Tag: Edutimes

Twitter will have to obey the Indian government's law, Government encourages people to switch to Koo

Clash between Twitter and the central government is increasing due to the order to close 1178 accounts related to Khalistan-Pakistan . The central government has clearly told the American company that it has to follow Indian law. Also, many politicians and others are switching to Koo app against Twitter.

In a virtual meeting with Twitter Vice President Monique Meshe and Jim Baker, the secretary of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology said,”despite government instructions, fake accounts related to the peasant movement were not closed. This is very unfortunate”. Earlier, Twitter replied it cannot fully oblige to the center’s order citing violation of the right to freedom of expression and said the Indian government’s demand was not in line with the country’s laws. Twitter believes in protecting the Freedom of Expression of its users and hence it did not take an action against the accounts of media companies, journalists, social workers and politicians.

25+ lakhs downloads of the KOO app in last 48 hours-

Amidst the trending #ban_twitter and #Koo_app on twitter in India, many politicians and spokespersons are switching to Koo to express their anger and requesting their followers to do the same. Koo app
was launched only last year under self-sufficient India. About 3 million people downloaded it in 48 hours.

Beti Padhao, Beti Bachao movement leads to a nationwide increase in the average sex-ratio of male child to female child

In these difficult times when a good news is hard to come by, we have got a good news.

States like Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh were suffering from a huge  difference in the sex-ratio of male child to female child due to old and prevalent malpractices such as female infanticide and abortion of female child in the womb itself, are now  seeing a decrease in the difference in the sex-ratio. By definition, sex-ratio means the ratio of males to females in a given population.

According to Mrs. Smriti Irani, Minister of Women and Child Development “Improvement in the sex-ratio in these states happened due to the Beti Padhao, Beti Bachao Scheme launched by the government. Average sex-ratio throughout the country has also improved”.

In 2015-16 , the sex-ratio was 1000 males to 918 females which increased to 1000 males to 934 females in 2019-20.

In Uttar Pradesh, the average per 1000 males is now 928 females which was previously 885. In Haryana, this average  per 1000 males became 924 females which was earlier 816. In Chandigarh it increased to 935 from 874 females per 1000 males. In Punjab female ratio increased from 892 to 920. In Himachal Pradesh, it increased from 897 to 933 females and in Rajasthan it increased from 929 to 948. It just goes to show that people are changing slowly and in a good way.

But where these states saw an increase in the ratio, some others states like Bihar, Odisha and Kerala saw a decrease in the no. of females per 1000 males thereby increasing the difference in the sex-ratio which shows that we still have a long way to go.

Despite Marrying Willingly A Minor Girl Can’t Be Allowed To Stay With Husband Till She Attains Majority

In a significant judgment titled Pradeep Tomar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [Matters Under Article 227 No. 4804 of 2020] delivered on January 27, 2021, the Allahabad High Court has recently, righteously and remarkably held that a minor girl cannot be allowed to live in a matrimonial relationship with a man she claims to be her husband even if she had left her home of her own accord and married the man out of her own free will. The Single Judge Bench of Justice JJ Munir ruled thus while taking into account her High School Certificate which “clearly indicated” that she is minor as her date of birth is 04 November 2004. The Bench specifically stated that, “So long as the prosecutrix is a minor, she cannot be permitted to accompany the accused Pintoo, whom she claims to have married.”

To start with, the ball is set rolling by first and foremost observing in para 1 that, “This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed seeking to set aside an order of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Hapur, dated 24.11.2020, passed in Case Crime No. 516 of 2020, under Section 363 IPC, P.S. Pilakhuwa, District Hapur, directing that the prosecutrix Km. Shivani be permitted to go along with her husband, the accused Pintoo son of Omvir.”
To be sure, it is then stated in para 2 that, “A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second opposite party by Mr. Rama Shankar Mishra, Advocate, which is taken on record. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder.”
On the one hand, it is put forth in para 6 that, “The submission of Mr. Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioners, briefly said, is to the effect that the date of birth of the prosecutrix, according to her High School Examination Certificate issued by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, is 04.11.2004. She is, thus, a minor, aged 16 years and 2 months approximately. She would attain majority on 05.11.2022. Mr. Mehrotra submits that the Magistrate has erred in permitting the prosecutrix to accompany her husband, an accused in the crime, going by the marriage acknowledged by the parties to be solemnized on 21.09.2020 at the Pandav Kalin Neeli Chhatri Mandir Sanatan Dharam Vivah Padti Trust, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi. Mr. Mehrotra submits that the prosecutrix, being a minor, cannot be permitted to stay in a matrimonial relationship, where the marriage would be void under Section 12 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the Act of 2006’). He submits that in any case the prosecutrix, who is not a major, cannot be permitted to stay with her husband and ought not to be allowed to accompany him. Doing so, would be permitting statutory rape and also an offence under Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.”
On the other hand, it is then brought out in para 7 that, “Mr. Rama Shankar Mishra, on the other hand, submits that the prosecutrix in her stand before the Magistrate has made it clear that she has married the accused Pintoo of her free will and wishes to stay with him. He emphasizes that the parties’ marriage has been registered under the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 by the Marriage Registration Officer, Ghaziabad on 21.09.2020. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards a certificate of the registration of marriage, dated 21.09.2020.”
To put things in perspective, it is then pointed out in para 8 that, “This Court has perused the impugned order and considered the entire facts and circumstances. The prosecutrix is a little over 16 years of age. The Magistrate has been swayed to permit the prosecutrix to go along with the accused, her husband on ground that the father of the prosecutrix made an application that he would not take her back home and that he had lodged an FIR, out of social embarrassment. The Magistrate has relied upon the decisions of this Court in Smt. Rajkumari vs. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, 1998 Cr.L.J 654 (All) and Smt. Ramsati @ Syamsati vs. State of U.P., Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 245 of 2015, decided on 07.09.2005 to hold that upon marriage of a minor according to her wishes, she could be left free to live her life.”
As it turned out, it is then stated in para 10 that, “So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, in the face of the High School Certificate, there is no cavil that evidence about her being a major, which is her stand, cannot be accepted. She cannot be referred to medical examination for determination of her age, so long as her date of birth founded on her High School Certificate, is available. This certificate clearly indicates that she is a minor. There, her date of birth is 04.11.2004. Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 makes the following provision regarding presumption and determination of age: 
“94. Presumption and determination of age.– (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.
(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining –
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; 
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; 
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:
Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.
(3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.”
Be it noted, it is then stated in para 11 that, “The provisions of Section 94 (2) of the Act, which are designed to determine the age of a juvenile, have been extended to the victim in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana; (2013) 7 SCC 263 and by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Priyanka Devi through her husband vs. State of U.P. and others 2018 (1) ACR 1061, to which I was a party. It has been held in Smt. Priyanka Devi thus: 
“13. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly urged that provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 do not apply to the case in hand as the same are available for the purposes of determination of age for a juvenile or a child in conflict with the law but would not apply to the determination of age in the case of a victim.
14. We are afraid that the aforesaid submission is not correct. The issue was examined by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahadeo S/o Kerba Maske v. State of Maharashtra and Another; (2013) 14 SCC 637 where in paragraph no. 12 of the report it was held as under: “Under rule 12(3)(b), it is specifically provided that only in the absence of alternative methods described under Rule 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii), the medical opinion can be sought for. In the light of such a statutory rule prevailing for ascertainment of the age of the juvenile in our considered opinion, the same yardstick can be rightly followed by the courts for the purpose of the ascertaining the age of a victim as well.” 
15. This issue has also been considered in an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana; 2013 (7) SCC 263, where too it has been held that rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 must apply both to a child in conflict with law as well as to a victim of a crime. Paragraph 23 of the said report reads thus: 
“Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, we are of the view that the aforesaid statutory provision should be the basis for determining age, even for a child who is a victim of crime. For, in our view, there is hardly any difference in so far as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of crime. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it would be just and appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, to determine the age of the prosecutrix VWPW6. The manner of determining age conclusively, has been expressed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 extracted above. Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is ascertained, by adopting the first available basis, out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The highest rated option available, would conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is the highest rated option. In case, the said certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied upon. Only in the absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages consideration of the date of birth entered, in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Yet again, if such a certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into consideration, for determining the age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of age of the concerned child, on the basis of medical opinion.”
16. Thus, principles applicable to the determination of age in the case of a juvenile would in terms apply to cases of determination of the age of a victim as well. It may be pointed out that at the point of time when Mahadeo (supra) was decided by their lordships of the Supreme Court, the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 was in force and their lordships were interpreting the provision of Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Rules, 2007. The said Act of 2000 has since been repealed and has been replaced by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The rules framed under the Act of 2000 are thus no longer on the statute book. However, the provisions that found place in Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Rules, 2007 framed under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 are now, with certain modifications engrafted into the Principal Act vide section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The inter se priority of criteria to determine age under Rule 12(3) of the Rules, 2007 (supra) and section 94 of the Act, 2015 remains the same albeit with certain modifications which are of no consequences to the facts in hand. In short, provisions of Rule 12(3) of the Rules, 2007 framed under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 are para meteria to the provision of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. This being the comparative position, the principles of law laid down by their lordships in the case of Mahadeo (supra) would apply with equal force to the provisions of section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 while determining the age of a victim of an offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, on this score, is not tenable.””
It is also worth noting that it is then stated in para 12 that, “The provisions of Section 94(2) makes it vivid that in the face of a date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, the other evidence about the age of a victim cannot be looked into. If the date of birth certificate as envisaged in clause (i) of sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of the Act is not available, the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat is the next evidence to be considered in the rung. It is only when the evidence about age envisaged under clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of the Act is not available, that a victim can be referred to a medico-legal examination for the determination of her age. Therefore, even if it is the prosecutrix’s stand, which this Court assumes to be so that she is 18 years old, and has married Pintoo of her free will, she cannot be regarded as a major or permitted to prove herself a major, by asking herself to be referred to medical examination by a Board of Doctors, so long as her High School Certificate is clear on the point. After the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Suhani vs. State of U.P., 2018 SCC Online SC 781, there was some confusion whether a victim could be referred to the medical examination of a Board of Doctors for determination of her age, in the face of a recorded date of birth in the High School certificate. But, after the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Nisha Naaz alias Anuradha and another vs. State of U.P. and others 2019 (2) ACR 2075 holding that the decision in Suhani does not lay down any law but is a decision on facts, the principles in Smt. Priyanka Devi, following the decision in Jarnail Singh, is law that would govern the fate of this case. In Smt. Nisha Naaz alias Anuradha, it was held: 
“14. A plain reading of Section 94 of the 2015, Act would reveal that only in absence of: (a) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board; and (b) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat, age is to be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board. A Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt. Priyanka Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others in Habeas Corpus Petition No.55317 of 2017, decided on 21st November, 2017, after noticing the provisions of the 2015, Act and the earlier 2000, Act and the rules framed thereunder, came to the conclusion that as there is no significant change brought about in the 2015, Act in the principles governing determination of age of a juvenile in conflict with law, in so far as weightage to medico legal evidence is concerned, the law laid down in respect of applicability of those provisions for determination of a child victim would continue to apply notwithstanding the new enactment. The Division Bench in Priyanka Devi’s case (supra) specifically held that as there is on record the High School Certificate, the medico legal evidence cannot be looked into as the statute does not permit.
15. The judgment of the apex court in Suhani’s case (supra) does not lay down law or guidelines to be used for determination of the age of child victim. Further, it neither overrules nor considers its earlier decisions which mandated that the age of child victim is to be determined by the same principles as are applicable for determination of the age of juvenile in conflict with law. From the judgment of the apex court in Suhani’s case (supra), it appears that the concerned victim (petitioner no.1 of that case) was produced before the court and the court considered it apposite that she should be medically examined by the concerned department of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (for short AIIMS). Upon which, AIIMS, by taking radiological tests, submitted report giving both lower as well as higher estimates of age. On the lower side the age was estimated as 19 years and on the higher side it was 24 years. Therefore, even if the margin of error was of 5 years, the victim was an adult. Hence, on the facts of that case, in Suhani’s case, the first information report was quashed by the Apex Court. The decision of the Apex Court was therefore in exercise of its power conferred upon it by Article 142 of the Constitution of India which enables it to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The said decision cannot be taken as a decision that overrules the earlier binding precedents which lay down the manner in which the age of a child victim is to be determined.””
No less significant is what is then stated in para 13 that, “So long as the prosecutrix is a minor, she cannot be permitted to accompany the accused Pintoo, whom she claims to have married. In order to determine whether the prosecutrix was enticed away from her guardian’s lawful custody, or she went away of her own, this Court ascertained the prosecutrix’s stand, who is present in Court. Her stand is recorded verbatim:
Q. Aapka Naam? 
Ans. Shivani 
Q. Aapki Aayu Kya Hai? 
Ans. 04.01.2002 (18 years) 
Q. Aap Pintoo Ko Janti Hain? 
Ans. Haan. 
Q. Pintoo Kaun Hain? 
Ans. Mere Pati. 
Q. Pintoo Aapko Bahla Fusla Kar Le Gaya Tha? 
Ans. Nahi, Mai Apni Marzi se Uske Saath Gayi Thi. 
Q. Aap Apne Mata-Pita Ke Pass Jaana Chahti Hain? 
Ans. Nahi. Main Apne Pati Ke Pass Jana Chahti Hun.”
As a corollary, it is then stated in para 14 that, “Looking to Shivani’s stand, it is evident that she has not been enticed away by Pintoo. Rather, she has left her home of her own accord and married him. In this view of the matter, the marriage would not be void under Section 12 of the Act of 2006, but would be voidable under Section 3 of the said Act.”
Interestingly enough, it is then envisaged in para 15 that, “The conclusion is evident from the provisions of Sections 3 and 12 of the Act of 2006 which read as under: 
“3. Child marriages to be voidable at the option of contracting party being a child.—(1) Every child marriage, whether solemnised before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable at the option of the contracting party who was a child at the time of the marriage:
Provided that a petition for annulling a child marriage by a decree of nullity may be filed in the district court only by a contracting party to the marriage who was a child at the time of the marriage.
(2) If at the time of filing a petition, the petitioner is a minor, the petition may be filed through his or her guardian or next friend along with the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer.
(3) The petition under this section may be filed at any time but before the child filing the petition completes two years of attaining majority. 
(4) While granting a decree of nullity under this section, the district court shall make an order directing both the parties to the marriage and their parents or their guardians to return to the other party, his or her parents or guardian, as the case may be, the money, valuables, ornaments and other gifts received on the occasion of the marriage by them from the other side, or an amount equal to the value of such valuables, ornaments, other gifts and money: Provided that no order under this section shall be passed unless the concerned parties have been given notices to appear before the district court and show cause why such order should not be passed.
12. Marriage of a minor child to be void in certain circumstances.—Where a child, being a minor— 
(a) is taken or enticed out of the keeping of the lawful guardian; or
(b) by force compelled, or by any deceitful means induced to go from any place; or 
(c) is sold for the purpose of marriage; and made to go through a form of marriage or if the minor is married after which the minor is sold or trafficked or used for immoral purposes,
such marriage shall be null and void.””
Needless to say, it is then rightly asserted in para 16 that, “It would, therefore, be open to the prosecutrix to acknowledge the marriage or claim it to be void, once she attains the age of majority. It would also be open to her, once she attains the age of majority, to go wherever she likes and stay with whomsoever she wants.”
Simply put, the Bench then holds in para 17 that, “Since, she is not inclined to go back to her parents, for the present, this Court is left with no alternative but to direct the State to place her in a suitable State facility other than a Nari Niketan, may be a Safe Home/Shelter Home.”
What’s more, the Bench then also holds in para 18 that, “The District Magistrate, Hapur and the Superintendent of Police, Hapur are ordered to ensure that the prosecutrix is immediately housed in a suitable Safe Home/Shelter Home, or other State facility where she would be safe and taken care of.”
Furthermore, para 19 then states that, “The learned District Judge, Hapur is also directed to ensure that a Lady Judicial Officer, posted in his Judgeship, will visit the prosecutrix once a month and inquire about her welfare. In case there is anything objectionable, she will immediately report the matter to the District Judge, who will take appropriate steps to ensure the prosecutrix’s welfare during her stay in the State facility/Safe Home/ Shelter Home, wherever she is housed.”
Thereafter, it is then held in para 20 that, “Shivani would be permitted to live in State facility/Safe Home/ Shelter Home till 04.11.2022, and thereafter, she may go wherever she wants and stay with whomsoever she likes, including Pintoo, whom she claims to be her husband.”
As we see, it is then stated in para 21 that, “In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.11.2020, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Hapur in Case Crime No. 516 of 2020 under Section 363 IPC, P.S. Pilakhuwa, District Hapur is hereby set aside. The prosecutrix shall be dealt with in accordance with the directions made hereinabove.”
Adding more to it, para 22 then states that, “Let Shivani, who is present in person, be forthwith taken into the care of the Court Officer and conveyed through the Registrar General to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj shall cause the prosecutrix to be conveyed in safety to the Superintendent of Police, Hapur, who, along with the District Magistrate, Hapur will carry out the directions carried in this order forthwith.”
Now coming to concluding paras. Para 23 states that, “The Court Officer shall convey Shivani to the Registrar General, who shall make immediate arrangement to take her into his immediate care and ensure compliance of this order.” Finally, the last para 24 holds that, “Let this order be communicated to the learned District Judge, Hapur, the District Magistrate, Hapur, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj and the Superintendent of Police, Hapur by the Joint Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours.”
To sum it up, what can be inferred from this noteworthy ruling of Allahabad High Court is that despite marrying willingly a minor girl can’t be allowed to stay with her husband till she attains majority. This is so because if she is permitted to stay with her husband it would tantamount to permitting statutory rape and also would constitute an offence under Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Such a marriage of minor would not be void under Section 12 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 but would be voidable under Section 3 of the said Act. It would be open to the minor girl to either acknowledge the marriage or claim it to be void once she attains the age of majority. It is left entirely on her own discretion to take what decision she likes once she attains the age of majority. This is the real crux of this commendable judgment! 
Sanjeev Sirohi

This Is No Way To Protest And Hold Nation To Ransom

“I am always ready to bear Allah’s full fury but under no circumstances will I ever block road for offering namaz. There was no space in mosque or anywhere else except on road! Offering namaz on road is a big crime for me which I will never commit under any circumstances! Not for a second will I ever do anything that disturbs others and forces them to wait for me to leave road so that they can leave for their own work!”

– Sageer Khan my best friend who in 1993-94 said this to me when I asked him why he was so upset while returning from a mosque and why can’t he offer namaz on road just like others
It is most shocking to see that in his second term as PM Narendra Modi has senselessly, shamelessly and stupidly allowed blocking of roads and so also the Chief Minister of Punjab Captain Amarinder Singh, Chief Minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal and Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot also have also allowed for blocking of roads and rail tracks to register their protest against the new farm laws. What is even worst is that even Supreme Court too didn’t promptly order lifting of blockade of roads and rail tracks which is most unfortunate. My best friend Sageer Khan once also rightly said to me way back in 1993 that, “No cause no matter how sacred it may be can ever justify blocking of roads and rail tracks under any circumstances. My friendship will break with you if I ever come to know that you are a party to blocking of road or rail track. But I am sure that you will never ever commit such crime in your life.”
Bluntly put: Any PM who cannot stop blockade of road and rail tracks must promptly resign and pave way for some other capable person! Which Constitution or which law or which religion or which God can justify blocking of roads and rail tracks? To hell with such Constitution or law or religion or God! To hell with all of them or any one of them depending on which ever try to justify blocking of road or rail tracks under any circumstances whatsoever which cannot be ever justified! 
Needless to say: Any PM who cannot stop carrying out of tractor rally or any other parallel rally during Republic Day in Delhi must promptly resign as this definitely lead to giving free hand to hoodlums, criminals, goons and terrorists who will not spare any opportunity to even desecrate Red Fort as we saw most recently during 26 January, 2021 which has shamed our nation in front of the whole world! More than 500 policemen were injured by armed rioters under the garb of farmers and even with folded hands when police cops requested when their was no space left for them to escape then also they kept on beating them mercilessly! Can this be justified in the name of dissent? To hell with such dissent! This can only be justified on the ground of “Might is right” and this is exactly what is happening unabashedly in our country since last two years!
Of course, it was not a coincidence that Khalistani supporters were simultaneously raising anti-India slogans and so also the historic statute of Mahatma Gandhi in America was broken! Can this also be justified in the name of dissent? Can chanting of Khalistani slogans also be justified in the name of dissent? 
More broadly, can carrying of weapons be justified during tractor rally as we saw in Delhi during 26 January? Can tractors be allowed to break all barricading that comes their way? Can tractors be allowed to crush police men if they come in their way?
Why police never spares any person even if a person commits a small mistake like not wearing a helmet etc but on the contrary when many rogues threaten to carry out rallies and dare to throw aside all check posts then they are treated with kidgloves as we saw when more than 300 policemen were injured. How long will mob violence be justified on one pretext or the other? How long will terrorists be glorified in such protests? How long will women and men be allowed to chant that, “Hain Hain Modi Marja Tun Pehla Indira ko thoka hain aab Modi ki bari hain”? Why were such anti-nationals not arrested promptly? Why was all this taken so lightly? 
There are many actors both in India and in abroad who are not coming out in open but who have made it their latest weapon to sponsor such blockade of roads and rail tracks and those foreign forces who are inimical to the very concept of India are the “real force” behind all such fundings and they must be identified at the earliest and exposed in front of the world. It is a national shame that why our government in Centre as well the Supreme Court allowed such dangerous, deplorable, despicable and dastardly blocking of roads and rail tracks which causes maximum inconvenience to the common person for months and months together and now Rakesh Tikait has warned to carry it for a year by end of 2021! All the legal luminaries, senior Supreme Court lawyers and Supreme Court Judges including CJI along with PM and Cabinet Ministers must feel most ashamed that they have allowed this most despicable blocking of roads and rail tracks right under their nose! 
Under no circumstances should the administration both in the State as well as in the Centre should have ever allowed farmers instigated by their leaders for advancing their own interests to occupy roads and rail tracks. India’s international reputation has been worst affected but leaders like Rakesh Tikait among others are least bothered about all this! What is most shocking is that the PM and the CJI have not taken it most seriously due to which this shameful, senseless and stupid act of blocking of road and rail tracks is fast becoming the order of the day! CJI Sharad Arvind Bobde should have first ordered protesters to vacate the road and to give an undertaking that they would never again occupy roads and rail tracks like this before staying the Central laws or appointing a high powered Committee to look into it. But nothing of this sort happened and the result are there for all of us as we saw during Republic day! 
To put it mildly: Our Red Fort was desecrated by hoodlums and vandalisers and this happened right under the nose of the administration. Why was permission given for such tractor parade and that too on Republic Day and that too in Capital itself to so many vehicles that it was virtually impossible to keep a control on all of them? There are many more such troubling questions which keep haunting us who love this nation!
Needless to say, too much freedom and too much tolerance allowed to mob under the garb of farmers or any other form will destroy India completely as it is goons who hijack the agenda as we saw during the Republic day parade! Who is responsible for many places like Ghazipur turning into fortress with nails on roads and concrete walls? It is these hoodlums who tarnished the reputation of India and indulged in wanton violence in which more than 500 police cops were injured which cannot be justified under any circumstances whatsoever!
How can we forget the images of farmers in their tractors considering themselves above law and clashing with the Delhi police at Red Fort where they were not permitted to go and rampaging whatever came in their way and carried out huge destroying of precious items even inside the Red Fort? As if this was not enough, many of them even tried to run tractor over police cops who had to run for saving their lives! Should the CJI and his brother Judges have sympathy for such farmers? Should they allow farmers to hold nation to ransom by blocking all entry points to Delhi?
It cannot be lightly dismissed that among all the Congress leaders, it was Captain Amarinder Singh who is Chief Minister of Punjab who was most vocal in denouncing what all happened under the garb of tractor rally on January 26, 2021. He minced no words to state unequivocally that, “My head hangs in shame at what happened yesterday in the national capital.” He also said categorically that those who were responsible for the incident were not farmers but misguided youth who were indulging in symbolism. How can this or blocking of roads be ever justified? Why rail tracks in Punjab were allowed to be blocked for months together? 
What message has gone out? Why judiciary too allowed this most despicable act of blocking of road right under its very nose? Why were these protesters allowed to take the nation for a ride and injure as many as more than 500 police personnel? What message are we setting? 
It is a no-brainer that this farmers movement has defamed India to the hilt. Spineless, senseless and shameless justification of violence under the garb of farmers protest and blocking of roads and rail tracks cannot be justified under any circumstances. Who is having the last laugh? It is countries like Canada, UK, US, Italy and Germany among others who openly support Khalistani movement and encourage them to rebel against India by allowing openly anti-India and pro-Khalistani activities on their soil and allowing them to vandalise even statutes of Mahatma Gandhi as we saw in USA! 
Should we be proud of this? It is not just a coincidence that it is mostly celebrities from these countries who are expressing maximum concern for what is purely an internal issue of India but which Opposition parties are wanting to spare no opportunity to internationalise it. It is not just a coincidence that governments of these countries are voicing maximum concern over farm laws and this despite the irrefutable fact that USA has lent its support to the farm laws under the new President Joe Biden as mentioned in the newspapers of February 4, 2021!
Never take your enemy for granted. This where India always err. Why are protesters becoming a convenient tool in the hands of foreign powers? Why are Mir Jafars and Jai Chands being allowed to set the agenda of blocking roads for an indefinitely long period so as to tarnish, tatter and toss the impeccable reputation of India to the hilt? 
I am sorry to say but this is no way to carry out a movement! We have become a laughing stock in front of the world for which farmer leaders who have misdirected farmers cannot escape from being held accountable. Why farmer leaders allowed this sacred agitation to be hijacked by radical separatists organizations who are openly advocating a separate Khalistan for Sikhs? Why Sikhs for Justice which is one such separatist organization was allowed to take the centrestage that had gone to the extent of even giving a clarion call to the Sikhs to reach the Red Fort on 26 January and unfurl the Khalistani flag and insult the national flag? Why Centre took it most lightly and why permission was granted to tractor rally which was more a terrorist rally in which we saw violent protesters trying to crush our police cops, run over barricades and vandalise Red Fort in a manner that is completely unprecedented? Centre has a lot of explaining to do on this just like in the case of Shaheen Bagh! 
The locals are also simmering in anger as it is their right to livelihood and right to free passage that is getting worst affected due to this endless farmers agitation. We have seen how tension broke out in Tikri border where more than 100 people gathered and demanded the removal of protesters from the main Rohtak Road which has been blocked for the last more than two months. How long will the locals keep patience? Why Supreme Court gave the green signal for protest to continue on roads? Do only protesters have fundamental rights? What about others who face immense difficulties and trouble in their livelihood due to such blockades? Are they second grade citizens? Only vandalisers, hoodlums, violent agitators and road blockers entitled to fundamental rights for which our Supreme Court speaks most vociferously! What about others? Should others just keep on tolerating every nonsense quietly? This is what happened during Shaheen Bagh agitations due to which riots broke out when protesters tried to block other places also feeling emboldened to block Shaheen Bagh for more than 100 days!
Pintu Kumar who is a resident of the nearby Baba Haridas Nagar at Tikri Border said that these protesters “broke our trust” and “insulted” the national flag on January 26, when the farmers abetted by some selfish and vested leaders took out the disgraceful, disastrous, dangerous, shameful, senseless and stupid tractor rally to embarrass our nation. He rightly said that, “These people cannot be farmers, as a Kisan will never attack a Jawan. These are anti-social elements. We initially supported them and gave them food as well but they have broken our trust by resorting to violence on Republic Day.” The NIA report and intelligence report had also warned of Khalistani terrorists having entered the tractor rally and farmers protest but still stupidly sanction was granted for tractor rally and the results are there for us to see for ourselves! Most shocking indeed!
Why is it that we see maximum protesters from just Punjab and one or two other states only? Why is it that Gen Bajwa of Pakistani Army wanted Kartarpur Corridor to open fast and why huge hoardings of Khalistani Referendum 2020 not taken seriously? Why is it that drones from Pakistan were entering India and dropping weapons and still we took it lightly? It is high time that we wake up and stop this mockery of our national interests for the sake of appeasement of one religion alone. Why can’t we worship in our own country? My best friend Sageer Khan once said that “Even if Allah commands me to come to Pakistan I will refuse as nation, parents and religion can never be changed and so why should I go to Pakistan to worship? Why can’t I worship him in my own country? India is the best place for Muslims to live in.” 
Movements on roads like the Shaheen Bagh sit-in by blocking road connecting two cities – Delhi and Noida for more than 100 days and now this protest against farm laws for more than 2 months are not a revolutionary upsurge as some suggest but symbol of “India Celebrating And Inviting Lawlessness, Indiscipline, Khalistani Agenda And Violence And Insulting India’s Pride Like Red Fort” which cannot be justified under any circumstances! Even all those Opposition parties who are lending their support – open or covert in any manner have only served in discrediting India as a safe place to live in! They have certainly not covered themselves in glory by hailing those who attacked our policemen and even tried to murder them by running them down under tractors!
It cannot be denied that every government has the prerogative to make new laws or make suitable changes in the existing ones. If Centre erred in not sending the farm bills to the Select Committee for discussion and in promulgating Ordinances and later converting it into law in a hurry as former Union Minister Ajit Singh points out, this by itself cannot be a justification to block rail routes as happened in Congress ruled states like Punjab and Rajasthan or block entry routes to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) ruled Delhi. Is it not the common person who is bearing the maximum brunt of all this nonsense? How can PM, President and CJI allow ever all this nonsense to happen right under their very nose? Will this promote “rule of law” or “rule of jungle” where “Might is right” holds the ground? What are we trying to make of India?
Why thousands of crores of rupees are being allowed to be wasted due to such shameless, senseless and stupid blockades? Can farmers be above our nation and law? Can they smash vehicles, hail terror leaders like late Bhindrawale, try to run down police personnel with tractors, attack anyone who try to stop them with swords and call for gunning down PM Narendra Modi just like earlier late Mrs Indira Gandhi was gunned down? Certainly not!
How can the CJI maintain a conspicuous silence on all this? Why can’t he order prompt removal of protesters from all roads and rail tracks? Most baffling! 
Why is blocking of road and rail tracks taken so lightly even by the Apex Court? Why it took so long for the Apex Court to deliver a ruling that condemned blocking of roads? Why still were farmers then allowed to block roads and why CJI didn’t order their prompt removal from roads?
Why is it that Apex Court stayed farm laws which many Judges like Justice Deepak Gupta of Supreme Court felt was not proper as it was not the remit of the Apex Court but why no such promptness was shown in ordering protesters to stop blocking of roads in Delhi and why no initiative was taken in this regard by the CJI? Why were the common people left to suffer in the cold? How can this be justified under any circumstances?
Why are farmers going overboard on this issue and why they are feeling more encouraged by Supreme Court’s inaction in making them vacate roads and increasing political support by parties who are just concerned about their vote banks thereby completely disregarding our national interests in the longer run? Why Rahul Gandhi instead of advising Centre to build bridges and not walls maintained a stoic silence when farmers were rampaging Delhi and desecrated even our national monuments and national pride – Red Fort? Why this dubious double standards? 
Who is responsible for Centre ensuring that iron rods are hooked between two rows of cement barriers on a flank of the main highway at the Singhu border to further restrict the movement of protesters, agitating against the Centre’s new farm laws? It is those farmers themselves who indulged in lawlessness, violence and rampaging on Republic Day even after assuring the police that they would not indulge in violence of any kind due to which more than 500 police personnel got injured! Why Opposition leaders never say a word on this? Clearly, this only shows that there is more to it than meets the eye! 
One still fervently hopes that good sense prevail over farmers also now and they see the dangerous game plan that is being played by some leaders who are only interested in serving their own vested agenda at the cost of farmers! Centre has taken a very balanced stand on this and has always agreed to hold talks time and again to review the farm laws instead of holding that it is non-negotiable! Foreign actors, leaders and even foreign countries have no right to meddle in India’s internal matters with clear design to malign India and this has been underscored by many celebrities like Sachin Tendulkar among others!
No doubt, this is no way to protest that you block road and rail tracks and become overjoyed that neither State nor Central Government acted tough and even Supreme Court refused to order prompt removal from these sites due to which people face maximum inconvenience and business worth thousands of crores of rupees is adversely affected! It is a no-brainer that there are some foreign powers and powerful terror groups who are behind all the sabotage that happened on 26 January and who don’t want that India should run smoothly on roads and rail tracks! Should PM, CJI and President allow them to have the last laugh by tolerating blockade of road and rail tracks quietly or should they display zero tolerance towards it as we have seen since independence till some time back when Shaheen Bagh episode spoiled everything? It is for them to introspect and decide on this! If not checked now this will become the most dangerous trend in India and our democratic system will be completely destroyed which we can certainly ignore only at the risk of our own peril!
Sanjeev Sirohi

Enact Strictest Law To Stop Blocking Of Roads And Rails

“I am always ready to bear Allah’s full fury but under no circumstances will I ever block road for offering namaz. There was no space in mosque or anywhere else except on road! Offering namaz on road is a crime for me which I will never commit under any circumstances! Not for a second will I ever do anything that disturbs others and forces them to wait for me to leave road so that they can leave for their own work!”

– Sageer Khan my best friend who in 1993-94 said this to me when I asked him why he was so upset while returning from a mosque and why can’t he offer namaz on road just like others
It merits no reiteration that no matter how sacred the cause may be, there can be no justification for blocking roads or blocking of rails under any circumstances. To exercise one’s own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block roads and rails under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others. It is high time and now a law needs to be enacted which would make it obligatory that under no circumstances can anyone be allowed to block roads or block any rail route or any route which would cause maximum inconvenience to others! Law should not just be enacted but also implemented without any discrimination on all Indians!
What had happened in Shaheen Bagh is disgraceful and cannot be justified under any circumstances! For more than 100 days, the route connecting Delhi and Noida had been blocked by protesters from Shaheen Bagh who were seeking the removal of Citizenship Amendment Act as they feel that it is discriminatory and are determined that this would not be allowed under any circumstances! Why had Centre allowed this to happen at the first place?
Why PM Narendra Modi along with UP CM Yogi Adityanath were busy launching scathing attacks on the Opposition for planning the blockade of Shaheen Bagh but were themselves doing nothing to clear the blockade? One can understand that Yogi is the CM of UP where he has ensured no road is blocked or rail track is blocked and not of Delhi or Rajasthan or Punjab but Narendra Modi is the PM of India and when he was seeing that Delhi, Rajasthan and Punjab governments were doing nothing to clear the blockade then why did he himself not do anything to clear it at all? Blockade of roads, national highways, rail routes etc cannot be justified under any circumstances but it is becoming a fashion now!
It is most shameful , most shocking and most disgraceful that nothing was done to stop lawless protesters from entering Delhi in tractors to participate in tractor rally and even though intelligence agencies and NIA had warned of the Khalistani elements hijacking the limelight of 26 January Republic Day parade yet Delhi Police gave the green signal which can never be justified. What was the outcome? More than 300 policemen were grievously injured and even women police personnel were brutally beaten and vehicles were smashed and even ordinary persons were not spared by the goons, hoodlums who were in tractors and who even tried to run over policemen and even Red Fort was not spared and it was desecrated and Indian flag was thrown aside and flags of Khalsa Panth and farmers union flag were waved! This is what happens when too much of pandering happens and road is allowed to be blocked so easily and laws passed by Centre are strangely stayed by Centre which compels Justice Deepak Gupta of Supreme Court to raise serious question mark over the decision as making laws is the remit of Centre and not judiciary. Why Supreme Court forms Committees for those who block roads and rail tracks and why their demands are promptly looked into but those like lawyers of West UP who are agitating for a high court benches since more than 60 years and have even gone on 6 months strike and 3 months strike and strike every Saturday are just ignored even though this issue directly concerns the judiciary? Why Justice Jaswant Singh Commission recommendations headed by former Supreme Court Judge to create 3 High Court Benches in undivided UP not implemented even though its recommendations to create Benches in other states were promptly implemented? Supreme Court has a lot of explaining to do on this!
What trend has PM Modi set by not doing anything on this till now? Why will others also not follow the same route as we saw first in Shaheen Bagh and then in Rajasthan, Punjab and now again in Delhi? Will it not lead our country on the surest path to anarchy? To whom goes the real credit? To Narendra Modi as he is the PM of India and not Rahul Gandhi or Sonia Gandhi!
Should we be proud of it? Should we clap when PM Modi says in election rallies that the real faces of many are getting exposed for supporting rail and road blockades but himself doing nothing to clear the road thereby giving a free unfettered licence to anti social elements and lumpen elements to have the last laugh? Why has Centre not acted at all? How can anyone hold our people to ransom by blocking roads and rail tracks and vowing to ensure Delhi would be blocked for 6 months to an year?
Why even our Courts keep watching all this like a mute spectator? Why Courts and especially our Supreme Court which is the highest court of the land was not ready to direct the clearing of road forthwith as it is the common man who suffers the maximum inconvenience due to such blockades and in Delhi we saw how it culminated in worst riots after Shaheen Bagh blockades? Why don’t the long term interests of the people at large placed on the highest priority even by Centre who is watching everything and making it a part of mud-slinging exercise with Opposition party leaders? 
To hell with CAA and NRC if Centre is determined to allow anti-India slogans right in our national capital itself as we saw first in Shaheen Bagh and now again during farmers bill agitation in which Khalistani slogans were raised which under no circumstances can ever be justified! To hell with CAA and NRC if Centre fails to enact a law whereby those who chant anti-India slogans are just booked for sedition and not expelled from India permanently and their citizenship rights are not promptly terminated! To hell with CAA and NRC if Centre allows “rogues and scoundrels” to occupy roads and public places as we saw first in Shaheen Bagh then in Rajasthan and Punjab and now again in Delhi just to safeguard their own political interests and be fully satisfied by just indulging in futile “blame game exercise” as we have seen this happen time and again right in front of our eyes!
To hell with CAA and NRC if those who are illegal immigrants are expelled from India even though they love India to the fullest but those Indians who have all valid documents proving Indian citizenship are given unlimited freedom to abuse India openly, vandalise public property and block rail and road tracks for months together! To hell with CAA and NRC if Centre feels proud to allow few bunch of people who are citizens of India by birth to openly occupy public roads and public places as we are seeing time and again after the Shaheen Bagh protests and take no action against them and be happy with just criticizing Opposition parties and apportioning all blame on them alone! To hell with CAA and NRC if Centre justifies this in the name of “right to dissent” and takes no action to evict them from illegally occupying public roads and rail tracks due to which crores of rupees are wasted and honest taxpayers have to bear the maximum brunt! Why police force was used against our brave ex-servicemen in removing them violently when they were protesting peacefully demanding “One Rank One Pension” in totality as it was only officers with rank of Major General and above who were getting full benefits and not the lower ranks but now why he has no guts to act against those who are not only blocking roads to cause maximum inconvenience to public but also invading Red Fort, running tractors over police vehicles, bus and what not and stopping media from entering there and placing women and children ahead so that no action is taken? Why different laws for ex servicemen and for those residing in Shaheen Bagh or for Gujjars in Rajasthan or for farmers in Punjab who blocked rail tracks for months and now vow to block all routes to Delhi? This is certainly most befuddling! It is a ghoulish mockery of rule of law! 
Why cheap politics is being played on this? Why are forces not ensuring that no person is allowed to block roads, rail tracks and public places as they like as per their own whims and fancies? Why Centre is not giving a free hand to forces so that illegal usurpation of roads, rail tracks and public places is removed at the earliest? Why Centre is allowing this worst national insult?
Why all parties in India very strongly believe that under no circumstances should citizenship be terminated of those Indians who behave like soldiers of Pakistan and vow to fulfill their agenda by burning Indian flags, abusing our Constitution and chanting slogans of “Azadi” and “Bharat tere tukde-tukde karenge hum and block roads and rails? Why it took many decades to end ‘Most Favoured Nation’ to Pakistan which India most stupidly and most shamelessly conferred on it unilaterally in 1990s? Why we don’t follow Justice Markandey Katju who says that, “Pakistan and Bangladesh are fake countries and till 1947 integral part of India and when father Jawaharlal Nehru created one fake country called Pakistan then daughter Indira Gandhi stepped ahead and created another fake country called Bangladesh? But I am sure that in next few decades they both will be merged with India.”
What a complete shameless mockery is being made of “rule of law” in our country! How can lawless people be allowed to hold the traffic of our country to ransom for more than 100 days? Why no action had been taken by Centre on this for such a long time?
When CAA does not take the citizenship of any Indian then why so much of brouhaha was made over it? Why can’t more tolerance be demonstrated on it? Who is behind all this also needs to be investigated now! Similarly why Centre allows blockade of rail and road tracks? Do Indians know only of “fundamental rights” and never remember “fundamental duties”? Did late Mrs Indira Gandhi ever favour blocking of roads and rail tracks by inserting fundamental duties in our Constitution by 42nd Amendment or was she clear that this is being done for just “namesake” only? It is high time and fundamental duties must now be made mandatory on citizens of India!
Why vote bank politics is being played and why our national interests are being gravely compromised on this? Why no political party is ready to make sure that public roads and rail tracks are never occupied under any circumstances by anyone on any ground whatsoever? Will they cite the name of some “former Supreme Court Justice” or “Chief Justice” to justify this “utter nonsense and disloyalty” to the nation that you block roads and rail tracks without caring for the consequences? Where is our nation heading for?
Why mobocracy was allowed to be ruled in Shaheen Bagh, rail tracks in Rajasthan and Punjab and now again on borders of Delhi from different states? Is this the real rule of law? Which self-respecting nation will tolerate this?
Why Centre is most astonishingly not doing anything on this and is happy by just blaming everything on Delhi Government where it is the Lieutenant Governor who calls the shot and who too dismally fails in doing anything decisive on it? Why even Supreme Court had failed to act decisively on this by suo motu taking cognizance and calling for immediately lifting the siege of roads and public places in Shaheen Bagh and then for months of rail blockade in Punjab and Rajasthan and now again on borders of Delhi due to which the people there are suffering immeasurably?
I really fail to understand that what precedent is being set ever since PM Narendra Modi did not take any action in Shaheen Bagh even though he swiftly ordered action against peaceful protests by soldiers for OROP and made them evict the place where they were protesting? Why no swift action we saw in Shaheen Bagh and in other places which culminated in worst riots that left many dead and severely damaged our reputation in world? What precedent is being set?
Will this not encourage others also to do similarly? Why is Pakistan being allowed to set India’s agenda through its proxies in India? Why the rights of law abiding citizens is being taken for a ride by political parties and their supporters?
I can never support this under any circumstances no matter who does it! Even if Jats to which community I belong block roads and highways demanding something I will never support it under any circumstances! If Jats boycott me or even expel me for not supporting them then so be it but I can never be a party to anything which hurts our national interests under any circumstances by blocking of rails and roads! This can never be good in protecting the long term national interests of our country under any circumstances which are paramount and stands above everything else including me!
By any reckoning, Centre has certainly not covered itself with glory by not doing anything to ensure that the common man does not suffer because of a few lumpen people in Shaheen Bagh and then again on Punjab and Rajasthan rail tracks and now again on borders of Delhi! This is no way to protest that you block roads and rail tracks and encourage your followers abroad and at the protest site to raise anti-national slogans! Should we be very proud and excited about it? Can this be justified in the name of dissent?
No doubt, Centre has demonstrated quite explicitly that it is just interested only in expelling illegal immigrants even if they profess loyalty to nation as they don’t have valid documents but those Indians who have all documents are free to chant anti-India slogans, attack Red Fort on Republic Day, beat our policemen who are requesting them with folded hands not to indulge in violence and chalk out plans to divide India as long as they feel like as we are seeing right now and chant anti-India slogans over which there is a huge national outrage as anti national slogans are unacceptable under any circumstances and even eminent legal luminary and senior Apex Court lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi voiced his utmost concern on the repeated chanting of anti-national slogans and this is certainly not a good news for Centre led by PM Narendra Modi himself who is not doing anything to end this impasse! Centre had watched shamelessly in silence on what was happening in Shaheen Bagh and yet did absolutely nothing to stop it! Most disgusting! Same we saw in Punjab and Rajasthan and now again during protests over farmers bill over which even Manjinder Singh Bitta voiced his fuming anger while speaking in a discussion in a news channel and his anger stands fully justified!
On a departing note, it must be said unequivocally that Centre is to be squarely blamed for allowing things to turn for the worse in Shaheen Bagh and Congress is to be blamed for doing nothing to remove those who blocked rail tracks in Punjab and Rajasthan! Protest is a fundamental right of every Indian but this cannot include right to abuse India and vowing to break India to pieces and blocking roads, rail routes etc! Strictest action must be taken promptly against anyone who blocks roads, rail routes and if a law is needed to do this, it must be done right now but we see nothing happening with even Supreme Court watching everything quietly even though it has categorically said in Shaheen Bagh case that roads cannot be blocked! This is the real tragedy! Those foreign powers who blindly hate India are organizing blockade of road and rail tracks by foreign funding and yet even Centre also watches everything in eerie silence what to say for erring State Governments who appear complicit! How can all this be just glossed over by Supreme Court which is our “sentinel on the qui vive”? How can Supreme Court grant stay on the plea of those who themselves block roads and don’t themselves come with clean hands? Most baffling indeed!
What happened on 72nd Republic Day is all due to unfettered freedom given to farmers to openly say that they would wave their flag inside Red Fort yet everything was taken so lightly that today we stand discredited in front of the entire world and our more than 300 policemen have suffered many serious injuries and some are in ICU as the rioters had many sharp swords and what not with them! It is high time and Centre must now conduct furious surgical strikes on such road and rail track blockers also and not shamelessly like a beggar keep requesting them for talks and allowing them to continue blocking roads as people in general are now most agitated which can have far reaching adverse consequences if not dealt in time! Let’s fervently hope also! 
To conclude, only this alone can revive the shattered faith of the people for the ruling dispensation and this is what best suits our national interests also in the longer run! Every Indian was shocked to see open desecration of Red Fort and Rakesh Tikait who is himself a farmer leader said that, “Why didn’t police shoot down those who were insulting India’s national flag and planting their own flag?” Rakesh Tikait himself has been charged now of late by the police as he also exhorted farmers to march and his provocative statements we all have heard yet police took no action promptly and this lackadaisical approach of police, Centre and other security agencies culminated in the worst 72nd Republic Day which will always be a national shame as rioters, hoodlums, vandalisers and antisocial elements had the free run to do what they liked! How can this happen? But it has happened once again under PM Narendra Modi’s dynamic leadership! Let’s see what happens next? 
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Decriminalising Adultery Could Lead To Instability In Armed Forces

To start with, the Centre has in a measured, commendable and calibrated move very rightly sought a clarification from the Supreme Court to the effect that the 2018 order decriminalizing adultery would apply only to civilians and not defence personnel because not prosecuting soldiers for adultery could cause “instability” in the armed force. Soldiers are expected to maintain utmost discipline always and if they lose their moral character then certainly this will lead to erosion of faith among the soldiers on their seniors who indulge in adultery and this can never be in the long term interest of armed forces as they will stop respecting them and will instead themselves also try to emulate the same which will certainly have potentially dangerous consequences for our nation as it is the armed forces who save guard our country from not just external aggression but also internal disturbances! How can this be allowed to happen under any circumstances? 

While maintaining that “honour is the sine qua non of the services”, a plea by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) asserted that adultery must remain a valid ground to prosecute defence personnel under army laws? How can adultery be ever tolerated in the armed forces? What message will go among the soldiers if it is decriminalized in armed forces also? Will it not encourage adultery? The answer is quite ostensible! 
It must be recollected that in September 2018, a five Judge Constitution Bench had struck down Section 497 of the IPC pertaining to adultery in the notable case titled Joseph Shine vs Union of India declaring it to be unconstitutional and violative of the right to equality of women in treating them as “chattel” (an item of property) and inferior to their husbands. As most of us know that Section 497 made adultery an offence only with respect to a man who has a relationship with the wife of someone else. The wife was considered neither an adulterous nor an abettor while the man instead could be jailed for up to a term of five years.
Truth be told, the MoD’s clarification plea was argued by Attorney General KK Venugopal before a Bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman where the law officer submitted that the Army Act and other pertinent laws must be treated as outside the scope of the 2018 judgment. KK Venugopal who is one of the most senior and eminent lawyer of the Apex Court is absolutely right in pleading so. He rightly told the Bench that, “We thus want a clarification that the…judgment is not applicable to personnel of the armed forces.” Agreeing with the Attorney General, the Bench also mercifully responded that it was also of the prima facie view that the IPC and the Army Act or other laws governing navy and air force stood on a different footing and therefore even as adultery was no more an offence, it could constitute an “unbecoming conduct” under the Act.
To put things in perspective, the plea by the MoD has very rightly stated that, “The aforesaid judgment passed by this court may cause instability within the Services, as defence personnel are expected to function in peculiar conditions during the course of which many a time they have to stay separated from their families for long durations, when they are posted on borders or other far-flung areas or in areas having inhospitable weather and terrain.”
As it turned out, KK Venugopal also on January 13, 2021 submitted before the Apex Court Bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman that the armed forces required a completely different standard of discipline and that, therefore, the Army Act and other pertinent laws must be treated as outside the scope of the 2018 judgment. Venugopal also told the Bench which also apart from Nariman included Justice Navin Sinha and Justice KM Joseph that, “Adultery can be defined as an ‘unbecoming act’ or punishable under “good order and discipline” rule under the Army Act. Such officers can be court martialled and cashiered. We thus want a clarification that the Constitution Bench judgment is not applicable to personnel of the armed forces.”
Needless to say, Venugopal also added that this clarification was required to obviate any counter-argument by an officer sought to be prosecuted that the armed forces were acting contrary to the Supreme Court’s verdict. Agreeing with the Attorney General, the Bench then responded that it was also of the prima facie view that the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Army Act or other laws governing navy and air force stood on different footings and therefore, even as adultery was no more an offence under the IPC, it could constitute an “unbecoming conduct” under the Army Act.
While adding a rider, the Bench then in the same vein also added that it was not competent to issue a clarification in this regard since the 2018 judgment was passed by a Constitution Bench of five Judges. The Bench also added further that, “This will have to be put up before the Constitution Bench.” Very rightly so!
Going ahead, the Bench then referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for constituting a five-Judge Bench to examine the MoD’s application. It, however, issued a notice to the PIL petitioner in the case – Kerala-resident Joseph Shine who was represented in the court through advocate Kaleeswaran Raj. This was rightly considered necessary by the Apex Court.
To be sure, the MoD sought to highlight apart from what has been stated above that since the Supreme Court has decriminalized adultery, “there will always be a concern in the minds of the army personnel who are operating far away from their families under challenging conditions about the family indulging in untoward activity.”
Quite remarkably, what cannot be just glossed over is that while drawing a distinction between Section 497 in the IPC and the relevant laws in the armed forces, the MoD stated that unlike Section 497, the army laws did not make a difference between a male or a female and that it was a gender-neutral provision prosecuting soldiers of both the sexes for such acts.” Furthermore, the application stated that, “In other words, the army would equally proceed against a female subject to the Act, if she enters into an adulterous/illicit relationship.” It was also added that the laws governing the defence personnel were not discriminatory in nature.
Of course, it must be stated here that the Attorney General’s arguments in the Apex Court are based on inputs obtained from the defence ministry and the armed forces, army officials familiar with the case on the condition of anonymity. The officials very rightly added that adultery definitely amounts to conduct unbecoming of a soldier and those guilty have to be punished. There can be no denying or disputing it!
It goes without saying that the armed forces are hundred percent right in seeing adultery which implies “stealing the affections of a brother officer’s wife” as an offence that is just a notch below the worst offence an enlisted person can be accused of, cowardice. The provision to deal with this, drawn from Section 497, exists in all three services and the punishment is usually dismissal.
No doubt, the MoD very rightly underscored the necessity of retention of adultery as an offence for the defence personnel. It rightly maintained in simple and straight language: “That one has to remember that the Armed Forces exist in an environment wholly different and distinct from civilians. Honour is a sine qua non of the service. Courage, and devotion to duty, even at the risk of one’s lives, is part of the unwritten contract governing the members of the armed forces.”
As anticipated, it also relied rightly upon Article 33 of the Constitution to make a point that this provision allowed Parliament to restrict or modify operation of fundamental rights with regard to armed forces so as to ensure proper discharge of duties and maintenance of discipline. Looking from this prism too, the MoD said that its laws to govern defence personnel could not be held bad only because they abridged some of their fundamental rights.
While adding more to it, Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan who argued the Defence Ministry’s case in the top court very rightly remarked that, “I can only say that the armed forces require their own code of conduct in order to maintain discipline in the forces. The judgment striking down adultery is being applied to quash disciplinary proceedings in some cases. The provisions of the statutes which govern the armed forces permit disciplinary action in a manner different from the civilian population. That should be left intact and untouched.” Who can deny this?
It also certainly cannot be overlooked that another lawyer Chitrangada Rastravara pointed out that they were several actions which did not constitute an offence under the penal laws of India, but are punishable offences under the Army Act. She further rightly waxed eloquent to state that, “For example, desertion has no consequences under penal law; however it is a very serious offence, punishable by death under military law.”
It also cannot be denied that even woman officers want adultery law in the army and have pressed for retaining the criminality of adultery in the armed forces. Armed forces are always rightly expected to be most disciplined and it is imperative also as the security itself of our country depends on them! So let us fervently hope from now that a five Judge Bench of the Apex Court would soon be constituted and it would endorse the upright stand taken by the MoD on this key and sensitive issue! The ball is for now clearly in the court of the Apex Court. We have to keep our fingers crossed till the final verdict comes on this as it is for the Judges who have to finally decide on this as to what should be done finally! 
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh