News for determining guilt or innocence, while lives hang in the balance. Often inspired by the latest headlines, the plots highlight legal, ethical or personal dilemmas to which people can relate.
Widespread chaos have been witnessed on the borders of the national capital since 26 November as a retaliation that came with the recently passed Farm Bills. The farmers of Punjab and Haryana are protesting against two Farm Bills passed by Rajya Sabha.
The Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill 2020, and
The Farmer’s (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020.
The Trade and Commerce Bill allows the farmers to sell their produce outside the monopoly cartel of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) regulated markets providing the farmers with more choice regarding who to sell their produce.
The Empowerment and Protection Bill provides with a framework for contract farming enabling the farmers to strike a deal before the production happens. Inter-state or intra-state trade of farmers’ produce beyond physical premise of APMC Markets is also authorized.
The bills enables the farmers to bypass the Essential Commodities Act and vanquish the monopoly cartel of APMC Mandi and sell the produce irrespective of the boundaries and entering into contracts with businessman thus transferring the risk before the yield is produced. These Bills have made the farmer’s upset as they fear that the Minimum Support Price (MSP) that have been acting as a safety net since the Green Revolution might be snatched away.
Government procurements may also be affected due to the introduced reforms. If the government stops buying their produce only the big corporate will be available to sell and farmers show lack of faith in them. Many statements have been given by the government regarding the same but it did nothing assuage the unrest. Protests have taken form of dharnas, Raasta rook, demonstrations and even led to Bharat Band. Casualties are also reported during the protests but what is certain is that the farmers need a strong validation and reassuring statement from the government. Youth worldwide is also showcasing their support and many hashtags are used such as
#SpeakUpForFarmers, #tractor2twitter, #StandwithFarmersChallenge and many more.
A wave of uncertainty and fear is discerned among farmers. Many meetings are being held to bring in a solution. But a very important fact remains that the lack of communication, understanding and inclusion has led to the widespread protest and difficulties being faced by the farmers. A real or a misinformed fear, it is not small.
In a latest, landmark and laudable judgment titled PJ Joseph vs. Election Commission of India and 7 others in WP(C). No. 18556 and 18638 of 2020 delivered just recently on November 20, 2020, the Kerala High Court has upheld the order of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to allot the party symbol ‘two-leaves’ to Rajya Sabha MP Jose K Mani-led faction of the Kerala Congress (Mani) party. A single Bench of Justice N Nagaresh dismissed the writ petition filed by PJ Joseph MLA who is the leader of the rival section of KC(M), challenging the ECI order. The High Court dismissed the legal argument raised by the lawyers of PJ Joseph that the Election Commission had no power to determine the disputes over election symbol.
To start with, the ball is set rolling in para 1 of this learned judgment wherein it is put forth that, “Two writ petitions have been filed, one by Working Chairman of a recognised State Political Party, Kerala Congress (Mani) and the other by a Member of the said party, aggrieved by Ext.P1 order dated 30.08.2020 in Dispute Case No.2 of 2019 of the 1st respondent-Election Commission of India. In Ext.P1, by a majority of 2:1, the Election Commission of India held that the group of the said Party led by the 2nd respondent, is the Kerala Congress (Mani) and is entitled to use its name and its reserved symbol “Two Leaves” for the purpose of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.”
While narrating the brief background, it is then laid down in para 2 that, “Respondents 2 to 5 filed a petition before the 1st respondent-Election Commission invoking Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Symbols Order’, for short) claiming that two rival factions were existing in Kerala Congress (Mani) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KC(M)’, for short) and seeking to declare that the faction led by the 2nd respondent be declared as the KC(M), entitled to use the name “Kerala Congress (Mani)” and entitled to use its name and symbol “Two Leaves” for the purposes of Symbols Order.”
Going forward, it is then divulged in para 3 that, “The Election Commission noted that the last organisational Election of of KC(M) was held on 20.04.2018 and results intimated to the Commission by letter dated 30.04.2018. As per the said letter, 351 State Committee Members (out of a total 450 Members) who were present, elected Sri. K.M. Mani as Chairman, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18556/2020 as Working Chairman and the 2nd respondent as Vice Chairman. Apart from five office bearers, the State Committee also elected 99 members to State Steering Committee. The State Steering Committee further elected 29 Members to the High Power Committee. However, the list of 450 Members of the State Committee was not provided to the Election Commission.”
Furthermore, para 4 then brings out that, “Sri. K.M. Mani, Chairman of KC(M) passed away on 09.04.2019. Article XXIX of the Constitution of KC(M) provided that in the absence of the Chairman, all functions and powers of the Chairman will vest in the Working Chairman. On 30.05.2019, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18556/2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’. The ‘petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18638/2020’ will be referred to as such) sent a letter to the Commission stating that on the demise of the Party Chairman, he has assumed charge as ‘Acting Chairman’ and that election to the vacancies of Party Chairman and leader of Legislative Party would be held as per law in due course.”
In addition, it is then made known in para 5 that, “The 2nd respondent submitted before the Tribunal that by representation dated 29.05.2019 signed by himself and 1/4th members of the State Committee, the petitioner was asked to convene State Committee meeting to elect Chairman, but the petitioner did not take any action on the representation. Thereupon, a Member of the High Power Committee called for a State Committee meeting on 16.04.2019(sic). The meeting attended by 314 Members unanimously elected the 2 nd respondent as Chairman, which election was communicated to the Election Commission. On 19.06.2019, the Commission received communication from two members of the KC(M) stating that election of the 2nd respondent a Chairman has been stayed in OS No.166/2019 of Munsiff’s Court, Thodupuzha as per order dated 17.06.2019 of the Court. The 2 nd respondent, however, informed the Election Commission that order dated 17.06.2019 is only an ex-parte interim order of temporary injunction.”
What’s more, para 6 then states that, “On 28.08.2019, the Election Commission announced by-poll for 93 – Pala Assembly Constituency to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Sri. K.M. Mani. The petitioner, according to the Election Commission, informed that the party would not contest the by-election. The 2nd respondent, however, stated that a Sub Committee formed by the Steering Committee of the Party decided to field Sri. Jose Tom Pullikkunnel, in the election. The Returning Officer rejected his nomination paper as candidate of KC(M), on the ground that Form-A and Form-B of nomination paper did not contain signature of the Chief Executive Officer of the Party. The candidate thereupon contested as independent candidate and eventually lost the election. The 2nd respondent thereupon approached the Election Commission stating that rival factions had emerged in KC(M) and the faction led by him should be declared as KC(M).”
Not stopping here, it is then brought out in para 7 that, “The Commission considered the written submission of the parties and instructed the Director (Law) to verify the authenticity of the separate lists of State Committee Members submitted by both sides and make a report on his findings. The Director (Law) submitted his Report dated 05.02.2020, with the following important findings:-
“(i) That there is a discrepancy in relation to the authority who finalized the State Committee list of KC(M) after the 2018 organizational elections. The State Committee List submitted by the Petitioner was issued and signed by the State Returning Officer of the Party. On the contrary, the list submitted by the Respondents was signed by the State Election Committee of the Party. It is pertinent to note that the Party Constitution does not provide for the authority responsible for finalizing the list of Party State Committee members.
(ii) That after taking into account the allegations made by both the Parties against each other’s list, it was noted that possibility of forgery and manipulation by both the parties regarding their respective lists could not be ruled out.
(iii) That both the lists had 305 names in common. It is proposed that the Commission may consider only these undisputed members of the State Committee for the purpose of deciding the dispute under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order.
(iv) That the Commission may ask both the Parties to submit affidavits of their supporters from the State Committee (Organizational Wing) and the Legislative Wing of the Party.””
To put things in perspective, it is then pointed out in para 50 that, “The further contention of the petitioners is that under the Symbols Order, in view of the fact that registration of political parties now falls under Part IV-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Election Commission is exercising only a peripheral jurisdiction. In view of the judgments of the Apex Court in Jai Mahal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajkumar Devraj and others [(2016) 1 SCC 423] and in Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. [(1998) 7 SCC 105], if for reasons of complexity or otherwise the matter could be more conveniently decided in a Suit, the Election Tribunal ought to relegate the parties to such remedy. The argument is not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, even according to the petitioners, a decision taken by the Election Commission in exercise of its powers under Article 324 and Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order is not tentative, but final. When a Constitutional functionary exercises powers and passes orders which are final in nature, subject only to judicial review under Constitutional provisions, it cannot be said that such Constitutional functionary’s jurisdiction is peripheral. Secondly, the Hon’ble Apex Court has in All Party Hill Leaders’ Conference, Shillong (supra) has held that the decision with regard to the reserved symbol is within the special jurisdiction of the Election Commission and it is not permissible for the ordinary hierarchy of courts to entertain such a dispute. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the adjudicatory powers exercised by the Election Commission are peripheral in nature.”
As it turned out, it is then pointed out in para 51 that, “Yet another ground urged by the petitioners is that the Election Commission can invoke Paragraph 15 only when the Commission has sufficient information in its possession that there are rival sections or groups of a recognised political party each of whom claims to be that party. The argument is that the 2nd respondent has raised a dispute only as to who is the Chairman of the KC(M) and that by itself is not sufficient to hold that there are rival groups/factions in KC(M).”
Needless to say, it is then observed in para 52 that, “The Election Commission, in fact, did not consider the dispute as to the Election of Chairman held on 16.06.2019. The Election Commission noted the following facts:-
(1) Both groups held separate Steering Committee Meetings in relation to by-election in Pala Assembly Constituency and took divergent decisions in fielding a candidate.
(2) Four out of the seven elected legislators had signed the petition dated 18.10.2019 stating that rival factions exist, which is an indicator of split in the legislative wing.
(3) Both parties claimed majority support in the State Committee and submitted affidavits in support of them. Both parties failed to submit original list of the State Committee Members.”
Truth be told, it is then pointed out in para 53 that, “It was on the basis of the aforesaid undisputed facts that the Election Commission came to the conclusion that there are two factions/groups in the KC(M). The conclusions arrived at by the Election Commission were based on materials available before the Commission. The conclusions of the Commission cannot be said to be perverse and it cannot be said that no reasonable person can arrive at such conclusions. This Court cannot, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfere with the said finding of fact.”
It would be pertinent to mention here that it is then observed in para 55 that, “It may be noted that in Ext.P14 Order in IA No.295/2019 in OS No.53/2019, the Munsiff’s Court, Idukki also also doubted the authenticity of list and observed that the custodian of the list has not produced the list of State Committee Members before the Court. As both the lists produced by the rival factions were unreliable, the Election Commission proceeded to decide the numerical strength based on majority of members admitted by both sides. Such action of the Commission cannot be found fault with, in the circumstances of the case. It is further to be noted that the Commission based on its decision, not only considering the support of undisputed State Committee members, but also on the numerical strength of legislative party members of the party. Therefore, the Election Commission was justified in adopting a course available to it, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
To say the least, the key point of para 56 is that, “This Court is also not inclined to accept the argument that the petition of the 2nd respondent claiming Party Symbol is a class action and all members of the KC(M) ought to have been put to notice. The KC(M) being a State Party, the Election Commission treated the State Committee of KC(M) as the representative organisational wing and proceeded to determine comparative strength of both factions in the said Committee. Respondents 6 and 7 therefore cannot be heard to contend that petitions before the Commission is a class action and all members of KC(M) ought to have been put to notice. In view of the findings as stated above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the 1st respondent-Election Commission of India. The writ petitions therefore stand dismissed.”
No doubt, the Kerala High Court has very rightly concluded after careful analysis in this noteworthy case that the Election Commission has the power to decide the disputes over symbols in case of party split. It has certainly ascribed right reasons also for doing so which we have already discussed above in detail. It is thus now quite ostensible that the Election Commission certainly has the requisite power to determine the disputes over election symbol. Very rightly so!
In a well-worded, well-analysed, well-reasoned and well articulated judgment titled Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh v. State of Punjab [Crl. Misc. No. M-19376 of 2020] delivered just recently on October 30, 2020, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has minced no words to convey unequivocally that State needs to be more tolerant while invoking laws pertaining to sedition and religious disaffection. It goes without saying as can be gauged by the past couple of Supreme Court rulings that, “Laws pertaining to sedition and religious disaffection have to be used sparingly and not excessively at the drop of a hat”. There can be no denying or disputing it!
It also goes without saying that Punjab and Haryana High Court in this leading case has very rightly, remarkably and recently held in no uncertain terms that, “In a democracy, every citizen has a right to voice his/her opinion freely and criticize the functioning of the Government.” India has no right to call itself a free country if the people don’t even have the right to freely criticize the functioning of the government. It has also been rightly held in this notable case that, “The state needs to be more tolerant and circumspect while invoking laws pertaining to sedition and religious disaffection.” Very rightly so!
To start with, this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment authored by Justice Sudhir Mittal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost observing in the opening para that, “The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 84 dated 14.04.2020 registered at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur under Sections 115, 124-A, 153-A, 505(2), 295, 188, 269, 270, 271, 506 IPC, Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Section 54 of Disaster Management Act, 2005.”
To put things in perspective, it is then envisaged that, “According to the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner went live on Facebook and made statements against the unity and integrity of the Nation. His statements were also aimed at causing communal disaffection. Thus, the aforementioned FIR was registered inter alia for the offences of sedition, hurting religious sentiments and causing communal disaffection.”
More tellingly, it is then pointed out by the Court that, “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody for over six months now. Challan was presented on 09.07.2020 but charges have yet not been framed as committal order has not been passed. Thus, the trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date.”
As anticipated, it is then pointed out that the Court then further points out that the learned lawyer while pleading for bail submits that, “There is no other criminal case pending against the petitioner. Further, an examination of the utterances made by the petitioner shows that the offences of sedition and inciting communal disaffection are not attracted. Thus, the petitioner may be granted regular bail.”
As it turned out, the Court then further observes that, “Custody certificate dated 29.10.2020 has been produced in Court. The same is taken on record. According to this certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 6 months and 14 days and there is no other criminal case pending/decided against him.”
What’s more, it is then pointed out by the Court that, “Learned State counsel has circulated a transcript of the live performance of the petitioner on Facebook and I have gone through the same.”
Most significantly, most remarkably and most appropriately, what forms the cornerstone of this leading judgment is then commendably observed by Justice Sudhir Mittal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that, “It appears that the petitioner was unhappy with the lock down imposed due to the Corona Virus and the way the pandemic was being handled by the Government of India as well as the Punjab Government. Thus, he has criticized the functioning of the said Governments. Definitely, intemperate and abusive language has been used against high officials of the Governments as well as against the elected representatives, but the same does not amount to exciting disaffection towards the Government established by law or to excite hatred against it. It also does not amount to inciting religious disaffection or disruption of communal harmony. It is an expression of dissatisfaction with the functioning of the Government and criticism of its policies. In a democracy every citizen has a right to voice his/her opinion freely and criticize the functioning of the Government. However, the same should be done in a decent manner and un-parliamentary language should not be adopted. At the same time, the State needs to be more tolerant and circumspect while invoking laws pertaining to sedition and religious disaffection. Current tendency to the contrary has been frowned upon by the Supreme Court of India.”
Needless to say, it cannot be lightly dismissed that none other than the former Supreme Court Judge – Justice (retd) Madan B Lokur had said categorically that, “The government is using the sedition law with an iron hand to curb free speech in an overreaction to people’s opinion.” He also said that another method by which the state is curbing free speech is to crack down on critical opinions by charging them of spreading fake news. It is high time and government must now desist from doing so!
To be sure, it must be noted that just recently the Tripura High Court also in WP(C) 606/2020 observed that the right of freedom of speech and expression would include the freedom of being critical of the public administration or authority. The Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi further observed that, “Any inroad into such freedom howsoever stealthily made, constitutional court will step in.”
Notably, it cannot be overlooked that while addressing the lawyers at a workshop organized by Praleen Public Charitable Trust at Ahmedabad in 2019, (then) Justice Deepak Gupta of the Supreme Court had spoken at length on the topic titled “Law of Sedition in India and Freedom of Expression”. He had opined that, “The last few years have given rise to a number of cases where the law of sedition or creating disharmony have been misused rampantly by the police to arrest and humiliate people who have not committed the crime of sedition as laid down by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court.”
While granting bail to the petitioner, Justice Sudhir Mittal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court then observes succinctly and suavely that, “The petitioner has been in custody for 06 months and 14 days and the trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date. There is no other criminal case pending against him and thus, I deem it appropriate to grant him regular bail.”
While continuing in the same vein, Justice Sudhir Mittal then further holds that, “Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.”
For the sake of clarification, it is then finally observed in the last para that, “Nothing stated herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”
It needs no Albert Einstein to conclude that all the governments must always adhere to what the Punjab and Haryana High Court has laid down so boldly, bluntly and brilliantly in this leading case just like it has done so many times earlier also! At the same time, it is also made amply clear in this landmark and laudable judgment that people also must use decent language while expressing dissent and un-parliamentary language should not be adopted for the same! Why can’t dissent be expressed in a polite manner? People too must learn to be more polite. There can certainly be no denying or disputing it!
In a bold, brilliant and blunt judgment titled Ganesan vs State Represented by its Inspector of Police in Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2020 (Arising from S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 4976/2020), a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, MR Shah and R Subhash Reddy has clearly and convincingly held that there can be a conviction based on the sole testimony of the sexual assault victim if she is found to be reliable and trustworthy. This was reiterated by the Supreme Court while upholding conviction in a POCSO case. Ganesa was convicted for sexually assaulting a girl aged 13 years and was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.
To start with, the ball is set rolling in para 2 of this latest, landmark and laudable judgment authored by Justice MR Shah for himself, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice R Subhash Reddy after granting leave in para 1 wherein it is put forth that, “Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 2018, the appellant-original accused has preferred the present appeal.”
While elaborating on the proceedings of the case, the Bench then goes forth to state in para 3 that, “That the appellant herein – original accused was tried by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’). That relying upon the deposition of PW3 – victim, who at the relevant time was studying in 5th standard and aged 13 years, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, which is the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The learned trial Court also passed an order to pay rupees one lakh to the victim girl, by way of compensation, under Rule 7(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012.”
Going ahead, it is then envisaged in para 4 that, “Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the accused preferred appeal before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 2018. The appeal was taken up for further hearing on 24.04.2019. The High Court noted that there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and therefore by order dated 24.04.2019 directed to remove the name of the appellant’s counsel and further directed the High Court Legal Aid Committee to appoint Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. The appeal was listed for further hearing on 29.04.2019. On 29.04.2019, the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellant made only submission with respect to compensation of rupees one lakh awarded by the learned trial Court awarded to the victim girl under Rule 7(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012. It was submitted on behalf of the accused that he is unable to pay the compensation of rupees one lakh to the victim girl and pleaded leniency and requested to set aside the order of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court. That by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2019, the High Court partly allowed the said appeal and modified the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court with respect to compensation only and modified the said order to the effect that compensation amount shall be paid by the State to the victim girl and thereafter if the State finds that the accused has got sufficient means, the same can be recovered from the accused under the Revenue Recovery Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal so far as the conviction and imposition of sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment is concerned.”
As a corollary, what ensues is as stated in para 5 that, “Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the High Court, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.”
Truth be told, after hearing both the parties at length and perusing the case thoroughly, the Bench then observes in para 8.1 that, “Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has very much emphasized on disposal of the appeal within four days from the date of providing legal assistance to the accused. It is the case on behalf of the appellant-accused that on 24.04.2019, his advocate remained absent and the High Court directed the Legal Aid Committee to provide legal assistance to the appellant-accused and the matter was adjourned to 29.04.2019 and on the very date, i.e., on 29.04.2019, the learned legal aid counsel did not argue the appeal on merits and has confined the appeal with respect to order of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the accused that no fair and sufficient opportunity was given to the accused. Heavy reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Anokhilal (supra). However, it is required to be noted that as such nothing is on record that the legal aid counsel was not having any papers. There cannot be any dispute with respect to proposition of law laid down by this Court in the case of Anokhilal (supra). However, in the facts and considering the fact that the High Court has given partial relief to the accused and considering the fact that out of the sentence of three years R.I., the appellant has already undergone two years and three months (approximately), instead of remanding the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision, we have called upon to the learned counsel for the respective parties to submit the case on merits, and the learned counsel on behalf of the respective parties have made their submissions on merits, noted hereinabove.”
It must be mentioned here that in the case of Anokhilal v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2020 SC 232 just mentioned above, the Supreme Court held that failure to afford hearing to the accused violates even minimum standards of due process of law. It is also further held in this case that the legal services provided to the accused should be meaningful and not an empty formality.
To put things in perspective, para 9 then holds that, “In the present case, the appellant-accused has been convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 7, punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. We have gone through the entire judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as the relevant evidence on record, more particularly the deposition of PW1-father of the victim, PW2-mother of the victim and PW3-victim herself. It is true that PW2-mother of the victim has turned hostile. However, PW3-victim has fully supported the case of the prosecution. She has narrated in detail how the incident has taken place. She has been thoroughly and fully cross-examined. We do not see any good reason not to rely upon the deposition of PW3-victim. PW3 aged 15 years at the time of deposition is a matured one. She is trustworthy and reliable. As per the settled proposition of law, even there can be a conviction based on the sole testimony of the victim, however, she must be found to be reliable and trustworthy.”
Finally and far most importantly, for the sake of brevity, it is then held as the key point in para 9.3 that, “On evaluating the deposition of PW3-victim on the touchstone of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that the sole testimony of the PW3-victim is absolutely trustworthy and unblemished and her evidence is of sterling quality. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused, relying upon the deposition of PW3 – victim. The learned trial Court has imposed the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the learned trial Court has already shown the leniency. At this stage, it is required to be noted that allegations against the accused which are proved from the deposition of PW3 are very serious, which cannot be permitted in the civilized society. Therefore, considering the object and purpose of POCSO Act and considering the evidence on record, the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and has rightly sentenced the accused to undergo three years R.I. which is the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Supreme Court while upholding conviction in a POCSO case has clearly and convincingly held that there can be a conviction based on the sole testimony of the sexual assault victim if she is found to be reliable and trustworthy. The court particularly referred to the decisions of Vijay alias Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191 in which it was held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim. The Apex Court thus in this noteworthy case thus very rightly holds in para 12 that, “In view of the above and for the reasons given above, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.” There can be no denying it!
In a hard hitting and strong judgment titled The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs. Bherulal in Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 9217 of 2020 delivered on October 15, 2020, the Apex Court took strong exception to the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now wake up to what the Apex Court has said so bluntly! The earlier they do, the better it shall be for their own interests!
To start with, the ball is set rolling in para 1 of this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul for himself and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari wherein it is observed that, “The Special Leave Petition has been filed with a delay of 663 days! The explanation given in the application for condonation of delay is set out in paragraphs 3 and 4.”
Without mincing any words, the Bench then lashes out in para 2 holding that, “We are constrained to pen down a detailed order as it appears that all our counseling to Government and Government authorities have fallen on deaf ears i.e., the Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the Governments to walk in when they choose ignoring the period of limitation prescribed. We have raised the issue that if the Government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the Legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for Government authorities because of their gross incompetence. That is not so. Till the Statute subsists, the appeals/petitions have to be filed as per the Statutes prescribed.”
Furthermore, the Bench then laments in para 3 stating that, “No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 187). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:
“12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.”
Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!”
Truth be told, it is then stated in para 4 that, “A reading of the aforesaid application shows that the reason for such an inordinate delay is stated to be only “due to unavailability of the documents and the process of arranging the documents”. In paragraph 4 a reference has been made to “bureaucratic process works, it is inadvertent that delay occurs”.”
For the sake of clarity, it is then clearly stated in para 5 that, “A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.”
While stating upfront, the Bench then holds in para 6 that, “We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as “certificate cases”. The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referencing even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation.”
While adopting a zero tolerance approach for such extravagant delay, the Bench then holds in para 7 that, “We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible.”
What’s more, the Bench then after taking all the crucial facts into account held in para 8 that, “Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner-State of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited in four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for delay in filing the special leave petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time.”
Finally, it is then held in the last para 9 that, “The special leave petition is dismissed as time barred in terms aforesaid.”
On a concluding note, it can well be said that at the first instance such an ugly situation should have never arisen when the Apex Court which is the highest court was constrained to make such harsh remarks. All the Governments whether it is centre or the States must honestly and seriously introspect on what the top court has held so explicitly, elegantly and efficiently even though its anger is quite palpable with the way in which there was a delay of 663 days which under no circumstances can ever be justified! No denying!
Today, homosexuality and queer identities may happen to be acceptable to wider Indian youths than ever before, but in the confines of family, home, and school, recognition of their sexuality and liberty to openly display their gender preferences prevail to be a constant conflict for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people. On September 6, 2018, India’s Supreme Court ruled that consensual homosexual acts would no longer constitute a crime. The historic move changed Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which was a legacy from British colonial control. The difference was welcome by Indian and global LGBTQ+ populations being progressed towards consent and equal rights, but nearly two years following the passing of this order, what is the status of LGBTQ+ titles in India?
Several people encounter harassment and bullying, and to avoid shame and brutality they oftentimes skip classes or drop out of school entirely. Most teachers are not qualified or allowed to acknowledge to anti-LGBT bullying, so in several circumstances, they don’t. In some situations, they also join in harassment. The ‘LGBT’ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. A lesbian is a woman interested in another woman. Gay is applied to indicating men who are interested in other men. Bisexual means that a person is interested in more than one gender. A transgender person is someone whose gender status differs from that one person was indicated at birth. Being different arises with its difficulties and the LGBTQ community perceives this extremely well. As people do not realize their way of life, it becomes quite tough for them to presume their lifestyles.
Modern research noticed that one of the main factors that occur in the branding of LGBT people is a familial attitude towards homosexuality. This research continues to reason that most LGBT people are allowed in the family simply if they accept to act like heterosexuals. In a culture-bound on a rigorous set of civil and social norms that decree the terms and conditions of education, profession, and wedlock, the loss of parents’ support can prove to be a huge setback to the mental and physical well-being of LGBT people. Separation and stress to conform usually drive to despair, thoughts of suicide, and psychosomatic diseases. Several of them prefer to migrate to a different city to stay aside from the extensive demand to marry and start a family.
Families that accept their identities set multiple limitations in the method they prefer to try different outfits and communicate with their partners. In the loss of parents’ support, online crowds and social media have allowed easy options to build an alliance outside of the family. It’s time for people in India to argue on the matter of homosexuality. Civic knowledge and sex education for all should hold the bottom line to resolve the sexuality regulation and to build empathy and respect for India’s homosexuals. If India wants to be acknowledged globally as an democratic country, then it should finally improve or the prejudicial law so that the neglected homosexual community can be liberated at least.
Politics is both a study and skill as to how power is exercised and by whom, through the administration of power, to manage people’s affairs. Politics is integral part of the operation of public education. Politics in education is not just about the ways of the election of student board members or local student councils but it is an integral part of day-to-day life. Political activity is about negotiations over the allocation of scarce resources and about deciding who gets what? But all political activities are not the same.
Political struggles in schools and colleges have different views and objectives. The introduction of student council’s and groups has led not only to a healthy student voice but it has become a tool for shaping young people’s minds for voting in the future. Young people today are more informed and civic minded than before and student organization’s provide opportunities for many opinions and various political interest on campus.
Students participate in a wide ranging programmes including forums, study groups and conferences. But the young lack the mindset and maturity to see the right respective. It is true that there are a lot of opportunities for people who want to take on leadership positions at the university and in other political organizations. Its elected members are representatives to the administration and the student community and at times the only representatives.
These are also responsible for sponsoring many of the programmes and services which are nearest and dearest to the students hearts like concerts, celebration etc. But another aspect of politics is that students get themselves involved in various outside campus political activities and spoil their results or carriers. They shouldn’t talk part in undemocratic activities within or outside the campus. However they should necessarily have awareness about the political development in their country.
Students of today are the future guardians of our nation’s destiny. They’re the moulders and builders of future India. Political consciousness, is therefore, an indispensable factor, contributing to the growth and development of a healthy public opinion on the part of the future pillars of the nation. But in no case should this young men and women be allowed to be used as cat’s paw of the selfish and self centred shoddy politicians.
Students of India must promote a sub line sense of discipline which is one of the first essential requisites of democracy. Should Indian students take part in politics or not has been one of the most baffling questions before our national leaders. During the British reign, Indian students, on one hand, where stirred up by a section of our leaders to take vagarious part in politics, while on the other advised by the pro-British moderate group of leaders to abstain from taking part in politics, however, we know that in the freedom movement of our country our students played they’re role as much seriously and vigorously as any other section of the community could have done.
John Rawls is a contemporary American Philosopher who is regarded as the first original theorist of justice since the times of Aristotle and Plato and other ancient political philosophers. His theory of justice had brought a lot of attention in the world of political philosophy. With the publication of his book called ‘A Theory of Justice’. So as to arrive at the principles of Justice Rawls used Locke’s methodology of ‘social contract’. His theory of justice focuses on a society of free citizens holding equal basic rights, enjoying equal opportunities of advancement and cooperating to achieve a common goal.
Rawls famous works are- ‘A theory of Justice’ (1971), ‘Political Liberalism’(1993), ‘The Law of Peoples’ (1999), and ‘Justice and Fairness’(2001). In his celebrated book ‘A theory of Justice’ he asserts that a good society is characterized by a number of virtues. Justice is the first virtue of a good society. In other words, Justice is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of a good society. Those who argue that justice should not come in the way of social advancement and progress run the risk of losing the moral degradation of the society. In a just society, justice is established as the foundation of social structure. Hence all political and legislative decisions should be designed to fulfil the requirements of justice.
Rawlsian theory of justice focuses on two things.
Distributive Principle
Difference Principle
Distributive principles focus on the availability of basic or primary goods to call. Equal rights, equal opportunities and same income.
While Difference principles focuses more on the arrangement of social and economic inequalities in a way that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged person and are attached to positions open to all under conditions of fair equality and opportunity.
Rawls sets out two basic moral principles of justice which constitutional democracy should satisfy. First, each person engaged in institution affected by it has an equal right to its most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all.
Second, inequalities as defined by the institutional structure or fostered by it are arbitrary, unless it is reasonable to expect that they will work out to everyone’s advantage and provided that the positions and offices to which they may be gained are open to all.
Rawls Theory of Justice
John Rawls was an ardent advocate of fairness and equality of opportunity. He believed that if people were put under the ‘Veil of Ignorance’ then they would choose themselves to be in a position where everyone will get equal opportunity and income. He has used the style of the contractualists like Hobbes and Locke in arriving at the need for the usage of ‘Original Position’ , This theory is also called as contractarian theory of justice. He is against the utilitarian concept of justice where the ‘greatest good of the greatest number’ is held valid. He believes that human beings are ‘rational agents’ who will in their ‘original position’ always make sure to keep themselves in a position where they get equal opportunities. Each individual is selfish and an intelligent negotiator who carefully negotiates with other human beings. Sometimes the individuals do not know of this fact that distribution of offices or rewards is justly done according to the results of a competition conducted in a fair manner.
Rawls take up the issues of just distributive justice on focusing two principles.
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a similar liberty for all.
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
While the first principle reflects a traditional liberal commitment to formal equality, the second principle (the so- called difference principle) points towards a significant measure of social equality.
Justice requires that each and every single individual have equality in the nature of equal rights and opportunities and some income. Each person should have some income and so for this the state should eradicate economic inequality Only then the least advantaged person may have the benefit of improving his lot so as to become the highest member of his society. Such a situation shall strengthen the incentives and enlarge the size of the social cake. In his view the people will support it if they were not placed under the ‘ veil of ignorance’ which deprives them of the knowledge of their social position and status. The people cooperating together for mutual advantage should have an equal claim to the fruits of their cooperation and should not be penalized as a result of their gender, race and genetic inheritance over which they have no control. Redistribution and welfare are therefore ‘Just ‘, because they confirm to the widely held view of what is fair.
According to Rawls the problem of justice consists in ensuring a just distribution of ‘primary goods’ which include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, income and wealth, means of self-respect and so on. Rawls described his theory as the theory of pure procedural justice. It means that once certain means of principles of justice are accepted, the distributive resulting from their application will be necessarily just.
Rawls severely criticized those theories of allocation which ignore the moral worth of individual for the attainment of any predetermined goals. He particularly attacked utilitarianism because in calculating the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’ it attainment of any predetermined goals. He particularly attacked utilitarianism because in calculating the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’ it does not care if it leads to extreme hardship to any particular individual. For instance, one might imagine a state of affairs in which maximum amount of happiness would be produced and its distribution to a maximum number of people achieved by the enslavement of minority. Rawls has brilliantly argued that you cannot compensate for the sufferings of the distressed by augmenting the joys of the prosperous.
In a fresh and significant development, the Kerala High Court has just recently on September 9, 2020 in a latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment titled X vs State of Kerala in Case No. : Crl. MC No. 3463 of 2020 issued some future guidelines for maintaining rape victim’s anonymity in the matters instituted before it. Justice PB Suresh Kumar who authored this recent, remarkable and righteous judgment while considering a petition arising out of a bail order passed by POCSO Court had observed that in several matters instituted before the High Court the identity of the victim is disclosed directly or indirectly. In some matters, identity is disclosed in the pleadings and in some others, identity is disclosed in the documents produced along with the pleadings. This most condemnable and dangerous tendency has to be reined in and this is exactly what this brilliant, bold and balanced judgment seeks to do!
To start with, the ball is set rolling first and foremost in the introductory part as mentioned in para 1 which states that, “This is a proceedings challenging Annexure-4 order passed by the Special Court for Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Thalassery, in terms of which the sole accused in Crime No. 94 of 2020 of Panoor Police Station renumbered as Crime No. 33 of 2020 of CBCID, Kasaragode was enlarged on bail.”
While dwelling on the facts of the case, it is then enjoined upon in para 2 that, “The petitioner is the mother of the victim in the case. The victim is aged about 10 years. The second respondent who is the accused in the case is a teacher in the school where the victim is pursuing her studies. The accusation in the case is that the accused committed sexual assault on the victim girl on several occasions in between 15.01.2020 and 02.02.2020 at the bathroom of the school. The case was, therefore, registered for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376AB and 354B of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and Sections 5(f), 5(l) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the POCSO Act).”
Moving on, it is then illustrated in para 3 that, “The accused, on his arrest, moved the Special Court for bail on a few occasions and all the applications preferred by him in this regard have been dismissed. The accused, thereupon, moved this court for bail, and this court also declined bail to the accused in terms of Annexure – 3 order. Later, since the final report in the case has not been filed despite the accused being in custody for 90 days, the accused filed Crl.M.C.No.890 of 2020 before the Special Court for bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). When the said application was pending, the final report in the case has been filed alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC and Sections 75 and 82 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Annexure – 6 is the final report. It is, however, stated in Annexure – 6 final report that the investigation in the case as regards the remaining offences is yet to be completed, and as and when the investigation is completed, supplemental final report would be filed in the matter. When the final report was filed, the accused filed Crl.M.C.No.1559 of 2020 in the pending proceedings, praying for orders to treat the proceedings as one instituted under Section 439 of the Code. In the meanwhile, the investigating officer in the case filed an application seeking permission of the court for conducting further investigation in the matter under Section 173(8) of the Code and the Special Court allowed the said application. The Special Court took the view that insofar as the investigation in the case has not been completed despite the accused being in custody for 90 days, the accused is entitled to bail, and accordingly he was enlarged on bail in terms of Annexure – 4 order. As noted, the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure – 4 order.”
But the petitioner’s arguments failed to impress the Kerala High Court. The accused was found to be entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of the Code. The Criminal M.C. was found to be without merits and the same was accordingly dismissed!
Most significantly and most remarkably, the Kerala High Court in its final order without mincing any words goes on to observe that, “It is observed that in several matters instituted before this court where victim anonymity is to be maintained, the identity of the victim is disclosed directly or indirectly. In some matters, identity is disclosed in the pleadings and in some others, identity is disclosed in the documents produced along with the pleadings. It is also observed that though documents revealing the identity of the victim are produced in sealed covers in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Nipun Saxena and another v. Union of India and others, (2019) 2 SCC 703, there is no system in place to maintain victim anonymity, once the sealed covers are opened by the court. In the case on hand, it is observed that the opened cover containing the documents were sent back to the section and brought back from the section to the court on the subsequent hearing dates. It is also observed that there is no system in place for disposal of the documents produced in sealed covers, after the final disposal of the case. Similarly, it is observed that the registry is insisting copies of the documents revealing the identity of the victims to be given to the opposite parties in the matter. There is no system in place to maintain victim anonymity in such situations. Needless to say, the procedure in place to maintain victim anonymity is against the spirit of Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 24(5), 33(7) and 37 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the decision of the Apex Court in Nipun Saxena. In the circumstances, the following directions are issued for future guidelines for maintaining victim anonymity in the matters instituted before this court:
1. The criteria for deciding the identity of the victim shall include the identity of the family of the victim, the school/college of the victim, the place of work of the victim, the relatives of the victim, the neighbourhood of the victim and all other information from which the identity of the victim would be revealed.
2. In all proceedings instituted by or on behalf of the victim and against them, documents in which the identity of the victim is disclosed, either required in terms of the rules of the court or produced by the parties concerned to substantiate their case, shall be insisted to be filed in a sealed cover.
3. The registry shall designate an officer for the proper custody of documents produced in, sealed covers in cases where victim anonymity is to be maintained and shall provide to that officer necessary infrastructure for keeping custody of the documents. Such officer shall be bound by the highest standards of confidentiality.
4. After the matter is numbered, registry shall forward the documents received in sealed covers in a self-sealing bag/envelope of appropriate size preferably one having a provision for tamper proof seal as well, or in other similar tamper proof bag/envelope, after affixing on it a label indicating the particulars of the case under the signature of the Filing Scrutiny Officer concerned to the designated officer for custody and that officer shall ensure that the documents are made available to the court as and when the matters are listed for hearing.
5. If the self-sealing bag/envelope in which the documents are kept is opened by the court for perusal of the documents, after the purposes of the court, the same shall be kept in a fresh self-sealing bag/envelope and returned to the designated officer, after affixing on the same a new label indicating the particulars of the case under the signature of the Court Officer concerned. If the self-sealing bag/envelope is opened subsequently by the court, the same procedure directed herein-above shall be repeated.
6. The parties producing documents disclosing the identity of the victims need not have to keep or give copies of the same to the opposite parties and they need only refer to such documents in their pleadings.
7. If the lawyers appearing against the victims require/need to peruse the documents in the sealed covers, they shall peruse the same with the permission of the court and if they are permitted by the court to peruse the documents, the documents shall be preserved in the same manner indicated in the preceding directions.
8. These directions shall be in force until replaced by the Honourable the Chief Justice by appropriate practice instructions.
To sum up, the key point of this well-articulated, well-reasoned and well-drafted judgment are the various guidelines that have been just enumerated above that are imperative for maintaining the rape victim anonymity in cases filed before it. All these guidelines must be followed sincerely and strictly by all the concerned courts in letter and spirit. It brooks just no argument and no delay anymore now!
Studying about the voting pattern and election pattern of the world’s largest democracy is a challenge. India has seen a tremendous change in the voting pattern since the first elections of 1952. Election during that time was solely based on the leader and there was principal focus on only one political party but now the situations have changed. India has grown through the 21st century to see a lot of changes within the political system. Starting from the changes during the time of independence till today.
The voting pattern has seen considerable changes lately. During the time of independence the pattern of voting was solely based on the legacy of the nationalist movement. This was because people only voted for the single largest party at that time and that is the Indian National Congress. INC was people’s first choice since it had the legacy of the Independence struggle as well as it had an all India background which accommodated people from all kinds of religion and caste unlike other political parties which had its ground on only a single community of people.
While Today’s political system is quite complicated. The voting pattern has also become quite complex unlike earlier times. These days people’s voting pattern and behaviour have changed a lot. There are many factors for this change. It is quite a complex study where we have to unravel things from the core. For this we have to take a look from where this change in voting period has started from.
Till the 1977 elections congress party ruled India. The INC consecutively won the elections till 1977. Only to be defeated by the Janata Party. In 1989 INC was again defeated for the second time due to the unpopular rule of the congress and the lack of representation of the regional parties, lower or backward castes, minorities etc. 1989 put an end to the rule of single party system and welcomed in the multi-party coalition system in India.
Most striking trend in the Indian politics is the political competition between the Indian Political Parties that have grown past these years. This rise in the number of the political parties in India is due to the lack of representation of the various regionalities and communities. There has been a constant competition between various communities in the country for power. People are being voted mainly because they belong to a particular community or religion. This pattern of politics emerged only very recently within the country.
The behaviour of a voter in India is defined by the various factors
Religion
Caste
Performance of the party in power
Money
Policy
The political parties make use of these factors to attract more voters. Although no party can convince a person to vote for them in the name of religion and caste, this is an important factor
In the elections. Since India is a secular country the political parties nor the government cannot have a tilt towards a single religion. Even still political parties use religion and caste to catch the polls.
RELIGION is one of the main factors which affect the voting behaviour these days in our country. People are more interested to elect for candidates to more or less belong to their same religion or community since they feel that then only they can identify themselves with the leader. Despite India being a secular country and the fact that no religious affiliations can be used in the election matters we can still see that people use the religious sentiments of the people to make use of their vote. Political campaigning’s are also done for the same. For an example the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the leading political party of India which is said to have the ideology of Hindutva. The party has a tilt towards the Hindu religion. Another example of a political party is the Indian Muslim League which is as the name says a Muslim political party.
The establishment of a secular state along with the freedom of religion – that is to choose to practise, profess and propagate any religion of our choice, treating all religions equally and not putting any religion one above the other , the political parties have failed to keep their word. Even after all these laws the use of religion in politics hasn’t come to and end and it seems like it never will according to the recent political activities and trends. The continued existence of political parties which are one way or the other linked with a religion is the main reason why religion cannot be put away from politics. The very existence of these religious acts as a black hole to the act of secularism in our country. The existence of religious pluralism affects the political system. The selection of a candidate is sometimes solely based on religions preferences. The religionization of socio- political issues by the political parties is one of the methods by which they continue to get the voters in their consideration.
CASTE is yet another important factor in determining the voting behaviour of the people. Caste has always had its root in all kinds of problems in India. Caste is an important determinant in the politics of India. It constitutes an important basis for social relations in the country. Despite the various measure taken stop the discrimination, caste still continues to an important basis for election. Politics in caste and caste in politics are very common in the Indian political scenario as we all know. Sometimes for the elections to various constituencies people are selected on the basis of their caste. Also while formulating various policies, election strategies and programme caste is taken as a major factor in the backdrop. Caste system has had its roots for years and so it will take a lot of time for people to weed out these roots even from the political scenario. Votes are brought in the name of caste by the candidates.
Caste is an important determinant for the selection of candidate for the rural population. Despite the various laws and the adoption of secularism, uneducated people mostly living in the rural India choose to vote for people who belong to their own caste. The candidates despite the laws in the country make use of their sentiments to seek vote for them. Although recently this trend has been changing at least in the urban households since as you go up the social ladder caste tends to be invisible. While in the rural areas caste tends to be an important factor in the selection of their leader.
PERFROMANCE OF THE PARTY IN POWER. The performance of the party already ruling is also another important determinant. Each political party comes into power with a election manifesto and various promises. After the elections it is their duty to fulfil all of this and meet the various aspirations of the people. And so the performance of the party during the time it rules is an important factor in determining whether the people should elect for the party next time too.
Improper ruling of the party during its tenure can result in it being not chosen for the next time. The way the party rules influences the people in a big way. We can see an example of this by looking at the example of the elections during 1989. The parties which got elected only stayed in power for a short period of time due to their political instability and the lack of a charismatic leader during the time of ruling. Their unpopular rule with the lack of ideology since it was a coalition lead the people to choose another political party.
MONEY influences people in different ways. Usually people with money and power tend to stay in high positions and rule the people according to their wishes. India is a developing country and most of people live under the poverty line. And so the people having money and power tend to rise to the top. Without other factors like political wave getting involved usually it’s the people with money and power who wins the elections. Rich and the powerful throw around the money to catch the ballot. But this is not always true though because in the 1989 elections congress used a lot of money and power but it couldn’t win the elections. BJP won the elections.
POLICY. Various policies taken by the government or the political parties stand out as an important deciding factor in elections by a common man. When a party announces its political manifesto the policies it takes for the people is an important determinant in voting. A person who doesn’t know much about politics and party tends to take a look at the policies of the party or what it has done in the past years. And so creating a policy that attract the crowd and implementing it in a proper way is important for any party.
These are the various trends which are seen across the country during the election time. The voters turnout has consistently increased from the time of independence till today. People has started to see election as an important way of choosing their leaders. As people are getting educated they started to look into the doings of the party and make a proper decision when it comes to who to vote for. Voting behavior is a form of electoral behavior and understanding it can help us understand how and why people choose to vote for certain people. And the above study was about voting behavior and its determinants.
These are a few terms we have familiarized in the past years. Administration means ‘to administer’ , derived from a Latin word ‘ad’ and ‘ministrare’, it means to serve or manage. We all do know the difference in the meaning of Public and Private.
Administration came as a activity from the times of men and women but as a discipline it emerged only a century and decade ago. In order to live together harmoniously there was a need for a system of control and rules. A leader was much needed to make amendments and negotiations.
As this became a discipline there was a need to categorize it and so the two broad categories of Public and Private administration emerged.
Public Administration can be briefly said as implementation of public policy, as laid down by a competent authority, economically and efficiently for the benefit of the people.
Private Administration refers to the implementation of policy and management of private property or administration.
The following are the similarities between Private and Public Administration
Skills
No matter which sector you work for, private or public the usage of your skill is the same. The skills and techniques adopted by both the sector are the same. The work of an engineer or a teacher is the same in both private and public sector.
Influence
There has been a profound influence on each other. Public corporations are set up as an idea to import the private administration into it. Likewise big and private firms have taken up policies like welfare and insurance too.
Administrative set up
The administrative set up is the same for both the administration. There is a certain level of hierarchy existing in both. And people are recognized according to it. The work is divided on this basis of this structure.
Public Relations
Both of the administrations make sure to have contact with the masses. Even though private administration work on their self-interest, they work according to the needs of the people too. Public administration is for the people. Many private industries are taken up by the government too and vice versa. This proves the how much alike they are.
Research and Improvement
No matter how far both the industries have come, they always improve and make alternative changes. They constantly try to bring innovations and changes according to time.
Differences between Public and Private Administration.
Prestige
Prestige for public administration is very much important. Public administration works for the people and what people think about the government is very Important for them and hence there are a wide range of opportunities available to the public.
Political direction
Sometimes public administration is pushed according to the party’s needs. There is can be a bias due to the influence of a particular party, after all it’s the party which wins the election.
Profit motive
Private administration run on the basis of profit and their own self- interest, while public administration is for public welfare. There is no other motive like private administration, their duty is to serve people.
Uniformity of treatment
Public administration is bound by certain laws and regulations, there is equality of treatment for everyone, No one is treated indifferently. But the same cannot be said for private administration, there is a chance of personal bias in it.
Monopolistic
Some services of the public administration are monopolistic, the government does not allow a second party to invest or make business out of it, this is done for the welfare of the people of the nation.
Responsibility to Public
Public administration is made for the people and so it is accountable to the law and its people. It owes a certain amount of responsibility to the government.
These are the similarities and differences of private and public administration. Both of these are necessary for a nation of succeed
The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to indimate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
India has already been ranked among the top ten terrorism affected countries including states such as Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Tripura, Assam, Nagaland and Manipur. • There are other states also which have been victims of Naxalite terrorism.
CAUSES OF TERRORISM IN INDIA
• In India ,terrorism can be classified in 3 distinct parts: . Cross border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. . Terrorism in the hinterland. . Extreme violence and terrorism as an integral part of the ongoing insurgencies.
• In a richly diverse society, politics of communalism and criminalisation, fanatic religious movements and irresponsible statements by political leaders, marginalised minority communities, high levels of youth unemployment, poverty, illiteracy etc. Provide an ideal fertile ground for terrorism to take root and thrive in India. India also remains highly vulnerable to terrorism by foreign terrorists, due to porous borders with all its neighbours and a long coast line.
• As a result, the terrorists and insurgents continue to receive material support and funds from a number of sources.
• India has experienced all kinds of terrorist attacks like hijacking and blowing up of aircrafts, the assassination of 2 of its prime ministers etc.
• Political cause: primary source of terrorism in India. For example, this ia primarily seen in Tripura and Assam. The political factors that resulted in terrorism included the failure of the government to control and manage large scale immigrants from Bangladesh.
• Economic cause: Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh are prime examples. The economic factors include rural unemployment, exploitation of landless labourers by those who own land. These economic perceptions and grievances of gross social injustice have led to the rise of ideological groups of terrorists.
• Religious causes: these are also primary sources of terrorism. In Punjab, some elements of Sikh belonging to different organisations shifted to terrorism to the development of an independent state known as Khalistan for Sikhs.
• State-sponsored terrorism: which consists of terrorist acts on a state or government by a state or a government.
• Dissent-terrorism: which are terrorist groups that dissent against their government.
• Terrorists and the left and the right: which are the groups rooted in political ideologies.
• Religious terrorism: terrorists groups that are extremely religiously motivated.
• Criminal terrorism: terrorists acts used to aid in crime and criminal profit.
Terrorism can undermine political moderation in a democracy, paving the way for more extreme elements to gain footholds. The death toll of a terrorist attack ,often inflicted in a spectacular way that draws media attention and leads to political criticism, can undermine faith in government. The secular, pluralistic, ethnically diverse, and vibrant democracy that India has nurtured ever since its independence on 1947 has become the envy of many radical and extremist ideologies.
IMPACT OF TERRORISM
Firstly, it creates a state of panic amongst the citizens. The bomb blasts or firing impacts the mental health of the people. Terrorist attacks create a sense of doubt in the foreign investors of India. This causes a huge blow to the business of India depending upon them. Thus, it damages the economy. As terrorist attacks cause loss of life and property, the replenishment takes up a lot of capital. There are political effects of terrorism in India. The killing of ex prime ministers of India, Mrs. Indira Gandhi and Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, by terrorists ,effected Indian politics and economy at large. Due to 26/11 Mumbai attack , Home minister Mr. Shivraj Patil, chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh had to resign. This unstabilized the Indian industry. The financial markets have been directly and indirectly the victims of terrorist attacks. In the aftermath of attacks, the financial markets were not only confronted with major activity disruptions caused by the massive damage to property and communication systems, but also with rising levels of uncertainty and market volatility.
STRATEGIES ADOPTED BY INDIAN AGENCIES FIGHTING TERROR.
NIA : A central government investigative agency to probe terror attacks in the country ,created by an act of the parliament of India on December 31,2008, following the Mumbai terror attack of November 2008. Full form is National Investigation Agency.
• Intelligence agencies: There are a set of agencies responsible for fighting terrorism in India. A major agency utilized for gathering cross border information is the Research and Analysis wing(RAW)- the external intelligence agency. The Intelligence Bureau(IB), a division of the home affairs ministry is responsible for collecting intelligence information inside India
. • NATGRID: National Intelligence Grid is an intelligence grid interconnecting certain agencies of the government of India to collect and share intelligence that could be used by the intelligence agencies of various departments.
• CAPF: Centre Armed Police Forces are used extensively in Maoist areas , Kashmir and North-east.
Terrorism in India poses a significant threat to the people of India. Ideologies and brain drain are among one of the important thing to keep in mind as causes of this crime. Terrorist attacks leave deterrent effects on society, political instability for the government and loss to the economy, in form of national and international business. Terrorism is very dangerous as it not only kills the human life but also the infrastructure, industry, ultimately damages its overall growth
Moral police is an umbrella category of vigilante groups which act to enforce a code of morality in India. Some of India’s laws, and some actions of police forces in India are also considered to be instances of moral policing.The target of moral policing is any activity that vigilante groups, the government or police deem to be “immoral” and/or “against Indian culture”.
India has several vigilante groups that claim to protect the Indian culture. They resist and oppose cultural concepts that they deem to have been imported from the Western culture. They have been known to attack bars and pubs.Some of these groups have attacked or have forced to shut down art exhibitions, where they claim obscene paintings were being displayed. They have issued diktats against western attires. Some have also condemned beauty parlours. Some members of the media have also colluded with such groups.Some politicians have supported such viewpoints and occasionally such activities.This question has striked hard in the light of recent events of the moral policing attack on kollywood actress Samyuktha Hedge in a public park in Bangalore.
Kannada actor Samyuktha Hegde on Saturday alleged that she and her friends were morally policed, abused and assaulted in a Bangalore park by a lady called Kavitha Reddy and some men for wearing a workout clothes in a public place.
Samyuktha recorded the entire altercation on Instagram live. In another video, a man threatens Samyuktha that he will tell the media that she was doing drugs. Kavitha had called the cops and she wished for Samyuktha and her friends to be booked for public indecency.
“After being in a democracy and following all the norms of social distancing, we were abused and ridiculed by Kavitha Reddy and the mob in Agara Lake for practicing our hula-hoop while wearing sportswear. Despite being polite and trying to solve the problem, the lady hit my friend and used disparaging remarks about me and my friends,” Samyuktha Hedge said in her Instagram post.
“I was extremely disappointed with how the police who came to the location behaved, like nothing was wrong and spoke to her with respect while asked us to be quiet. The cops stood there while her mob harassed us and even after requesting the police continuously, they decided to stand there and support this (proof on igtv). Yesterday was really hard and it was so disturbing to go through this,” she added.
After the consequences of her Action Kavitha publicly apologized to Samyuktha saying that she was always against moral policing and that she realized her actions were constructed as such. She also apologized for her aggressive reactions as well.
Samyuktha accepted Kavitha Reddy’s apology and wrote, “Apologies accepted Ms Kavitha Reddy. I hope we can all move forward from the incident and make women feel safe everywhere.
This action and reaction has made us to think again that should we need moral policing when there is law and order to protect the citizens of India.
There are three things india should say goodbye to:
Kesavananda Bharati, the seer of Edneer Mutt in Kasargod district of Kerala, whose case led to the historical judgment of the Supreme Court on the “basic structure” doctrine passed away Sunday morning at an age of 80. This case is regarded as the greatest constitutional case in the judicial history of India. In the Kesavananda Bharati vs the state of Kerala, 1973 by the majority of 7-6, the Supreme Court established the basic structure of the constitution which is inviolable and cannot be amended by the Parliament.
Constitutional expert Nani Palkhivala argued on behalf of Bharati challenging the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1969- which had the objective of distributing the land among the landless farmers. This restricted the management of the Edneer mutt’s property which was the only source of income for the asharam. The petition was against the 24, 25 and 29th constitutional amendments which as argued by Bharati breached his fundamental rights under Article 25 (right to practice and propagate religion), Article 26 (freedom of religious denomination, including managing and administering its property) and Article 31 (right to property).
The attempts to amend the constitution began write after its adoption. Initially the SC allowed the Parliament to have absolute powers in making amendments as in Shankari Prasad(1951) and Sajjan Singh(1965) cases, having full faith in the parliamentary leaders who were erstwhile freedom fighters. But later amendments were being made to suit the partisan political interests. Subsequently in the Golaknath case(1967), the SC ruled that the parliament cannot makes amendments in the Fundamental Rights under Part 3 of the constitution. The ruling interpreted the “laws” in article 13 as inclusive of the amendments and so by using Article 368 no laws or amendments were to be made in contradiction to the Fundamental Rights. The Indira Gandhi government hence came up with the 24,25 and 29th amendments.
The SC ruling in the Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973 said that the amendments could not alter the “basic structure” of the constitution and allowed a wide arena for judicial review. The bench however did not establish as to what constitutes the basic structure, leaving it open for the court to adjudicate on a case by case basis. The top court has interpreted the doctrine to include the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, doctrine of separation of powers, federalism, secularism, sovereign democratic republic, the parliamentary system of government, the principle of free and fair elections and the welfare state.
There are many people who talks about it , and few screams and fight to end it…………but since ages, it’s not being possible to make a difference, and still have not got independence from it’s foul smell, where someone dwelling in it , without sense. But, should we live in this rut forever ?…And to accept ourselves as incapable of destroying it, and to live like a looser.
I have a one brilliant rule, if it comes into play that undoubtedly changes the fate of the country. Before i reveal it, let us know why this rule works besides many measures being taken were failing since decades. The main feasible condition for corruption, is lack of surveillance and awareness among people,and how it greatly damages our standard of living. So,creating awareness among all the people might sometimes work, but most of the time it rewards us with great disappointment. because, India has biggest population, it’s hard to make all of us to bring on to one platform with one voice.
But, there was no dearth of solution, if we think and the first said idea is…………. This idea works with collection of students, professors, university bodies, govt anti corruption and adminstrative bodies , police. You may wonder that how, could you connect students, professors with police? The bitter fact is, about 90% of indian passouts graduates are unskilled according to the several esteemed surveys. The main reason for it is, not having a platform to access practical knowledge, we have severe shortage of internship opportunities and real time project works. This problem can also be indirectly solved by our main idea.
The govt should make project works mandatory and give them more importance in their course, some may refrain with this idea…but if we couldn’t able to perform on projects itself, how can we able to sustain after getting to global market; initially it might be hard, but with support of our peer and lecturers we can excel gradually. Now, we all should be assigned project works by our colleges in collaboration with national education body (now MHRD), only on all governmental assets and organisations….here comes a game changing shot. But, how is it possible?
The government must allow all the students to study governmental organisations, properties, and projects build by them.(let’s say a dam, hospital etc…). This helps to make an assessment for the quality of work being done in various govt fields and organisations.The reports submitted by students can be used by anti corruption agencies and help them to understand the situation at very ground level. As it’s not possible for anti corruption agencies to keep an eye over every inch of the whole country, they can use this student community as a strongest trustworthy network as they don’t provide false reports, if in case; the professor and the whole college who guided him will be felt guilt, and leads to their lack of reputation in society. so, this locking system can help students ro not provide false reports.
All the students must be allotted some projects on live aspects(like dams, hospitals ,industries built and being run by govt) in their respective fields, and we have to start analyzing their maintenance and prepare and submit the report of it’s quality and working efficiency. Here itself, we get an opportunity to dig up the flaws went up and to make a change by preparing efficient reports of the atrocities made and corruption that underwent.
For say, i’m a student of civil engineering, got a project to understand about kaleshwaram dam and have to submit report on it. I started by when it has built, and how much cost it took, what are the materials used in it, what are the technologies use in it, why does the walls of the dam is being getting cracks just after 5 years of its inauguration, what is the reason for recent fire accident……..when i submit the detail report to the college, I am gonna get my marks The above said will be the work of every student in every field, not only engineering also health,law, agriculture,finance and every field. Instead the anti corruption bureau working on intensive ground level, they can collect all the project reports form all colleges and will be easier for them to take action, by using the information. As, it is a real time project, the professor of individual group must take care of no flaws and genuinity of information, as it will be a major source for higher govt authorities to take action. In simple, students has to set on to study the past govt projects and organisations; and the detailed project reports and student community acts as a strong surveillance framework and it bring out the corruptions of the past as well as prevents the corruptions of the future. This idea, if it honed by the bright minds of our country, it can surely be an influential act.
Eduindex News 
You must be logged in to post a comment.