniors as it is deemed to be “gross misconduct”? Why only are politicians who become MPs or MLAs exempted from it? Why are they treated in such a VVIP manner even though they never tire in calling themselves “public servants”?
                                                    Why are they also not immediately barred from entering Parliament or State Assembly again? Why should they be let off after a mere warning or expulsion for just a few days which has just no effect on them which alone explains why Speaker has to repeatedly face insult and humiliation from MPs? Why Centre is not making any strict law in this regard? Why is it taking all this for granted?
                                      Let me be upfront in asking: Why if Speaker refuse to concede to the demands of MPs which is the exclusive prerogative of Speaker to concede or not to concede do they start throwing papers at Speaker? Why can’t MPs be more civilized in their behaviour? Why do they have the liberty to insult Speaker as and when they like and yet continue to enjoy all the privileges of MPs and at the most get expelled for just few days not even months or years or for life?
                                       Let me also be upfront in asking: Why some MPs think that it is their fundamental right to throw papers at Speaker? Why PM, Opposition Leader and MPs feel that throwing of papers should be taken very lightly and under no circumstances should they be expelled except for some few days? Are they not guilty of abetting MPs to time and again indulge in such unruly acts? Why they feel that issue should not be made of it and slight condemnation is enough? Why strict rules are not being framed so that those who don’t know how to behave properly are barred from ever entering Parliament again?  
                                        No prizes for guessing that once again on July 24 the Lok Sabha Speaker had to face unruly behaviour from MPs. Topics such as open defecation problem, mob lynchings and attack on Dalits were sought to be highlighted by the Opposition. Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge put forward an adjournment motion notice pertaining to mob lynchings and attacks on Dalits which was rejected by the House. He claimed the Opposition was not given a chance to speak.         
                                           Let me be quick to ask here: Does this give an unfettered licence to MPs to indulge in gross misconduct by throwing papers at Speaker or start shouting at the top of their voices or tearing papers and throwing them all around in Parliament? Why all politicians feel that all this should be overlooked as MPs enjoy certain privileges? Should this be considered a privilege that MPs insult and humiliate a Speaker and that too a woman Speaker? Why is PM Narendra Modi silent on it?
                                             What is most shocking is that 6 Congressmen who misbehaved were suspended for just 5 days which means that they have been given the unfettered licence to again after coming to Parliament indulge in similar misbehaviour and again face expulsion for just 5 days or so or even let off after a light reprimand which makes no difference to them at all! The suspended members are G Gogoi, K Suresh, Adhiranjan Chowdhary, Ranjeet Ranjan, Sushmita Dev and MK Raghavan.      
                                             Let me now also ask some more thought provoking questions: Should all Indians be proud that these 6 Congressmen who had the gall to misbehave with Speaker have been expelled for just 5 days? Why are there no strict rules that if any MP ever dares to throw papers at Speaker, he/she would be barred for life from entering Parliament? Why so lenient rules for MPs? Are such lenient rules not encouraging them to time and again storm to the well of the House and openly misbehave with Speaker as they like and yet continue being the Hon’ble MP?
                                            Let me also not shy away from asking here some more pertinent questions: Why are all MPs including Speaker so conspicuously silent on it? Why should MPs be allowed to throw papers at Speaker and then get away with it by just a slight reprimand or expulsion at the most for few days as we saw recently in the case of these 6 Congressmen? When will this shameful mockery end? How long will the reputed Chair of Speaker be insulted by MPs so brazenly only to come back again to Parliament and repeat the same act?
                                                        Can anyone tell me: Why MPs have the liberty to shout as much as they like in Parliament and instead of spending time on relevant things waste time by shouting due to which crores of taxpayers money are frittered away at the drop of a hat and not stopping here further throw papers at Speaker and still continue being MPs for the rest of their life and get away with just a reprimand or few days expulsion from the House? Why should such unruly MPs not be banned for life from entering Parliament? Why should they not be jailed for few years for insulting Speaker? Why should they be paid any salary for being an MP when they don’t even know how to behave inside Parliament?
                                           Truth be told, Sumitra Mahajan was candid enough to say that, “Sad with what happened. Question Hour should never be disrupted. Had told Kharge Ji, I will allow him to speak after Question Hour.” She also said that, “Creating ruckus at Well is non-disciplinary in itself but tearing up paper and throwing it on Speaker 4 times was worse.” Needless to say, the MPs threw pieces of paper and disrupted proceedings during the zero hour. The Speaker suspended them and adjourned the Lok Sabha till 2.30.
                                                 Truly speaking, this is not the first time that Congress MPs have been suspended for few days for their unruly behaviour. It may be recalled here that in 2015 also, the Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan had suspended 25 Congress MPs again for just five days for “persistently and willfully obstructing” the House. For how long will this be tolerated quietly? For how long will PM Narendra Modi keep a deafening silence on it?
                                        All Indians must also ask themselves these highly relevant but totally neglected questions: For how long will MPs continue to throw papers and insult Speaker and laugh at being expelled for just few days not more than 5 days as we saw just recently and as we saw in 2015? Should we all be proud of this? Should such unruly MPs not be shown the door for the whole life or at least expelled for the remaining term? How long will Centre take no action on this which concerns the high office of Speaker itself? Who will like to become Speaker if such reprehensible acts are allowed to continue unabated and unpunished?  
                                           As if this is not enough, let me also ask here: Why is no news channel or no magazine or no one in media is debating it seriously? Why MPs have the privilege to throw papers at Speaker and escape with just 5 days expulsion from the House? Why even after 70 years of independence we see no strict rules being framed in this regard? This open mockery and most reprehensible act cannot be just condoned by expelling them for a few days.
                                                It needs no rocket scientist to conclude that it is high time and now they must be barred for the rest of their life so that the right message goes out to all MPs that those who can’t respect Speaker have no right to be a MP! How many of us are aware that Speaker office comes above even  the CJI? Should it be still insulted in such a brazen manner by MPs on the ground that they have been elected to represent people and raise their voice in Parliament?
                                                      Let me hasten to add here: Protest has to be done in a well dignified manner as we see in case of eminent MPs from all parties who never indulge in such unruly behaviour! Let there be no doubt on this! Mayawati also protested and even resigned but she didn’t throw papers at Speaker! That is the proper way!
                                                   All said and done, Parliament cannot be allowed to become a dirty fish market where conduct does not matter at all! Most unfortunately, this is what we are seeing in Parliament right now! How long will this reprehensible status quo continue? All MPs must realize this! The earlier they do, the better it shall be for the healthy functioning of our democratic system.
                                      There can be no gainsaying the irrefutable truth that Parliament is the biggest citadel of democracy and few MPs cannot be allowed to hijack it and run it as they like without being checked by anyone or being allowed to escape very lightly! Such unruly MPs must be barred permanently from entering Parliament because they are just not fit for it! When once MPs will be shown the door for life for misbehaving with Speaker, no MP will have the audacity to ever dare to again misbehave with Speaker right inside the House!
                                               But the moot question that arises here is: Will majority of MPs ever allow this to happen has it is they themselves who will be directly affected by such strict rules? MPs only know how to make rules for another but when it comes to them they are not ready for any change and feel that MPs have the right to contest from jails and even if some one is barred from all government jobs because he/she has criminal cases pending against him/her even though they may be false but when it comes to becoming MPs then even dacoits like the former bandit queen Phoolan Devi or anyone else have every right to become an MP! Can this ever be justified? Still our MPs justify this and say that all cases against them are “politically motivated”!
                                                 But what about unruly behaviour inside Parliament? For this also they will give hundred reasons! Most unfortunately, here too they are allowed to have the last laugh and continue as MP in spite of misbehaving with Speaker! Why no serious attempt has ever been made by any government to permanently disqualify all such MPs who misbehave with not just Speaker but with anybody else?
                                               Why we see MPs hurling abuses on aeroplane while interacting with some staff official as we saw recently when a Shiv Sena MP slapped an official and even hurled abuses or with anyone else and yet not be expelled from Parliament? Why strict rules and regulations are there for only all other services and departments? Why similar rules not for MPs and MLAs?
                                                   Why they are treated as being above law? Why they are allowed to decide their own salary when we don’t see this happening in any other department? We have seen how they raise their salary 100 times or 10 times as per their whims and fancies! This too must end!   
                                                    It must be said that a beginning can be made in this direction by at least banning all those MPs and MLAs who misbehave with Speaker or with anyone who is presiding the concerned House! But again the moot questions are: Will this beginning ever be made? Will MPs and MLAs ever allow it to happen? Will the time ever come in our nation when those misbehaving with Speaker or with anyone presiding the House would be barred for life so that only those who display exemplary conduct are allowed to continue as MPs and MLAs? It is our national image that will enhance if this happens and huge taxpayers money won’t be wasted because of the shouting brigade who would then find no place in Parliament or in any State Assembly to sit and create a ruckus, throw papers at Speaker or at anyone who is presiding the concerned House and yet continue as Member of that House!             
                                            MPs very strongly feel that they themselves have the right to determine their own salary and hike it as much as they want and whenever they want! But still Modi who has declared war on corruption feels that there is nothing wrong on it and MPs are a special class! Why should MPs get full salary when they don’t even turn up when their own party issues whip to participate and vote on important matters?
                                      What a pity that PM Narendra Modi and BJP President Amit Shah repeatedly keep appealing to be present in Parliament during sessions but all their request fall on deaf ears! Still do such MPs deserve to be paid full salary? Why when PM Modi wastes no time in punishing those bureaucrats who don’t do their work properly take no action against such MPs who have just no time to attend Parliament even when important sessions take place?
                                        On a concluding note, let me say it loud and clear: The time is ripe now for ushering in what Varun Gandhi has very rightly demanded! All credit to him! MPs should have no right to hike their own salary! This must be ended now once and for all. An expert body of retired Supreme Court Judges, eminent intellectuals and economists should decide what should be the salary of MPs and MLAs and they alone should have the right to decide when the hike is to be done and payment must be in proportion to their performance! Why Modi does not say a single word on this? Is he even bothered to ponder deeply on this? When deadwood in bureaucracy and other professions can be thrown out then why should deadwood MPs and MLAs be allowed to enjoy unfettered freedom to hike their own salary and keep taking salary inspite of enjoying in foreign countries or in tourist hotspots? When will Modi declare a war on this or will they be allowed to make merry like Vijay Mallya who fled India even after not paying the salary of his employees since last so many months and not paying a whooping loan of more than 9000 crore from so many different banks and is now living a luxurious life in England which always grant safe asylum to such offenders from other countries? This burning issue raised most wisely by Varun Gandhi must be taken most seriously by not just PM Narendra Modi but also by all parties equally because there is a heartburn among the common man and this heartburn is what has been very rightly and forcefully raised by Varun Gandhi right inside Parliament! It cannot be permanently kept in cold storage as this will only worsen the explosive situation and it won’t be long before things finally explode for which PM and all MPs would be equally responsible! Do they want this to happen? It is for them to introspect and answer!
by:
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.