Govt Mulls Lifer For Repeat Offenders For Human Trafficking

Coming straight to the key issue, it is a matter of great satisfaction to learn that the government is now all set to introduce a new law to guard against human trafficking. It has proposed a 10-year punishment for those engaging in “aggravated forms of trafficking” while seeking life imprisonment for repeat offenders. Trafficking any person just for the sake of earning extra cash and thus ruining the entire life of that person  is a completely unpardonable offence which must invite the strictest of punishment. Even death penalty will not be too harsh and must be used as long as this death penalty itself is not abolished!
                                         To be sure, this landmark Bill which has been proposed to identify various forms of trafficking, including for the purposes of bonded labour, sexual exploitation, pornography, removal of organs and begging, has proposed severe punishment for those engaging in the heinous crime. Very rightly so! No leniency is warranted under any circumstances for such despicable and ghoulish crimes!
                                       To put things in perspective, the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill 2017, initiated by the Women & Child Development Ministry, is currently with a Group of Ministers (GoM) that will take a final view on the matter. The draft Bill was released in May 2016. The Bill proposes the establishment of a national anti-trafficking bureau, which shall be entrusted with the gamut of issues aimed at controlling and tackling the menace under various forms. These include coordination, monitoring and surveillance of illegal movement of persons and their prevention.    
                                             It is noteworthy that the national anti-trafficking bureau will also be entrusted with increasing cooperation and coordination with authorities concerned with organisations in foreign countries for strengthening operational and long-term intelligence for investigation of trafficking cases, and driving in mutual legal assistance. This will certainly go a long way in ensuring that trafficking cases don’t go on unchecked and those involved in it are prosecuted and punished according to the law of the land! There can be no denying it.
                                   Let me bring out here that while listing out the ‘aggravated forms of trafficking’, the Bill speaks about offences such as bonded labour, by using violence, intimidation, inducement, promise of payment of money, deception or coercion. It also mentions trafficking after administering any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or alcohol, or for the purpose of marriage or under the pretext of marriage. The aggravated form also includes trafficking for begging or forcing those who are mentally ill or are pregnant.
                                           No doubt, such aggravated forms of trafficking must invite the strictest punishment. Even lifer is not enough. It must invite death. No person can be allowed to indulge in trafficking of any person and then escape with just lifer! This is just not done under any circumstances!
                                         Let me also bring out here that this Bill proposes specifically that, “Whoever commits the offence of aggravated form of trafficking of a person shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to life imprisonment.” For repeat offenders, it suggests imprisonment for life “which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life”, apart from a fine that will not be less than Rs 2 lakh. I very strongly feel that for repeat offenders the punishment should be mandatory death penalty and fine should not be less than Rs five lakh.
                                             While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me also inform them that as per data released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), human trafficking numbers rose by almost 20% in 2016 against the previous year. NCRB said there were 8,132 human trafficking cases in 2016 against 6,877 in 2015, with the highest number of cases reported in West Bengal (44% of cases), followed by Rajasthan (17%). How can all this be allowed to go unchecked and unpunished? This alone explains why this Bill proposes stringent punishment for those indulging in human trafficking!
                                        For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that of the 15,379 victims who were caught in trafficking, 10,150 were female and 5,229 males. NCRB revealed that the purpose of trafficking included forced labour, sexual exploitation for prostitution; other forms of sexual exploitation; domestic servitude; forced marriage; child pornography; begging; drug peddling; and removal of organs. It is widely believed that the numbers recorded by NCRB are a far cry to actual incidences of trafficking as many cases went unreported with many people still unaware of the crime or lacking faith and confidence in seeking police help.
                                    As it turned out, for those engaging in ‘buying or selling’ a person, the Bill proposes rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than seven years which can be extended to 10 years with a fine upwards of Rs 1 lakh. It must be pointed out that the Bill also seeks punishment for those engaging in trafficking with the help of media, including print, internet, digital or electronic. It stipulates a punishment of not less than seven years which can extend up to 10 years and a fine of not less than Rs 1 lakh.
                                       It is also pertinent to mention here that it is provided explicitly that, “Whoever distributes or sells or stores, in any form in any electronic or printed form showing incidence of sexual exploitation, sexual assault or rape for the purpose of extortion or for coercion of the victim or his/her family members, or for unlawful gain, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but may extend to seven years.”
                                             Truth be told, apart from the national bureau, the proposed Bill also aims at having state-level anti-trafficking officers who shall also provide relief and rehabilitation services through district units and other civil society organisations. The Bill also spells out measures towards relief and rehabilitation for the victims of trafficking. This is really commendable!
                                         What I like most about this proposed Bill is that in a sharp departure from the past, it does not treat a trafficked person as an offender but a victim. It has to be noted with deep regret that the existing laws do not take this laudable approach and instead most atrociously and unfairly treats both the trafficked person and the trafficker as criminals which under any circumstances can never be justified!  
                                         Be it noted, the Bill mandates that the constitution of District Anti-Trafficking Committee for every district. This Committee will perform various functions pertaining to the prevention, rescue, protection, psychological assistance etc of the victims. There will also be a State Anti Trafficking Committee to oversee the implementation of the law and advise the state government on matters pertaining to the prevention of trafficking and protection/rehabilitation of victims. A Central Anti-Trafficking Advisory Board will perform similar functions at the Union level.
                                                It cannot be lost on us that the Bill also takes into account various aspects of trafficking and the punishments as defined in Sections 370 to 373 of the Indian Penal Code. It also cannot be ignored that the Bill also aims to include other offences which are not dealt with in other laws for the purpose of trafficking, such as punishment for disclosing the identity of the victim, using narcotics/alcohol for the purpose of trafficking etc. The Bill stipulates mandatory reporting within 24 hours by a police officer, public servant, any officer/employee of protection homes or special homes having custody of the victim to the District Anti-Trafficking Committee or in case of child victim to the Child Welfare Committee.   
                                             Let me hasten to add here that a separate chapter on offences and the penalties is also a part of the Bill. It seeks to establish special courts in each district of the country and simultaneously also ensure that special prosecutors are appointed to fast-track the trials and increase prosecution. It also envisages the creation of a fund for rehabilitation of victims of trafficking.
                              It would certainly not amount to an exaggeration to say that the earlier this landmark proposed Bill is passed, the better it shall be in the interests of those who are trafficked and their families because it is they who are ultimately the worst affected in the whole process. Once this landmark Bill is finally approved by the Cabinet after giving it the requisite thoughtful consideration, it will then be tabled in Parliament where MPs of different parties would be free to give their valuable suggestions and then it will be referred to the Select Committee before being taken up for debate and getting it passed!
                                       It merits no reiteration that the menace of human trafficking has acquired serious proportions in last few decades. It has to be addressed on a war footing. This certainly entails strict punishment for offenders indulging in human trafficking and strictest punishment for repeated offenders! The Bill must be promptly enacted into a law and implemented swiftly and strictly to ensure that those indulging in it reap the consequences of their heinous acts and don’t escape lightly!
                                 All said and done, human trafficking is the worst form of crime for which there can be no justification. Those indulging in it must be awarded not just life term but death penalty also especially repeated offenders! Only then will a right, strong and clear message go out to all those indulging in it that they will have to face either life term or death penalty and also would have to pay a very heavy penalty not less than Rs 5 lakh for daring to indulge in it!
                                           It brooks no more delay and the punishment prescribed must be enhanced significantly especially in case of repeated offenders much more as I have spelt out so that those indulging in it are made to pay through their nose! Only then will it go a long way in serving as an effective deterrent in discouraging potential offenders from indulging in it! Hope so!              
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.   

BCI Mulls Ban On Practice By Lawmakers

Coming straight to the nub of the crucial matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost pointing out that it has been very rightly demanded by some eminent lawyers, activists and leaders in a letter written to the Bar Council of India (BCI) that those lawyers who become MPs and MLAs should be stopped from practising. The main ground on which they are demanding that the MPs and MLAs should be stopped from practicing is that they are drawing salary just like in any other profession. Then why should they be allowed to practice?
                                 More specifically, let me reveal here that a prominent BJP leader has requested the Bar Council of India to debar MPs and MLAs from practicing as advocates, saying that it was against the spirit of BCI rules which require advocates not to be engaged in any full-time trade, business, occupation or profession. There can be no denying or disputing it! The earlier this is done, the better it shall be in the long term interests of the legal profession which must have full time lawyers and not part time lawyers!
                                       Elaborating further, let me also reveal here that in a letter written to the BCI Chairman – Manan Kumar Mishra, the Delhi BJP leader Ashwani Kumar Upadhyaya who is also an advocate stated clearly and categorically that the practice of lawmakers doubling up as advocates also went directly against the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict in Dr Haniraj L Chulani v Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (1996). In this landmark verdict it was held that, “Legal profession requires full time attention and would not countenance an Advocate riding two or more horses at a time”. This merits prompt and positive response.
                                     It is heartening to note that the BCI has also taken serious note of it. This alone explains that why a high powered Committee constituted by it would deliberate and decide this all-important issue in next three days! Before deciding, it will certainly go into all aspects and consider each issue in detail!    
                                      Truth be told, the letter – a copy of which has also been sent to CJI Dipak Misra cited BCI rules to list out restrictions on MPs and MLAs on taking up any employment and sought to highlight that those working with the executive and the judiciary were not allowed to practice as advocates. Upadhyaya who had pointed out this glaring anomaly has termed it a violation of right to equality and right to non-discrimination guaranteed under Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Absolutely right!
                                  It would be pertinent to mention here that it has been noticed that several MPs and MLAs appeared as advocates during Parliament and Legislative Assembly sessions, which was not only immoral and unethical but also in violation of Rule 49 of BCI Rules. Upadhyaya wrote in his nine-page long letter dated December 18 that, “A legislator enjoys better salary, allowance and post-retirement benefits than members of executive and judiciary. It is an honourable and fulltime profession but does not remain noble merely by calling it as such, unless he is dedicated for welfare of people. Legislators are expected to put fulltime service to public and their constituents ahead of their personal interests. Nobility of the profession of law also has to be preserved and protected. Therefore, provisions of the Advocates Act and BCI rules must be given effect in letter and spirit to maintain clean and efficient Bar to serve the cause of justice.”  
                           To put things in perspective, according to BCI Rule 49 those who are drawing salary in any field are not entitled to practice as a lawyer. BCI Rule 49 reads as follows: “An Advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person, Government, firm, corporation or concern, so long as he continues to practice, and shall, on taking up any employment, intimate the fact to the Bar Council on whose roll his name appears, and shall thereupon cease to practice as an Advocate so long as he continues in such employment”.  The BCI will decide on this key issue in next three days. A high powered Committee has been constituted to look into this entire matter after a meeting held on this key issue decided on the same.
                                      Be it noted, BCI Chairman and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra said that, “The three-member panel is examining the provisions of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules in this respect. They will file their report in the next few days.” Ashwini Upadhyay who filed the petition contended that MPs and MLAs draw their salaries from the Consolidated Fund of India, hence, are “employees of the state”. Upadhyay also submitted before the BCI that, “Under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, MLAs and MPs are public servants. Hence, allowing them to practice as an advocate and restricting other public servants is arbitrary, irrational and violation of Articles 14-15 of the Constitution.”
                                            It is also noteworthy that Ashwini contended that it amounted to “professional misconduct” that MLAs and MPs who get salary and other benefits from the public fund, appear against the government. Some of these lawmakers even hold corporate retainer-ships. He also rightly submitted that, “They appear against the State to defend their lawbreaker clients in the Court of Law, which is the matter of conflict of interest.” The petition which Ashwini submitted also pointed out that while an advocate should be fully dedicated to his profession, legislators are also expected “to dedicate their fulltime to public and their constituents ahead of their personal and financial interests.”
                                         While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that among the members of the Committee are DP Dhall, RG Shah and BC Thakur. According to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, MPs and MLAs come under the category of public servants. In such circumstances, it is considered highly inappropriate that MPs and MLAs are allowed to still practice while other public servants are explicitly barred from doing so! The plea submitted by Ashwini very rightly submitted that the lawmakers – Members of Parliament and Members of the State Assemblies should be banned from doubling up as practising advocates, saying they are salaried public servants and cannot ride two horses at the same time.
                                          Isn’t this the worst case of hypocrisy, double standards and discrimination of the highest order? If this is not, then what else is? This has been allowed to happen since last more than 70 years but anyway it is better to be late than never. It must now be set right!
                                           Why MPs and MLAs are given relaxation everywhere? Why are they treated as above others? Why are the same rules not applied to them like others?
                                     They are many such grey areas and what is most unfortunate is that everywhere it is MPs and MLAs who have been given the long rope! No person can get any government job even if someone maliciously files a false case in any police station but to become an MP or an MLA even if you have many cases pending against you like late Phoolan Devi you can still freely contest elections! All such highly discriminatory practices must be thrown in the dustbin of history!
                                        Why MPs and MLAs alone have the unfettered right to increase manifold their salary without being checked by anyone when even Judges have no such similar rights? Why MPs and MLAs can fight elections even from jail? Why MPs and MLAs alone enjoy so many colonial privileges like providing many of them whomever the government of the day likes with the highest security at taxpayers cost? Why should they not be abolished?
                                             It still remains to be seen what the high powered Committee recommends on this. But I am quite certain that it will henceforth explicitly bar MPs and MLAs from practising and put a full stop to this entire controversy! It needs no rocket scientist to conclude that when BCI Rule 49 explicitly bars salaried class from practicing then why should MPs and MLAs be treated on a different parameter and exempted from the same when they not just get huge salary but also lots of other benefits like housing, vehicles, pension and a lot more!        
                                           All said and done, this should have been done a lot earlier probably right after independence. But seventy years down the lane we see still nothing being done till now in this direction. But again like a true optimist I would say that it is better to be late than never!
                                         It cannot be denied that a good beginning has been made by the Bar Council of India in this direction after getting complaints from leaders, lawyers and others. Let us hope that in the next three days we would see some decisive action on this. It is highly inappropriate that MPs and MLAs who don’t get time for even talking are allowed to continue as lawyers for namesake only!
                                    This must be discarded and I am  cent percent sure that now this will be done soon! A uniform policy must be framed to restrict the public servants, people’s representatives and members of the judiciary to practice other professions in violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and such conflict of interest must be treated as criminal misconduct to check what has been going on unabashedly since last more than 70 years in our country!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Our Father…

Jesus said, “When you pray, say, ‘Our Father who art in heaven….’”

Luther explains, “What does this mean? With these words God tenderly invites us to believe that he is our true Father and that we are his true children, so that with all boldness and confidence we may ask him as dear children ask their dear father.”

Salvageable adds: We are not God’s children because he created us. We are God’s children because Jesus redeemed us. The Son of God exchanged places with us after we ran away from home and joined with God’s enemies—the devil, the sinful world around us, and the sin inside of us. Jesus, who never sinned, took on the full cost of our sin and paid that price, so God no longer sees sin in us. Instead, he looks at us and sees his Son, and God therefore treats us accordingly.

As our Father, God would do anything for us. He has already given his Son for us; why would he resent smaller blessings on our behalf? But the Almighty God does not make himself our slave. He makes grand and generous promises to hear and answer our prayers, but he reserves the right to answer “no.” God will not give us anything that hurts us, no matter how often and how eloquently we ask. He will not abandon his plan to perfect the entire world through Christ due to our prayers. Indeed, Jesus teaches us what to pray precisely so we learn what things God will give us when we ask for them. In many cases, he will give us those blessings when we fail to ask. But God wants the lines of communication to remain open. He wants us to pray, and so he invites us to speak to him as young children speak trustingly to their earthly fathers.

We may be children of God, but we are very young children, the equivalent of two- or three-year-olds in the family. Our words of praise are feeble compared to what the angels offer God, but God knows our limitations and delights to hear our prayers; they are like crayon drawings that the Lord posts on his refrigerator. We often ask God for things that are inappropriate for us to have, but God never tires of our requests. We can ask him any number of questions without exhausting his patience. Having redeemed us and adopted us, God loves to hear our voices. Even when he says “no,” he will never turn us away lacking some blessing that he knows will be good for us.

I ache for people who say that they cannot approach God as a Father because of the faults and misbehavior of their earthly fathers. Parents bear a great responsibility to be pictures and representations of a God who teaches people to do right instead of wrong, but who also never stops forgiving and never stops loving his children. Where our parents fail us, God our Father remains reliable. We can always approach him through Christ, and nothing we say to him will lessen his love for us. J.

On prayer

Jesus said, “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (Matthew 6:5-13).

Prayer should be the simplest and easiest part of Christian living, but our imperfect minds complicate praying as we complicate so many things. Some Christians use prayer books and use only prayers created by others, while other Christians regard only spontaneous prayer as genuine. Some repeat the same brief prayers with great frequency, while others pray only on certain occasions, such as mealtime and bedtime. Some only pray aloud, others only in their minds, while most Christians pray in both ways at different times. A few take Jesus literally and never pray what other people can hear. Since Jesus prayed several times in the presence of others, we can take his warning to “go into your room and shut the door” as an exaggeration, parallel to “do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” (Matthew 6:3).

When we pray, we speak to God. Prayer is not a time to lecture others while directing our words to God—prayer is communication with the God who made us and who is in charge of the universe. We cannot impress God by the beauty of or prayers, so we might as well keep them simple and personal. We cannot fool God about ourselves, so we should not try, not even in our prayers. We pray often, because God is always with us and always wants to hear from us. We tell God what we want and what we need. We do not think that we can persuade him or bribe him to give us something that he does not want to give. We do not bargain with God. God has attached powerful promises to prayer, but he retains control of the universe.

The prayer Jesus taught his disciples, known both as the Lord’s Prayer and the Our Father, is an outline to guide our prayers. Martin Luther wrote that an hour is too little time to pray the Lord’s Prayer properly. When we honor the name of God, we stop and consider the many names of God and what they tell us about him. When we ask for daily bread, we add other needs; and when we pray for forgiveness, we confess our sins, as many as we remember.

Among some Christians, the Lord’s Prayer is also used as a group prayer. At those times, everyone in the group speaks the prayer together, often using vocabulary and grammar from England of the 1600s. This unites Christian prayer, not only with everyone in the building, but with previous generations of Christians who now are in Paradise awaiting the Resurrection. After all, the Lord’s Prayer is a group prayer—it has no I or me or mine, but is addressed to our Father and mentions our daily bread and our trespasses. Therefore, when we pray this prayer, we are praying for Christians around the world and not only for ourselves.

But when we use this prayer and teach it to our children, we need to explain the words of the prayer. Otherwise, they will grow up praying, “Our Father who aren’t in heaven, hollow be thy name,” or even, “how do you know my name?” Children should know this prayer so they can pray it with others and use it as an outline for their personal prayers. When we do not know what to pray, the Lord’s Prayer is a wonderful help. We know how Jesus wants us to speak with him and with his Father. We also know what Jesus and his Father want to give us. Paul wrote, “We do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words” (Romans 8:26). Along with those groanings, the Holy Spirit has given us this prayer from the mouth of Jesus himself, so we never need to feel that we are at a loss for words when we approach the throne of God. J.

Update and season’s greetings

I cannot predict my WordPress status for the next several days.

My home computer and WordPress are not interfacing well. When I go to my Reader page and try to scroll, the screen alternates between freezing and rolling uncontrollably, making it hard for me to click on a visit button before it escapes my pointer. Since I will not be able to use my work computer for the next few days, I may have problems visiting all the blogs I love and enjoy.

I have a project in mind, though, that I will try to post over the twelve days of Christmas. It involves picking up where I left off with Martin Luther’s explanations of the Ten Commandments and the Apostles’ Creed. The next topic will be prayer.

If I don’t have the opportunity to visit your site and wish you a Merry Christmas, please accept my best wishes all that same. May the Lord bless your celebration of His holy days. To Jesus be the glory. J.

Why Should Adultery Be Treated As Crime?

It is most astonishing to see that the colonial era law of adultery made in Britishers era is still flourishing with no real change being made in it. Many feel that women should also be punished as now she too stands on par with women, gets educated in best of institutions and gets the best of job and yet has no qualms  at all to indulge in adultery. They point out that in Jammu and Kashmir also both men and women are equally punishable then why not the same be applied all over India?
                                        To say the least, this is ridiculous argument and in the era of globalization we too must flow with the wind and appreciate that if something wrong is happening in Jammu and Kashmir then by the same token that cannot be extended to all other states as well! Two wrongs cannot make a right and where it is written that if once a wrong is done then it can’t be corrected? The adultery law in Jammu and Kashmir also must be amended to meet the present circumstances!
                                           It would be pertinent to mention here that many countries have decriminalized adultery and even England which ruled over us and made adultery punishable in India have also decriminalized adultery a long time back. Why can’t it then be now decriminalized in India also? It can certainly be decriminalized and it must be done forthwith!
                                     How can it be ignored conveniently that in 2012, a United Nations Working Group on laws that discriminate against women wanted countries that treat adultery as a crime, to repeal such laws? Is it not the duty of each of the countries who are members of UN which includes India who is a founder member to abide by it? Why can’t such an archaic and highly discriminatory law which most unfairly and unabashedly discriminates between men and women be promptly repealed?
                                                                        There can be no gainsaying the indisputable fact that a reconsideration of the law on adultery is not just long overdue but also it being decriminalized is most crucial!  This law of adultery which is right now before the Supreme Court has to pronounce now on the all important question which is an open question as to whether this Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code  really discriminates against men just on the basis of gender and gives not just an unconstitutional exemption to women but also abets her to indulge in it freely as she is not punishable at all under any circumstances! Is this really fair?
                                          To put things in perspective, while agreeing to issue notice to the government, the Bench has observed that the provision is archaic. It has also went further to observe that in a case of adultery, one person is liable for the offence but the other is absolved, and that the concept of gender neutrality, on which criminal law normally proceeds, is absent. The Apex Court has also noted that once the consent or connivance of the husband is established, there is no offence of adultery at all.
                                           Going forward, the Apex Court deems it as subordination of a woman and something that “creates a dent on the independent identity of a woman”. It is so shocking to see that a woman under the present law of the penal code is treated as a subordinate woman who cannot complaint of her husband indulging in adultery and also who can never be considered fit of giving consent! Why can a women be punished for theft, cheating etc but not for adultery? Why only the husband alone has the unfettered to prosecute an outsider for adultery?
                                             Most importantly, why should the offence of adultery be punished as a crime at all? Why can’t two adults who are consenting and willing be allowed to do what they want to do? Why should they be jailed for it?
                                         Why can’t India also like its former colonial ruler – UK decriminalize adultery and allow two consenting adults to do what they want to do? Why can’t India follow so many other countries who have all decriminalized adultery as they consider it to be no offence at all? Why can’t it be treated as their private affair?  
                                          Why burden courts with such useless case which is already overburdened with a huge backlog of pending cases thus consuming the precious time of the courts which can be utilised for pursuing other serious crimes like rape, gang rape, murder etc? Why do we disregard the irrefutable truth that it is one thing for adultery to be treated as a ground for divorce which is a civil proceeding and quite another for it to be made a basis for incarceration which is the most foolish thing that can be ever done which alone explains that why even UK has decriminalized it? When UK can do it then why can’t we do it?
                                          When so many other countries can do it then why can’t we too do similarly? Are we waiting to be the last country in the world to decriminalize adultery? We must introspect seriously!
                                        In a nutshell, criminalizing adultery cannot be justified under any circumstances. Every adult person must have the right to live a life of his/her choice! Why criminalize it? There can be no ground to justify it!
                                         Why punish those who are having sex with consent? Why can’t we come out of our medieval mindset? Why treat woman as “inferior person” who just does not understand anything when she decides to have sex with any men of her choice?
                                             Why put restrictions on women to have sex with any men of her choice? Why can’t it be left to the men and women to do what they want to do in their personal life as long as the sex is not rape? Why punish sex with consent?
                                               On a parting note, let me say this very clearly and categorically that law makers must step in and immediately decriminalize adultery as we see in so many other countries! We are living in a modern and progressive world. Why then should we follow British era rules and laws notwithstanding the irrefutable fact that even Britishers have decriminalized adultery in their own country?
                                   Why then can’t we also decriminalize it accordingly to meet the present circumstances? It is never too late! We must all understand this fundamental truth fully well! Most of all, Centre must act suitably and waste no time further in amending the law of adultery to meet the present circumstances by decriminalizing it accordingly!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.       

Prophecy, fulfillment, and time

During this Advent season, many Christians contemplate the prophecies of Jesus in Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms, comparing those promises to the ways they were kept in the birth, life, passion, and resurrection of Jesus. This meditation is good, but it can sometimes be approached in a misleading fashion. Some Christians speak of God first making the promises and then finding ways to keep them, like a planner checking items off a list.

“Let’s see – I said he would be born of a virgin – Mary of Nazareth will do nicely. (check)

“I said he would be born in Bethlehem. I can prompt Caesar to call for a census so that Joseph will be compelled to take Mary there before the birth.” (check)

“I said that he would be honored by Gentiles bringing gold and incense and myrrh. Here’s a group of wise men who will fit the bill.” (check)

“I said they would be led by a star. How on earth am I going to lead them to Bethlehem by a star?”

Peter wrote, “Do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (II Peter 3:8). God does not move through time as we created beings move through time; he can step into and out of the time stream at will. When the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets, he was not setting up conditions that would have to be met. No, he was telling what he had already seen of future events, for he had already been there. Judas was not fated to betray Christ because of some promise God made centuries earlier; Judas chose to betray Christ, and then the Holy Spirit told prophets about the betrayal centuries earlier.

Some say that, hanging on the cross, Jesus quoted the first verse of Psalm 22. A more theologically sound position is that Jesus prayed sincerely from the depths of his anguish, and then the Holy Spirit inspired David to write the Psalm which vividly describes the crucifixion and quotes Christ’s prayer one thousand years earlier.

When the prophecies and fulfillments are seen from this perspective, deeper and richer meaning appears in those prophecies. Mary was a genuine person, a historic figure, who conceived and gave birth to a son while still a virgin. At the same time, Mary stands in the place of the Bride of the Lord—Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church, one Bride distinguished only by the before-and-after of Christ’s Incarnation in our time stream. This Bride is betrothed, still awaiting the coming of her Husband on the wedding day. Although a virgin, she has already given birth to the Son of God, now Incarnate, who has fulfilled the promises that would claim his people and bring about the royal marriage of Christ and his Church.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem so he could claim the throne of his father David. David had been promised a son who would rule an eternal kingdom (II Samuel 7). Solomon does not match the son described to David—Solomon became king while David was still alive (v. 12), although Solomon sinned he was never disciplined with stripes and rods (v. 14), and after ruling for forty years, Solomon died, and his kingdom was divided—it was not eternal (v. 16). Jesus fulfilled all the requirements of the Son of David and remains a true Son to God the Father (v. 14). Though he did not sin, he took upon himself the sins of the world and was treated accordingly, including the stripes and rods borne by Roman soldiers.

But Bethlehem was more than the hometown of David and therefore of his descendants. The name of the town means “house of bread,” and it became the birthplace of the Bread of Life, the Living Bread that (like manna) comes down out of heaven (John 6). After he was born, Jesus was placed in a manger, a trough from which sheep eat, signaling that the Good Shepherd would feed his sheep with his own body (I Corinthians 10 & 11).

The wise men bearing gifts who were guided by a star probably knew the prophecy of the Gentile prophet Balaam, who said in the days of Moses, “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near; a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel” (Numbers 24:17). The wise men knew that the King of the Jews, whose birth was signaled by that star, would also be a priest and a sacrifice, so they honored him with royal and priestly gifts.

All the Old Testament descriptions of the Messiah add up to more than a checklist of things God had to do, or ways to identify the Messiah when he came. They were given as instruction to the saints of Israel, so they could believe in the coming Savior and have a place in his eternal kingdom. They remain for our instruction today, expanding upon what was written by the apostles to describe Jesus as Savior. God’s Bible is full of rich interconnections which never stop teaching us about the glory and grace of God, who came among us to be one of us, to rescue us, and to claim us for his kingdom. J.

Christmas tree past

With apologies to the late Tom Petty… and to my son:

He’s a good boy, but sometimes curious,

Can’t help touching what he sees.

It’s a blue spruce, but make of plastic

With ornaments of ceramic and glass.

It’s got colored lights and shiny tinsel.

It’s wobbly, won’t stand up straight.

He’s a good boy, but sometimes curious,

Can’t help touching what he sees:

Now the tree—

Tree falling!

The tree–

Tree falling!

J.

O Christmas tree (Oh, nuts)

The story so far:

Last May we had a fire on our property—a good-sized storage shed/workshop went up in flames. The cause was a fault in an electrical outlet. As I was driving home after I got the news, I prayed two things: that the fire would not spread to the house, and that no one would be injured. Both prayers were answered. Less important, but also in my hopes, were the Christmas decorations in the back of the shed. Arriving home and seeing that most of the damage had been in the front of the shed, I continued to have hope for a while longer.

But the fire traveled up from the outlet into the rafters and then was carried to the back of the shed, where the decorations were stored. Most of those boxes were scorched, and many of their contents were singed. These contents included many ceramic ornaments and decorations that were hand-made by my mother, who is no longer around to restore or replace such items. Others were special gifts from other years, or special purchases from past Christmases.

The insurance company was very helpful, paying one company to tear down and replace the shed, paying another company to clean items that could be cleaned, and paying us replacement costs for ruined items we did replace and partial value for items we chose not to replace. Most of the cleaned items were returned to us at the beginning of November. I found the autumn decorations and was pleased with their condition. Now, as Christmas approaches, I am gradually unpacking those decorations and placing them around the house.

Our seven-foot artificial Christmas tree had been on the floor of the shed, underneath the other decorations. The cleaners firmly said—before we even had a chance to ask—that they do not clean Christmas trees. I set the tree up in the driveway to air, then left it in the garage until the new shed was completed. This week I finally brought it into the house. My family and I have looked at new trees in the stores, but nothing available now appeals to us. Many of the new trees come with lights already permanently installed, and the Salvageable family does not work that way.

When I was a boy, my father trained me to decorate Christmas trees with a very high standard of perfection. Every light must be attached to a branch; none of the lights can float in midair between branches or merely lay on top of a branch. They must be installed several inches down the branch so there is room to hang ornaments. They must go deep into the tree to give it full dimensions instead of being a cone of lights. In all my years of decorating Christmas trees, I have always insisted on following my father’s method.

I bought eight new strings of lights, each with 150 bulbs. That’s 1,200 bulbs to be placed firmly on branches. As I put them on the tree, I noticed a faint odor of smoke still lingering in the tree. I also noticed dirt gathering under my fingernails. The tree is fifteen years old, so some of that dirt could be from other years rather than ash from the fire. We bought this tree one January after the previous tree had toppled as my son added trucks and dinosaurs to its decorations. It remains full and lifelike, although five of the branches are held to the trunk by twist-ties. When all the lights were attached, I continued with other duties, such as picking up a daughter from dance class and getting the garbage out to the curb. While finishing the latter task, I saw that all the lights on the tree had gone dark. Not wanting to spend more time on it that night, I unplugged it and left it alone.

The next day it was found that only the bottom string on the tree was malfunctioning. I removed it from the tree and checked carefully for breaks in the cord, thinking that a cat may have chewed on the tree and cut the cord. Second I checked for loose bulbs. When both inspections failed to reveal a problem, I decided to change the fuses in the plug of the cord. Suffice it to say that, in an effort to remove and replace those fuses, further damage occurred to the plug, making the string’s replacement inevitable.

Before going to the store, I looked again at the instructions for the cords and learned that the old method of stringing all the cords as one line no longer works with modern lights. No more than three strings can be plugged in together. This appeared to mean that I would have to strip all the lights from the tree and reattach them. At the store, however, an extension cord was found to solve just that problem—the cord has three sets of outlets along its length, so it can be wound through the tree and bring power to all the lights.

I brought home that cord and the new string of lights, only to discover that I had grabbed the wrong package of lights—the cord was white instead of green. So that meant another trip to the store to make the exchange.

Today the tree has lights, but not yet any ornaments. Six boxes in the shed contain Christmas tree ornaments. (I hope one of them also contains the missing pieces to the manger scene—it is short an angel and two sheep and one other figure, probably a shepherd). Maybe tonight and tomorrow, and possibly stretching through the week, those boxes will be brought into the house, each individual ornament unwrapped, inspected, and lovingly placed on the tree. Many memories will be renewed. And we will have our Christmas tree throughout the coming twelve days of Christmas. J.

Christmas letter

Dear family and friends,

It has been great receiving your Christmas cards this year and reading your letters. Congratulations on the spectacular accomplishments of your children and on the wonderful vacations you have taken in the past year.

Our older son graduated from college eighteen months ago and is still looking for a job in his field. If you know of a laboratory or corporation that is hiring chemists, please drop him a line. Meanwhile, he continues to develop his skills mixing paint at Home Depot, which at least supplies him money for rent and groceries.

Our daughter left college last winter and spent three months in the hospital. They have changed her medication a couple of times, and she seems to have stabilized. Of course some days are harder than others for her. She was employee of the month at the McDonalds on the highway in October. Meanwhile, she remains very popular, as she receives letters and phone calls nearly every day from collection agencies that want to discuss her student loans and medical bills.

Our younger son is adjusting to life at the military academy, and his parole officer believes that he has turned the corner in making good decisions. Best of all, the owners of the car have dropped their lawsuit.

The Mrs. and I were not able to get away for a vacation this summer, although we did spend some pleasant Sunday afternoons at the free museums downtown. We also had some pleasant hikes at the two nearby state parks. We did have the opportunity to travel out of state in September for the funeral of my mother-in-law, and we agree with everyone there who said that the family ought to get together once in a while for happier occasions.

My back is steadily improving from last year’s fall down the stairs when the dog attacked me. What a relief it was to learn that the dog did not have rabies! I carry a can of pepper spray on my route now, but I haven’t had to use it yet. Of course the bag of mail has gotten a lot heavier the last two months with all the advertisements and holiday greetings. It’s such a pleasure to be back on the job, though, that I really don’t mind the extra weight.

The Mrs. sends her greetings. She has decided to stay with the housecleaning business for the foreseeable future, although most of her coworkers are younger than she is. She says that she could write a fascinating gossip column for the paper about the things she has learned about people by cleaning their houses.

I guess that’s about all the news from our household this Christmas. We wish you blessings for the new year, and we hope that 2018 is even better for all of you than 2017 has been.

Reprinted from last December with two small edits. J.

Lawyers Lead The Health & Wellness Vacation Trend

A new trend that can be observed is more and more people, and especially lawyers in seems, are packing their bags and heading for healthy holidays instead of the usual binge vacations where more beer is drank than water. This new trend can be observed by the number of fitness and weight loss retreats like this great one and many more in Bali, Thailand, India, and even in places like Mexico. They are capitalising on the fact that health and wellness is now the commonly held value of the majority of the population. It is especially clear in the educated populous, which is likely why we are seeing so many lawyers attending!

Lawyers Lead The Health & Wellness Vacation Trend

 In India there is an upward trend of both people attending this style of health holiday, and also new locations in tourist destinations such as Goa and Kerala where they are setting up new retreats to cater for the masses who wish to heal and lose weight. The one we attended in Bali was absolutely fantastic. It was compiled in three parts including a full detoxification to first cleanse the mind and body and allowing it to clear and heal before starting the training section of the program. The detoxification was possibly the highlight for us and for many others who accompanied us on the program, we felt so clean and pure after completing the cleanse and it set up perfect to lead into the remainder of the program where we really lost a lot of weight. Overall are experience was phenomenal and we can definitely see this trend continuing both lawyers and everyone else who cares about their health!

SC Dumps Draconian PMLA Clause Denying Bail

In a major relief to thousands of undertrials, the Supreme Court on November 23, 2017 very rightly struck down a draconian provision which can deny a person bail even if there is reasonable ground to believe that he or she did not commit the offence of money laundering. We are living in a democratic country in which every person has the right to live a free life. The State has no right to deny any person the right to live a free life on the slightest pretext just on the suspicion of having committed the offence of money laundering.
                                              Noting that the history of bail practices traces back to the Magna Carta, the Apex Court declared the draconian Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002 violative of the fundamental rights to equality, life and personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. How can then it be allowed to continue? This alone explains why Supreme Court has very rightly dumped the draconian Section 45(1) of the PMLA which arbitrarily denies bail without any reasonable grounds whatsoever! There can be no denying this!   
                                        While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that a Bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and SK Kaul, in their judgment, passed a general direction to courts to take up thousands of cases of undertrials who have been languishing in prisons, unable to get bail, because they did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45(1) of the PMLA. By all accounts, this is a landmark order which will benefit thousands of undertrials who will thus be set free and live a normal live just like all others! It certainly deserves unqualified appreciation because if this order had not been passed, many undertrials especially those who are poor would have continued to languish in jail for a long time!
                                            For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that a Bench of Justices RF Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul held Section 45(1) arbitrary and unjust because it allowed a Judge to deny bail to an accused charged with an offence that is punishable with more than three years in prison. It was held that, “We declare Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in so far as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional as it violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India”. As per Section 45(1), an accused could get bail only after the public prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose the application and if the court is satisfied that the person is neither guilty of the alleged offence nor likely to commit the crime again on his or her release. Secondly, the court should reasonably believe that he is not guilty of the “predicate” offence for which he received the laundered money as proceeds of the crime. The Apex Court set aside all orders by which bail to an accused was denied due to the twin conditions and directed that such cases be remanded back to the respective courts to be heard on merits.
                                        Going forward, let me also reveal here that “predicate” offences include a range of crimes from 26 different laws from waging war against the Government of India to offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Indian Penal Code to Wildlife Protection Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Child Labour Law, etc. The Modi government had stoutly defended the stringent conditions on the ground that it was an attempt by the Parliament to get back the black money siphoned off from the economy. But the Apex Court held explicitly that the law leads to “manifestly arbitrary and unjust results and, therefore, violates Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to liberty) of the Constitution.” Justice RF Nariman, who authored the verdict, said Section 45(1) was violative of Article 14.
                                       Truth be told, the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment came on a clutch of petitions challenging the validity of Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It must be noted here that the petitioners in the case had moved the top court after they were denied bail following the twin conditions. The petitioners argued that they were wrongly denied bail.
                                         As it turned out, the Apex Court gave them the liberty to approach the trial court afresh and said their bail petitions should be heard and decided expeditiously thus bringing a fresh smile on their face. It must be recalled here that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was introduced to make money laundering an offence and to attach property involved in money laundering. It was aimed to adequately deal with the serious threat to the financial system of India.
                                        To put things in perspective, though the PMLA Act was passed by the Parliament in 2002, it was brought into force only in August 2005. Thus, in other words, it started functioning only from August 2005. It must be borne  in mind that the Scheduled offences defined in PMLA comprise various offences, including some under Indian Penal Code, anti-drug law, Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, Wildlife (Protection) Act, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Prevention of Corruption Act and Antiquities and Arts Treasures Act.
                                             Be it noted, it was argued before the top court by the petitioners that the two conditions made grant of bail virtually impossible in money laundering cases. Also, to satisfy them the accused will have to disclose their defence at a point in time when they are unable to do so. On its part the government urged the top court not to strike down the provision but read it down to make it constitutional.
                                                     However, the government’s argument was not accepted by the top court, which rightly said the provision had no rational relation with the grant of bail for the offence of money laundering. The two-Judge Bench of Apex Court pointed out a glaring anomaly pertaining to the bail provisions. Such stringent conditions of bail being granted only if the court is convinced that the accused is not guilty are not applicable when someone applies for anticipatory bail to prevent being taken into custody for charges of money laundering and what is worse is that once arrested, his sliver of hope of his/her chances of getting bail shall stand banished!
                                 In hindsight, the Apex Court, while hearing a batch of petitions and appeals challenging the constitutional validity of Section 45 of PMLA termed it as a “drastic provision” which turns on its head the presumption of innocence which is fundamental to a person accused of any offence. It also said that, “Before applying such a Section which makes ‘drastic inroads’ into the fundamental right of a personal liberty under Article 21, we must be doubly sure that such provision furthers a compelling state interest for tackling serious crime.” It further went on to say that, “Without any such compelling state interest, the indiscriminate application of the provisions of Section 45 will certainly violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Provisions akin to Section 45 have only been upheld on the ground that there is a compelling state interest in tackling crimes of an extremely heinous nature. Merely ‘reading down’ the two conditions would not get rid of the ‘vice of manifest arbitrariness and discrimination’.”
                                      Needless to say, the Apex Court also very rightly pointed to one of the anomalies in Section 45 and said that anticipatory bail could be granted to a person who is prosecuted for the offence of money laundering which may last throughout the trial of the case against him. It said if the person is arrested for the offence of money laundering, then in order to seek regular bail, Section 45 will apply, which was an anomalous situation. So it had to be set right which was done!
                                     So, on a concluding note, it can well be rightly said that this landmark judgment validates what once legendary and most learned Judge of Supreme Court of India – Justice VR Krishna Iyer once famously said in a case that, “Bail shall be the rule and jail shall be the exception”! It must be welcomed with both hands by one and all! It will certainly ensure that thousands of undertrials don’t keep languishing in jail just because of this draconian PMLA clause Section 45(1) which has rightly been dumped by the highest court of India and are able to lead a normal life just like all other countryfellows! There is no reason why this landmark judgment should be not appreciated in most grandiloquent terms!  
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Judges Taking Over Executive Power Violates Lakshman Rekha: Jaitley

Let me begin at the very beginning by pointing out that while crossing swords with the judiciary, the government on November 25 questioned judicial activism and criticized the “trend” of courts appointing retired Judges to head Committees and wondered aloud how Judges would feel if other organs stepped in to do their job. The government certainly has a valid point. As for instance, we saw how the Supreme Court stepped in to decide whether it was correct to send back those thousands of Rohingyas refugees who had illegally crossed over to India following the persecution they faced in Myanmar.
                                            If Government feels that they are a potential threat to the national security and must be sent back that should be final. Judiciary must refrain from stepping in an area which exclusively belongs to the executive. We all know how our national security gets compromised as it had been in the past when we allowed crores of Bangladeshis to illegally stay back in India even after their country got independence from Pakistan! Why should India allow Rohingyas to go and settle in Jammu and Kashmir from where Kashmiri Hindus and those Indian Muslims sympathetic to them were forcibly evicted and compelled to live as refugees in their own country! Why no voice is raised for them? Do they don’t have human rights?
                                       Why is it being treated so casually that Rohingyas entering India and being transported not to some other state close to Myanmar so that they can be deported easily when things calm down but to such sensitive places like Jammu and Kashmir which is directly attacked by Pakistan time and again which can never be good for the national security? Why should Supreme Court even think about allowing them to stay there after PIL is filed in their favour? How can human rights of foreigners who have nothing to do with India be bigger than our paramount national interests? How can it be ignored that many Rohingyas had killed about 100 Hindus and burnt their houses before fleeing to India and have links with dreaded terror organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba? How can Hafiz Saeed’s open call to Rohingyas to kill Indians be ignored while they are in India?
                                             To put things in perspective, while leading the charge was Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, who, addressing a session at the National Law Day function said that, “I have often heard an argument that judicial activism is born out of a phenomenon that other institutions are not doing their job, somebody has to fill the gap. It’s a flawed argument. It is flawed because if any organ of the state is not doing its duty, it can be directed to do its duty. Usurpation of power…by any other organ would never be the correct constitutional approach. What if the same argument was used the other way round against the judiciary? Arrears were pending, judges are not doing their job. So must somebody step in and now exercise that power? The answer is no…And therefore, it’s extremely important that the dividing line on separation of powers is maintained. And therefore, by creating arguments, the thin dividing line itself cannot be lost. Once it is lost, there is no limitation on which area it will go into.”
                                               What Arun Jaitley has said must be treated with utmost respect because he is not just any other Minister or Finance Minister who in the past has also handled Law Ministry but he was also one of the most revered senior lawyer of Supreme Court who even represented Central Government on many occasions till a few years back before ultimately plunging himself fully into politics and becoming a Minister! He thinks a lot before speaking anything and is not the sort of person who would say anything just to remain in news! This alone explains why Centre has very rightly handed him the key Finance portfolio and even the Defence portfolio has also been handled by him apart from Law!    
                                         Be it noted, the session, titled ‘Judicial Review and Parliamentary Democracy – Balancing the Separation of Powers’, was organized by the Law Commission of India and Niti Aayog. Calling for caution while exercising judicial review, Jaitley said, “While exercising the power of judicial review, one has to bear in mind that separation of powers is maintained in its entirety. The executive is not trained to exercise either legislative or judicial power. Parliament is not trained or really an institution to exercise judicial power. Judiciary is similarly not trained nor does it have that administrative maturity of exercising legislative power. In fact, if judiciary gets into the process of exercising executive or legislative power, directly or implicitly, the very institution of judicial review itself will suffer.” Judiciary must always bear this in mind what Jaitley has said!
                       It also must be borne in mind that Jaitley went on to talk of the “latest trend” of courts appointing “retired judges” to various committees to discharge executive functions. He said that, “Also this…new trend…alright, I don’t exercise the power myself (but) I will appoint my nominee to exercise the executive power, the nominees may be equally unsuitable to exercise the executive power because they have not been trained. Retired judges have been trained to write judgments…not to run sports organisations…Therefore this temptation of taking over executive power and exercising it yourself or through your nominees clearly violates the Lakshman Rekha (of separation of powers).”
                                     The moot question that arises here is: Why when judiciary exercises so much restraint that it has never till date ever ordered the creation of a single bench of high court in any part of India even though it is a judicial function and it understands the implications fully well of creating a bench in far off places due to which people have to face so many unnecessary inconveniences , it has never so ordered and always left it to the government to decide! The people of Uttarakhand from 1947 to 2000 till it became a separate state had to travel thousands of kilometers all the way to Allahabad to attend court hearings as there was no bench there but only one single bench had been created way back on July 1 in 1948 for such a big state like UP and that too in Lucknow which is just about 150 km away from Allahabad but Supreme Court never stepped in to save people from the huge inconvenience of travelling so far to Allahabad! Even now people of West UP about more than 9 crore of about 26 districts are compelled to travel all the way to Allahabad which ais about 700-800 km away from all these districts and benches and high courts of 8 states are nearer to West UP as compared to Allahabad still Supreme Court never stepped in!
                           As if this was no enough, Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge – Justice Jaswant Singh had recommended 3 benches of high courts to be created for West UP and hilly areas (now Uttarakhand) at Agra, Nainital and Dehradun but not a single bench was created even though on its order a bench was created at Aurangabad in Maharashtra, Jalpaiguri in West Bengal and Madurai in Tamil Nadu! Yet Supreme Cout never said a word on it! In 2012, Centre created 2 more high court benches for Karnataka which already had a bench at Hubli for just 4 and 8 districts at Dharwad and Gulbarga but not a single bench for more than double of the districts – 26 of West UP yet Supreme Court never said a word on this! The 230th report of Law Commission had recommended creation of more high court benches in big states in 2009 buit Centre implemented it only in Karnataka which till now remains the only big and sole beneficiary of it yet Supreme Court did not say a word on it!
                                 This despite the fact that Ban ki Moon who was UN Secretary General had slammed UP and not Karnataka as “rape and crime capital of India” and maximum pending cases are in UP about 10 lakhs and in Karntaka it is less than 2 lakhs yet it was awarded 2 more benches but Supreme Court said nothing! West UP accounts for more than half of pending cases of UP as was testified by Justice Jaswant Commission yet Supreme Court never ordered creation of a bench here! Even former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee demanded creation of a bench in Parliament but again Supreme Court kept aloof! It is no secret that maximum crime, maximum killings alkl take place in West UP yet it has no bench and UP tops the number of killings list of states and Bihar comes second yet UP has least benches in India and Bihar has none whereas peaceful states like Maharashtra, Karnataka and Assam have either 3 or 4 benches yet Supreme Court never stepped in even though it comes under its purview!
                               Truth be told, the lawyers of West UP have gone several times on strike as for instance for 6 months from July to December 2001, for 3 to 4 months in 2014-15 and have been striking work for more than 36 years every Saturday from May 1981 to December 2017 and is still continuing but judiciary has never stepped in to resolve this vexed issue! It has always chosen to kept aloof! Why has it never intervened for such a long time?
                                Truly speaking, the people of West UP who are litigants are compelled to travel whole night more than 700-800 km all the way to Allahabad without reservations many times and face many other inconveniences but judiciary never intervened! Why? When it can exercise itself restraint on this count where so many people have to face so many inconveniences which is a talking point everywhere especially in West UP then why can’t it act similarly in other cases also?
                               Warning that there would be no limits if the “Lakshman Rekha” is crossed, Jaitley said, “You probably (will) have a court saying where security forces are to be deployed is something which I will decide…” He added that if every high court were to decide on where security forces are to be deployed, for instance, “it’s an invitation to anarchy.” The Kolkata High Court had in October stayed the Centre’s move to withdraw Central forces from Darjeeling and Kalimpong districts, where they had been deployed during the recent Gorkhaland protests. This was subsequently lifted by the Supreme Court.
                           It has to be borne in mind that in his inaugural address, President Ram Nath Kovind who earlier has himself practised inm Delhi High Court and Supreme Court too touched upon the need for sepration of powers between the judiciary, legislature and executive, saying, “They need to be careful not to cross into each other’s defined spaces or give the opportunity to read transgressions where none is intended. This can occur in many circumstances. For instance, when extraneous comments and obiter dicta come to dominate public debates, crowding out of substantive understanding and deliberation of a well thought out judgment.”
                          It also cannot be lost upon us that earlier, addressing the inaugural session, CJI Dipak Misra asserted that judiciary was duty bound to stand with citizens if other organs of state encroached on their fundamnetal rights. He said that, “The fulcrum of governance – let it be legislature, let it be judicary, let it be executive – is that the citizens have been guaranteed fundamental rights and the governing entities are not expected to encroach upon it. The moment thery encroach upin it or there is an apprehension there shall be encroachment, the judicary is obliged to stand by them.”
                                   It is also of immense significance that the CJI sought to allay fears of judicial activism but stressed that it was the job of the courts to interpret government policies. He said that, “There is a perception that there is judicial activism. I must clarify. Protection of fundamental rights of each and every citizen is trhe sacrosanct duty of the judiciary which has been conferred on it by the Constitution. Fundamental rights have been expanded from the date the Constitution came into existence. Expansion of fundamental rights is done by the process of interpretation…Nobody intends, nobody has the desire to enter upon policy making areas. We don’t make policies, we interpret policies and that’s our job.” He has a point!
                                  Well said but again I must ask: Why Supreme Court has never ordered the creation of more high court benches in big states like UP and Bihar which are notorious for their lawlessness when even Union Cabinet Ministers like former Satyapal Singh have in past demanded the creation of 5 more benches at Meerut, Agra, Jhansi, Gorakhpur and Varanasi and considering the indisputable fact that Allahabad High Court is oldest in India completing its 150 years in 2016 and is biggest court in whole of Asia yet has least benches in India! All high courts come under the jurisdiction of Supreme Court still why has it never taken any action on this score?
                                 Why UP sends maximum MPs, maximum MLAs and maximum elected representatives and has maximum population more than that of Pakistan still has least benches and why when even Justice Jaswant Commission recommended creation of bench here in Agra was not a bench created here? Why Supreme Court till now has chosen to look the other way? Why has it never shown any activism in this regard not just in UP but for any other state as well? Why can’t it exercise such restraint in other areas also? It is high time and some serious introspection must be done and it must be always rememebred that “Even Judges are not infallible”! A good rapport is needed between executive, legislature and judiciary for running the country smoothly and clashes must be avoided by paying heed to what Arun Jaitley has said so elegantly! This is what our nation needs now!   
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Strike By Lawyers Of West UP Every Saturday For 36 Years Is Most Concerning

To begin with, it is no ordinary matter that the lawyers of West UP have been on strike every Saturday since May 1981 to protest against denying West UP even a single bench of high court even though the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission had recommended the setting up of a high court bench at Agra apart from Nainital and Dehradun which are now in Uttarakhand but not a single bench was created anywhere. On the contrary, Centre took just no time to create a high court bench at Aurangabad in Maharashtra in 1985 on the recommendations of the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission as also at Madurai in Tamil Nadu and Jalpaiguri in West Bengal! It was then that the lawyers of West UP decided to set up a Central Action Committee to pursue the most sacred and legitimate demand for a high court bench by fighting for it relentlessly till it reaches its logical conclusion.  
                                    It needs no rocket scientist to conclude that it is the “poorest of the poor” people among the more than 9 crore people of all religions, castes, communities and sexes without any discrimination whatsoever who will stand to gain the maximum if a high court bench is created in West UP! What is the problem then in creating a high court bench for more than 9 crore people living in 26 districts of West UP in 2018 when a high court bench for Lucknow for just 12 districts was created way back in 1948 on July 1? Why even after 70 years is Centre not prepared to create a high court bench in West  UP even though the people are compelled to travel for about 700-800 km whole night all the way to Allahabad as there is no bench here and have to spend huge money for staying, lodging and other expenses? Why can’t all this be avoided by setting up a high court bench in West UP or by attaching 26 districts of West UP with Delhi High Court which is so nearby?
                                             Why the high court and benches of 8 states and above all even Lahore high court in Pakistan is nearer to West UP as compared to Allahabad? Why the lawyers of West UP were compelled to go on strike for 6 months from July to December 2001 demanding the creation of a high court bench in West UP yet no action taken? Can anyone in Centre even dream as to how the lawyers managed to strike for so long thereby depriving themselves from livelihood for full 6 months and how they struggled to meet their daily end yet no bench created?
                                      Even in 2014-15, the lawyers of West UP went on strike for 3 to 4 months and even boycotted Lok Adalats and protested whole night outside the court but again Centre just gave empty assurances but nothing materialized on ground! Even in 2009, the lawyers of West UP went on strike and even called a bandh in whole of West UP to protest the decision to not create a single bench here! Even in 2010, the lawyers of West UP went on strike for a month demanding bench.
                                                      Most recently, the lawyers of West UP went on strike for a week from 14 October to protest against the Governor of West Bengal Kesarinath Tripathi being accorded a guest honour in CCSU and while staging peaceful protest, many senior and eminent lawyers among others got injured badly, the most prominent being Chaudhary Narendrapal Singh, OP Sharma, MP Sharma and Vinod Rana among others as Kesarinath Tripathi had opposed the creation of a bench in West UP in 1995-96 when Mayawati wanted the same to be done and had infamously said that, “Creation of a bench in West UP will be over my dead body”. Why this hatred for West UP? Have people of West UP ever opposed the creation of just one bench for whole of UP in Lucknow which is just 150 km away from Allahabad where high court itself is located? If Lucknow is capital then so are Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Dehradun and Thiruvananthapuram among others?   
                                      Why a high court bench at Port Blair for just 3 lakh people, a high court for just 6 lakh people of Sikkim, for just few lakhs of people of people in Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura as also in many other smaller states? Why a high court now for Uttarakhand since 2000 for just 88 lakh people but not even a bench for more than 9 crore people of West UP? Why such a raw and third rated treatment for them?
                                             Recently, President, PM and Chief Justice of India among others wished the nation on “Constitution Day” and everyone reiterated the dire need to make justice accessible to poor people! But I fail to understand why since last 70 years a single bench has been denied to West UP thus compelling people to travel without any reason so far to Allahabad to get justice? Why when 230th report of Law Commission recommended creation of more high court benches was it not implemented in big states like UP and Bihar which top in the crime rate, murder rate and still UP has just one bench and Bihar has no bench even though Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad is from Bihar? Why more than half of pending cases from West UP as acknowledged even by Justice Jaswant Commission yet no bench created here?       
                                         Why for a peaceful state like Karnataka 2 more benches were approved in 2012 at Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts even though a bench existed at Hubli even though the pending cases are less than 2 lakh and that of UP stands at more than 10 lakh pending cases? Similarly why many other states like Maharashtra and Assam have 3 and 4 benches but for UP which has maximum population more than 22 crore as CM Yogi Adityananth keeps boasting still has least benches in India inspite of having maximum pending cases in high court about 10 lakh and more than 58 lakh in lower courts?
                                          Why maximum MPs, maximum MLAs, maximum villages more than 1 lakh whereas in other states the number is not more than few thousands at the most, maximum districts, maximum crime etc all in UP yet least benches here? Why former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon slams UP as “crime and rape capital of India” still we see least benches here and here too West UP which accounts for maximum crime has least benches? Why even leaders of BJP as also other parties are repeatedly killed by criminals without any fear and crime rate is exceeding so much that even foreign tourists are not spared as we saw a Swiss couple beaten up badly in Agra still no bench here? Why even 100 year old woman is raped by criminals without any fear still no bench here?
                               Why Centre does not have pity on more than 9 crore people of West UP in whose support lawyers have been waging agitating for a bench since independence and which has intensified since 1981 when lawyers decided to strike every Saturday and make sure that no lawyer does any work on this day and unitedly demand the creation of a bench here? Why lawyers even started striking many times even on Wednesdays yet Centre took no notice? Why even Atal Bihari Vajpayee demanded bench for West UP inside Parliament yet no action?
                                         Why all Union Ministers, MPs and MLAs have unitedly demanded creation of a bench here yet no action? Why for 36 years lawyers of West UP have been striking which should find entry even in Guiness Book of World Records for most period of strike still no bench is being created here? Why in 1955 the then UP CM Sampoornanand had demanded the creation of a bench in Meerut but Centre didn’t agree even though Lucknow had a bench since 1948?
                                             Why this stupidity that the people of Uttarakhand had to travel thousands of kilometers as it had no bench and for more than 50 years were compelled to travel all the way to Allahabad as a single bench was created at Lucknow in 1948? Why bench was not approved for any other place? Why even after 70 years nothing has been done to remedy this grave injustice? Why inspite of population of West UP being more than any other state except Maharashtra and Bihar and here too areawise Bihar with 94000 square km is smaller than West UP with 98000 square km still it has no bench?
                                    Why inspite of repeated assurances by successive governments in Centre was nothing done to fulfil it? With what face is Centre denying a bench even now when Amit Shah who is BJP national President and Rajnath Singh who is Union Home Minister had repeatedly assured that a bench would be created once NDA comes to power in Centre and in UP? Why Centre feels that even if lawyers of West UP strike for 100 more years nothing will change?
                                      Why only lip service of “speedy justice”, “justice to be made accessible to the poor” and “justice at doorsteps” if no step is taken to create a bench in West UP where incidents of crime are touching dizzying heights? Why Centre fails to appreciate that lawyers of West UP striking since such a long time for 36 long years every Saturday and regularly holding meetings after meetings to chalk out new strategy to push forward the surge of creating a bench can be resolved only by creating a bench here in any of the 26 districts wherever Centre wishes to do so? Is it such a big deal?
                                       Should it not be done immediately? It is the litigants who will stand to gain and here too it is the “poorest of poor” who will benefit most if a bench is created here and all strikes every Saturdayand sometimes even on Wednesday and sometimes for 6 months in a row will become a matter of past! Does Centre not wishes this happens?
                                              Why then it refuses to take any action on this score? Why is Centre not taking some action to ensure that this more than 36 year old strike by lawyers of West UP is brought to an end by mutual deliberations, discussions and decisions? Why is decision on this score being postponed inordinately when a bench was created at Lucknow in 1948, in Dharwad and Gumbarga for just 4 and 8 districts and in many other places even though the law and order situation is worse in West UP as compared to any other place for which benches were approved? Why can’t Centre stop coughing preposterous excuses and create a bench in West UP by which more than 9 crore people will gain in equal measure?
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.    

Can Convicted Politicians Head Political Parties?

It must be said at the very beginning that there can be no two opinions about the indisputable fact that in India a lot of cleaning is required in political parties because politics has become quite a murky affairs as anyone can not just enter politics but even head political parties inspite of being convicted. It is also unquestionable that political parties are most reluctant to do anything on this score and let us not live in a fools paradise by hoping that their stand would change somehow in the coming years. So, it needs no rocket scientist to conclude that Supreme Court must step in and bar convicted politicians or even politicians who have serious criminal charges against them from heading any political party or from even being a member of it.
                                        While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me also inform them that the Supreme Court on December 1, 2017 sought the responses from the Centre and the Election Commission on a plea seeking to restrain convicted persons from forming political parties and becoming their office-bearers for the period they are disqualified under the election law. Can convicted politicians who incur disqualification to run for elections, head political parties? This question will now be dealt by the Supreme Court after a public interest litigation (PIL) suggested that political parties headed by convicted persons should be derecognized by the Election Commission.
                                             For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud sought the response of the Centre and Election Commission in this regard.  This Bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra while asking whether the court could stop a person from propagating his political views, agreed to examine the Constitutional validity of Section 29A of the 1951 Representation of the People Act (RPA) which deals with the power of the poll panel to register a political party. The Court clarified that it was only dealing with the question whether the power of Election Commission to recognize political parties under Section 29A of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 will also carry with it the power to derecognise such political outfits headed by convicted netas.  
                                                Needless to say, if an order is passed banning convicted netas, it is bound to take within its fold the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) whose chief Lalu Prasad is a convicted person and he will be worst affected by it. The fate of another important leader Sasikala, who claims to be the political heir to Jayalalithaa and who would have become Chief Minister if she was not convicted for corruption in a disproportionate assets case will also hinge on the outcome of this petition as she is presently in jail. Without getting personal, let me mince no words in stating unequivocally and unambiguously that all convicted politicians must be barred entirely not just from heading parties but also from being associated with politics in any manner as they are just not fit for it.
                                      Let me be upfront in saying: The real problem in India is that there are no parameters for politicians. Are politicians coming from some different planet? If not then why are they treated with kidgloves?
                                 Let me also be upfront in saying: Even for getting a very small job one has to be a minimum graduate nowadays but for becoming an MP or MLA or for heading a political party there is no such minimum educational qualification which is a huge mockery and an open travesty of justice which must be set right without forwarding any excuse of any kind! Why there is a proper police verification for getting any job no matter how small it may be but for becoming an MP or MLA, you can like Phoolan Devi indulge in mass murders or any other crime and yet no one can stop you from taking oath not just as an MP or MLA but also as Ministers and slam the charges as “politically motivated”! Why any person cannot vote from jail but contest elections from jail? Why are those who are in jail allowed to contest from jail?
                                          It is also worth asking: For how long will our democratic system be held hostage to such criminals and for how long will they be given a long rope? Why only politicians alone for whom the standards of recruitment must be comparatively much higher than other professions because they have a share in every pie and exercise untrammelled power in every field are given relaxations everywhere and are allowed to hold the entire system to hostage and make an open mockery of our democratic system? Why can’t politicians be also made accountable like others? Why politicians like Vijay Mallya who is a former Rajya Sabha MP are allowed to take huge loan of more than Rs 9000 crore and then allowed to flee India and enjoy luxurious live in London in UK with that money which is taxpayers hard earned money? Why special treatment for them alone?
                                               Be it noted, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra who is appearing for the petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay submitted that convicted politicians are barred from contesting elections but they indirectly call the shots by heading a political party and hold posts in them. He said rightly that if a person on conviction in a criminal case was barred from contesting elections, it would be incongruent to allow such person to form or head a political outfit. The plea said convicted politicians, who are barred from contesting elections, can still run political parties and hold posts in them, besides deciding as to who will become a lawmaker.
                                      Not stopping here, the plea has sought a ban on convicted persons from forming a political party and becoming office bearers for the period they are disqualified under the election laws. It has sought a direction to declare Section 29A of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 as “arbitrary, irrational and ultra-vires” to the Constitution and to authorize the poll panel to register and de-register political parties.
                                               Why should convicted netas have a say in deciding as to who should become a law maker? Why should they not be barred from heading political parties also? Why no action till now in this regard?
                                  Truth be told, the PIL sought framing of guidelines to decriminalize the electoral system and ensure inner-party democracy as proposed by the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC). The petition very rightly said that currently, even a person who has been convicted for heinous crimes like murder, rape, smuggling, money laundering, loot, sedition, or dacoity, can form a political party and become its president or office bearers. The petition named several top political leaders who have been convicted or have charges framed against them and were holding top political posts and “wielding political power”.
                                     Going forward, it said the proliferation of political parties has become a major concern as Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, allows a small group of people to form a political party by making a very simple declaration. “Presently about 20 percent of registered political parties contest election and remaining 80 percent parties create excessive load on electoral system and public money,” the plea said and rightly sought the implementation of the 1990 Goswami Committee on electoral reforms. The plea also claimed that in 2004, the poll panel had proposed amendment to Section 29A, authorizing it to issue apt orders regulating the registration or de-registration of political parties.
                                            It is noteworthy that senior lawyers Siddharth Luthra and Sajan Poovayya informed the Bench that under the statutory schemes, the poll panel was empowered to register political parties but it lacked the authority under the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 to deregister them. But the Bench while not giving a final order on this and fixing the plea for hearing after six weeks hastened to ask that, “Can a court restrain a convicted person from forming a political party? Can you stop a man from propagating his political views? It would be against the freedom of speech and expression to debar a convicted person from propagating political views through a party”.
                                    With due respect to Supreme Court, I would like to ask: Why are candidates barred from any government job if even their name is falsely dragged in by their rivals? Why only politicians alone are given the long rope? Why is it conveniently ignored that it is politicians who are running this country and therefore there must be highest standards for them in all respects otherwise we will continue seeing MPs and MLAs bunking session even when important Bills are being presented and not just this but also throwing papers on Speaker and using filthy language in court and resorting to all sorts of uncivilized acts?
                                       Why can’t they also be treated like others? Why recognition of political parties is not cancelled when their supporters indulge in wanton violence and destruction of public and private property and why are they not compelled to pay for all the damage inflicted by them or their supporters with their active blessings? Why even after raping and killing are they shown undue leniency but applicants for all government jobs are not shown any such kind of leniency?
                                           Which job can be bigger and more prestigious than that of politicians who become MPs, MLAs, Ministers, Chief Ministers and even Prime Minister? Still why no strict parameters for them? It is high time and this must change now. The earlier this is done, the better it shall be for the healthy functioning of our democratic system because it is politicians and politicians alone who are the bedrock of democracy and exercise control in every sphere in our country! Can anyone dispute this also?
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.