Appeal | SabrangIndia

Wayanad citizens demand immediate end to draconian changes in Lakshadweep

Mon, 31 May 2021 12:45:37 +0000

Members of the Wayanad Prakruti Samrakshana Samiti (WPSS) in Kerala appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on May 25, 2021 to immediately stop all “reforms” recently introduced in Lakshadweep as they will affect the life and livelihood of the community there.

“We are a group of concerned citizens, who have been shocked since a few days with news about the happenings in Lakshadweep. We call for an urgent review of recent draconian changes that should be implemented only after a thorough consultative process. The programs being planned there should have a long-term vision that takes into consideration regional, need based, consultative approach rather than the top-bottom way being envisaged now,” said WPSS President N. Badusha in the letter, also sent to Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Lakshadweep Administrator Praful Khoda Patel.

The changes referred to draft proposals such as the Lakshadweep Animal Preservation Regulation, Lakshadweep Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Regulation, Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation and amendment to the Lakshadweep Panchayat Staff Rules, that did not consult people’s representatives prior to their introduction. Moreover, the severe changes in a Muslim-dominated area was seen as a discriminatory move by the ruling government.

Badusha said that various studies by credible historical, cultural and ecological institutions have proved that the stability of coral reefs that protect the islands was nurtured and maintained by the culture of the homogenous community of islanders. They built an ecosystem-based economy linked to fishing through cooperation, tolerance and mutual dependence. Yet the recent changes do not consider or respect the time-tested ways of land use, ocean resource utilisation and or livelihood options adopted by the community, said the letter.

It argued that instead of the Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation 2021, the Planning and Development program, beef ban, etc. the government should work on access to safe and secure healthcare, education, just governance, food security and livelihood options connected to the island’s ecosystem. Such measures will work towards preserving human rights, democracy and ethnicity of the island community as envisioned in the Preamble to the Indian constitution.

“We look upon you with expectation and hope that you will intervene and set things right in the coral islands where each citizen has equal rights to options of livelihood, nutrition, land use and all other choices that hold a community together. We have much to learn from this community and let us not miss the chance and be remembered as being part of a generation that conducted a deliberate overkill of a way of life,” said the letter.

The post Wayanad citizens demand immediate end to draconian changes in Lakshadweep appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Victim cannot appeal against inadequate sentence: SC

Fri, 04 Sep 2020 13:50:38 +0000

Image Courtesy:indiatvnews.com

The Supreme Court held that the victim cannot prefer an appeal against a conviction basis inadequacy of sentence imposed. The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R Subhash Reddy while upholding Delhi High Court judgment dismissing an appeal filed by a victim, held that no appeal can be maintained by the victim under section 372 of CrPC.

The accused was convicted by the trial court under sections 364A [kidnapping for ransom], 302 [murder] and 201 [Causing disappearance of evidence] of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced for life. The deceased boy’s father, who was the complainant in the case sought death penalty for the convict under provisions of section 372 of CrPC.

The Delhi high court, against which this appeal was filed, held that “An appeal by the victim under Section 372 CrPC, is not maintainable if it only challenges the order on sentence on the ground that it imposes inadequate punishment.” The high court had further stated that an appeal is a creature of a statue and cannot lie under any inherent power.

The high court further observed that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (no appeal to lie, unless otherwise provided) confers upon the victim, the right to prefer an appeal against the order of the Criminal Court in the following three instances: (a) Acquittal of the accused person; (b) Conviction of the accused person for a lesser offence; and (c) Imposition of inadequate compensation.

The counsel for the petitioner contended before the Supreme court that “there is no reason to restrict the scope of appeal only for a lesser offence but not for lesser sentence”. The bench held that victim’s right of appeal is restricted to three eventualities, namely, acquittal of the accused; conviction of the accused for lesser offence; or for imposing inadequate compensation. Hence, the bench, finding no merit in the appeal, upheld the Delhi High Court order and dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court order may be read here.

Victim’s right to appeal

Section 372 of CrPC along with the proviso reads as follows:

“372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. – No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force:

Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.”

The right of the victim to appeal gets limited here but the state still has powers in this regard. Under section 377 of the CrPC, the state can move an appeal on the ground of inadequacy of sentence but the victim has not been accorded a similar right. This amendment was brought in, in 2009 after the famed Best Bakery case, fought by the Citizens for Justice and Peace, supporting star witness Zahir Shaikh.

Section 372 of CrPC was amended in December 2009 stating that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation.

The meaning of conviction of lesser offence has been explained by the Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali vs The State Of Karnataka (decided on October 12, 2018). The court explained,

“any order passed by a Court where the accused is convicted of a lesser offence but the victim feels that he should have been convicted for a higher offence. Obviously, the appeal lies against the acquittal of the accused for a higher offence”

“Before the amendment to CrPC section 372, the remedy of appeal was provided under CrPC section 378 and the same could be filed on a police report only at the instance of district Magistrate or state government. The aggrieved victim of complainant had no right to appeal and he could only prefer a revision… the revision would be a cumbersome process as the revision court has no powers to convict an accused in case it finds that the latter has been wrongly acquitted. At the most it could remand the case back to the trial court. this involved wastage of time and money – as has been observed by the Law Commission on whose recommendation an exception was added to CrPC section 372, providing right of appeal to the victim against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or conviction for a lesser offence or an inadequate compensation,” Advocate Aniket Nikam told TOI.

In February 2020, Bombay High Court affirmed victim’s right to appeal against an order of acquittal as being absolute and unfettered under section 372 of CrPC.

In Mallikarjun Kodagali vs The State Of Karnataka, the Supreme Court in 2:1 majority judgment stated that section 372 of CrPC has to be given “realistic, liberal, progressive” interpretation to benefit the victim of an offence. It also held that “there is no doubt that the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC must be given life, to benefit the victim of an offence” and also referred to the United Nation’s General Assembly’s resolution to hold that besides the State, the victims are also entitled to appeal against the acquittal of the accused. Upholding the right of the victim to prefer an appeal against acquittal, the court held, “Access to mechanisms of justice and redress through formal procedures as provided for in national legislation, must include the right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal”.

Hence, when it comes to right of victim to appeal, the courts have so far held that the victim need not seek leave to appeal to a higher court in cases of acquittal, conviction on lesser offence and inadequate compensation. The ambit of lesser offence has not been read into or expanded into including appeal against inadequate sentence and that right lies only with the state government.

The post Victim cannot appeal against inadequate sentence: SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Go beyond caste and religion when you’re thinking of getting married”: Cultural Activist Ganesh Devy

Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:25:00 +0000

Professor made appeal to the youth to foster communal harmony.

Image Courtesy: The Hindu

In what can only be termed as an ingenious appeal, Ganesh Devy – Thinker, Professor and Cultural Activist started a fast to call in the attention of the youth of Maharashtra to move beyond caste and religion while considering marriage.

The fast, which lasts for 8 days, starting on Gandhi Jayanti, rests on a very unique condition. In this period, Professor Devy, 69, will not consume any solid food until he gets a commitment of a 100 people every day to join him in his movement against communalism. He promises to eat only if the criteria of a 100 youth committing to the cause is fulfilled every day, else he only survives on water.

His appeal is for fostering secularism and for a modern India and he says, ““We cannot create modern India as long as intolerance and violence in the name of caste and religion does not end.”

He also plans to ask the consenting young people, who associate with this movement, to assemble in Nagpur in the last week of December for a two day sammelan called ‘The Mainstream India’. He is confident of at least 15,000 – 20,000 people attending the event

An email id (rsd@beyondcaste.com) and a Google form (https://forms.gle/U25bdt4uysMYMDoj7) which has been made available for the youth to register with the movement, has already garnered 900 responses from the young people of India in just 2 days of its commencement.

Who is Ganesh Devy and what does he stand for?

Ganesh Devy, as most know him, is a literary scholar, cultural activist and institution builder. He is best known for the People’s Linguistic Survey of India, and is popularly called the ‘man who discovered 750 languages’. He is also the creator of the Adivasi Academy.

Back in the 70s, he along with his wife, Surekha, would set out on his scooter every Saturday morning to a neighboring village in Baroda, where he resided earlier. He visited the villages to understand the people and spend time with them. This absence of an agenda and belief in equality among people—nullifying traditional hierarchies between the observer and observed, scholar and subject—won him not only the trust but also the faith of Adivasis.

Ganesh Devy decided to shift base from Vadodara to Dharwad after the murder of MM Kalburgi. Kalburgi’s death was the last straw for Devy who was deeply disturbed by the killings of NarendraDabholkar and GovindPansare.

He has since taken the lead in many agitations of writers and thinkers with focus on pluralism and the right to free expression. He says that these values are even more threatened today when the makings of a modern India are threatened by forces of communalism.

On asking why he took up such an innovative movement, he said that he wanted the youth of the country to fly out of their cage. The youth, he said, were being trapped in the cages of caste and religion which was fanned by hate by extremist groups. He said that neither did he nor his family members and even his children pay attention to caste while deciding their marriages. They simply got into the union as ‘human beings’.

What His Appeal Is and What It Is Not

Ganesh Devy says that his appeal is a step towards change. He knows that even in this grim atmosphere of hate, people are capable of change. He believes that people are capable of love and compassion.

His appeal is not a political stunt or a media event. His belief ‘love is the true religion’ is the only message he wants to give the youth. He has stood by this principle his entire life and wishes to take this plea of humanity to the young people of India.

His only wish is to see a country that has risen above the shackles of caste and religion to achieve its true potential.

We, at Sabrang India, stand with Professor Ganesh Devy in his noble movement. Do you?

The post “Go beyond caste and religion when you’re thinking of getting married”: Cultural Activist Ganesh Devy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bilkees Bano Case: Rejecting Appeals of 11 Accused Bombay High Court Upholds Convictions

Thu, 04 May 2017 06:46:42 +0000

The Bombay High Court today upheld the life sentence order of the trial court against the 11 accused in the 2002 Bilkis Bano gangrape case. The court has, however, set aside acquittal of five of the accused which include Gujarat police officers and doctors of the government hospital. The court further said that it will consider the undergone jailed period of the convicts as part of their sentence but will impose a fine on them.

Eleven persons were sentenced to life by a trial court in 2008, for the gangrape of Bilkis Bano and for the murder of her family members in the wake of the Gujarat carnage. Five and a half months after the Bombay High Court reserved its order on appeals filed by 11 convicts against life sentence awarded to them by the trial court in the 2002 Bilkis Bano gangrape case, a division bench of the Bombay High Court delivered judgement on the appeals today. Justices Vijaya Tahilramani and Mridula Bhatkar began delivering the verdict at 11 am today, Thursday, April 4. On December 2, the high court also reserved order on an appeal filed by the CBI, seeking death penalty for three convicts on the ground that this was the ‘rarest of the rare’ case. The bench of justices Vijaya Tahilramani and Mridula Bhatkar had reserved the order after conducting a day-to-day hearing on both the appeals since July 2016.

These eleven convicts, who were sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court in 2008 for the gang rape of Bilkis Bano and mass murder of 14 persons including her 3 year old daughter, Saleha had appealed the Special Court Judgement convicting them in 2008.

The Central Bureau of Investigation had sought death penalty for the three men convicted for having gangraped and murdered Bilkis Bano and her family members. The court has, however, set aside the plea for enhancement. Appearing for the CBI, Hiten Venegaonkar had argued that the present case was that of “mass murder” as 14 members of a family, including babies who were a few days old. The riots caused a situation of “exodus” and while the family was on the run, they were raped and murdered. Therefore the case belonged to the “rarest of rare” category and warranted the maximum punishment.
Meanwhile, Harshad Ponda, senior advocate appearing for the convicts, had raised doubts on the chronology of the events narrated by Bilkis, the FIR registered by the Gujarat police and the photographs of the dead bodies and other evidence collected from the spot. The High Court had, meanwhile, rejected an intervention application filed by Bilkis Bano seeking that she be granted hearing.

These convicts who include members of the RSS and VHP and have been convicted for the killing of Bilkees' family members in the aftermath of the Godhra riots, had filed appeals in the high court challenging their conviction. The CBI had also moved the high court, seeking death penalty for three of them. CBI counsel Hiten Venegaonkar sought death penalty for three convicts arguing that it was a case of a “mass murder” and the "rarest of the rare case" as 14 members of a family, including a three-day-old child, were killed. Eleven of the convicts were also concurrently convicted for the gang rape of Bilkees and others under the un-amended section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Eight policemen and doctors, against whom the special prosecutor, RK Shah had urged special proceedings to begin however were not only acquitted but no special proceedings were ordered by the Special Judge. Harshad Ponda had appeared for the accused.

Special Judge UD Salvi had concluded dictating his judgement on January 21, 2008, in Mumbai when the court had held the 11 convicts-Jaswant Nai, Govind Nai, Shailesh Bhatt, Radhyesham Shah, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Kesarbhai Vohania, Pradeep Mordhiya, Bakabhai Vohania, Rajubhai Soni, Mitesh Bhatt and Ramesh Chandana-guilty of murder and gangrape among other charges.All of them were awarded life imprisonment. It was the case of the prosecution that in March 2002, Bilkis’ family was attacked by a mob at Randhikpur village, 250 km from Ahmedabad in Gujarat. Bilkis, who was 19 years old at the time and five months pregnant, was gangraped by the convicts. Fourteen members of her family were killed. The Supreme Court had ordered the transfer of the case to Mumbai. This was one of two re-trials ordered by the Supreme Court with relation to the genocidal carnage in Gujarat including the famed Best Bakery case. The judgement of the Special Court finally that concluded on April 19, 2008 may be read here.

The chargesheet filed by the CBI in this case that was the document shown by the National Human Rights Commission(NHRC) to the Supreme Court that ordered the transfer of the trial to Maharashtra was a detailed reflection of the complaint dated 4.3.2002 filed by Bilkees Bano at the Limkheda Police station in Panchmahals. Bilkees Bano had been interviewed by Communalism Combat when its co-editor, Teesta Setalvad accompanied former chairperson of the NHRC, Justice JS Verma to the Godhra Relief Camp on March 22, 2002. Her account of the violent ordeal that she suffered ma y be read here. The shocking lapse in investigation by the Gujarat police was the reason for the transfer of the case to Mumbai. The Chargesheet filed by the CBI may be read here.

The post Bilkees Bano Case: Rejecting Appeals of 11 Accused Bombay High Court Upholds Convictions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Judgement in Bilkees Bano Case Today, Bombay HC: Guj 2002 Carnage

Thu, 04 May 2017 03:54:12 +0000

Bilkis Bano, a Survivor and Face of the Struggle for Justice and Reparation Awaits the Verdict in the Apepals by convicts as she now lives in Vadodara

Over five and a half months after the Bombay High Court reserved its order on appeals filed by 11 convicts against life sentence awarded to them by the trial court in the 2002 Bilkis Bano gangrape case, a division bench of the Bombay High Court will deliver judgement on the appeals today. Justices Vijaya Tahilramani and Mridula Bhatkar will begin delivering the verdict at 11 am today, Thursday, April 4. On December 2, the high court also reserved order on an appeal filed by the CBI, seeking death penalty for three convicts on the ground that this was the ‘rarest of the rare’ case. The bench of justices Vijaya Tahilramani and Mridula Bhatkar had reserved the order after conducting a day-to-day hearing on both the appeals since July 2016.

Eleven convicts, who were sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court in 2008 for the gang rape of Bilkis Bano and mass murder of 14 persons including her 3 year old daughter, Saleha have appealed the Special Court Judgement convicting them in 2008.

Harshad Ponda, the lawyer defending the convicts, questioned the “chronology of events narrated by Bilkis, the FIR registered by Gujarat Police and the photographs of the bodies and other evidence collected from the spot”. He alleged the evidence had been fabricated by the CBI.

The chargesheet filed by the CBI in this case that was the document shown by the National Human Rights Commission(NHRC) to the Supreme Court that ordered the transfer of the trial to Maharashtra was a detailed reflection of the complaint dated 4.3.2002 filed by Bilkees Bano at the Limkheda Police station in Panchmahals. Bilkees Bano had been interviewed by Communalism Combat when its co-editor, Teesta Setalvad accompanied former chairperson of the NHRC, Justice JS Verma to the Godhra Relief Camp on March 22, 2002. Her account of the violent ordeal that she suffered ,ay be read here. The shocking lapse in investigation by the Gujarat police was the reason for the transfer of the case to Mumbai. The Chargesheet filed by the CBI may be read here.

The post Judgement in Bilkees Bano Case Today, Bombay HC: Guj 2002 Carnage appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Naroda Patia Case: Gujarat HC allows Free Case Papers to Survivors

Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:30:35 +0000

The High Court has also started hearing the appeal petitions on daily basis since last Monday, December 19

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday allowed six victims of the 2002 Naroda Patia massacre to get case papers running into over 1.25 lakh pages free of cost from the registry of the court. Survivors backed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP),a Mumbai-based civil rights and legal aid group had filed this application in early December 2016. The application may be read here.

Survivors had filed a petition earlier this month to get the case papers free of cost after the registry demanded Rs 1.18 lakh printing cost from them. The victims Fatimabibi Sheikh, Farzanabanu Pathan, Dilawar Saiyed, Jannatbibi Sheikh, Ishrat Jahan Saiyed and Ruksana Qureshi moved the application through advocate on record, K N Shashtri, seeking copies of the case papers without any charges.

During the hearing, a division bench of Justices Harsha Devani and A S Supehia asked the special investigation team (SIT) lawyer if the victims, who have also filed appeal petitions against 11 persons who were acquitted, can be given the papers free of cost.

SIT lawyer R C Kodekar told the bench that it is the discretion of the court to grant such requests, however, there is no such rule under the Code of Criminal Procedure and other relevant high court rules. Following the brief argument, the bench allowed the petition moved by the victims and ordered the registry to provide a copy of entire case papers without any charges. The case papers include the appeal petitions and judgment of the special designated court.

The High Court has also started hearing the appeal petitions on daily basis since Monday. The division bench is hearing the appeal petitions against conviction moved by 31 convicts, including former BJP minister Maya Kodnani and Bajrang Dal leader Babubhai Patel alias Babu Bajrangi. They are facing life sentence for their alleged roles in the Naroda Patiya massacre in which 97 Muslims were killed on February 28, 2002, when large scale riots had broken out in the state following the Sabarmati Express train burning incident.

During the hearing of the Sardarpura appeals, Survivors were greatly handicapped not having a copy of the case papers.

This appeal has run into a series of controversies.Criticising this practice which appeared to have been adopted in the controversial and sensitive Naroda Patia massacre case of the 2002 riots, to possibly deliberately engage an advocate who is a distant relative of Justice Akil Kureshi, the division bench of Kureshi and Justice Biren Vaishnav observed that instead of requesting the judge not to hear the case, the senior counsel should have refrained from appearing in the case as the judge does not hear the cases of that lawyer. This had happened on Friday, November 18. Before that,last year, two Judges of the Gujarat HC in open court had said that one of the accused had approached and even threatened the judges.

Meanwhile, both Maya Kodnani and Babu bajrangi,the high profile accusedhave got permamnent and temporary bail since their conviction on August 29,2012. At the last hearing of the appeal,Babu Bajrangi had pleaded for permamnent bail claiming that he was nearly one hundredper cent blind. He has been supported by a report of the jail doctor and medical team

The post Naroda Patia Case: Gujarat HC allows Free Case Papers to Survivors appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Witness File Application for Free Access to Papers in Naroda Patiya Appeal :Gujarat HC, December 2016

Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:19:06 +0000

I N D E X

Annex.	Particulars	Page No.
	Memo of petition
“A”	Copy of application to the registrar dtd. 28.7.2015.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
         DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD

MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.            OF 2016

                                                          IN
      CRIMINAL APPEAL     NO.            OF 2016

Fatimabibi Mohammed Yusuf Shaikh & Ors                          …Petitioners
V E R S U S

The State of Gujarat and Anr.                                                        …Respondents

                                                 LIST OF EVENTS

The petitioners are the original witnesses and victims of the offence.
The criminal appeals filed by the accused as well as the petitioners and the State of Gujarat have been ordered to be heard together considering the fact that the impugned judgment and order is common.
28.07.2015 : An application was filed before the respondent no. 3 requesting to tender the copy of the paperbook to the victims who have lost their close family members. This request had been made earlier too by the petitioners. However, the request was declined on the ground that the petitioners must be required to pay Rs. 1.18 lac approx for the paperbook.
The petitioners can’t afford to pay such a huge amount, they are daily wage earners and are the Survivors of this brute act of targeted violence. Hence this petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
         DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD

MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.            OF 2016

                                                          IN
      CRIMINAL APPEAL     NO. 1812          OF 2012

Fatimabibi Mohammed Yusuf Shaikh Age:55
Farzanabanu Ayubkhan Pathan Age:40
Dilawar Umrao Saiyed Age:62
Jannatbibi Kalubhai Sheikh Age:55
Ishrat Jahan Parvez Saiyed Age:32
Ruksana Bundubhai Qureshi Age:37

Applicants residing at :-

Hukamsingh Ni Chaali, Naroda Patia, Ahmedabad
Imambibi Ni Chaali, S. T. Workshop, Naroda Patia, Ahmedabad
Hussein Nagar Gali No. 1, Naroda Patia, Ahmedabad
Nr. Hukamsingh Ni Chaali, S. T. Workshop, Naroda Patiya, Ahmedabad
Nr. Hussein Nagar Ni Chaali, S.T.Workshop, Naroda Patiya, Ahmedabad
Javan Nagar Gali No. 12, Naroda Patia, Ahmedabad.

( Original Witnesses/Victims)

V E R S U S

The State of Gujarat,

(Notice to be served through the
Ld. P.P. High Court of Gujarat
Ahmedabad)

Special Investigation Team,

Through its special public prosecutor,
Hon’ble Gujarat High Court,
Ahmedabad.

The Registrar General ( Judicial),

Hon’bel Gujarat High Court,
Ahmedabad.                                                         …Respondents
                                                                             (No.2 -org. complainant)
Application u/s. 482 of Cr. P. C. obtaining paperbook in Criminal Appeal No. 1812/2012       and allied appeals.
TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE OTHER HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: –

The petitioners are the original prosecution witness nos. 112, 106, 143, 142, 177 and 212 respectively in the Sessions Case Nos235/2009, 236/2009, 241/2009, 243/2009, 245/2009, 246/2009, 270/2009decided by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. The petitioners herein have filed Criminal Appeal No. 1812/2012 u/s 372 Cr.P.C.The appealsfiled against the judgment and order of conviction have been filed by the accused whereas the appeals against acquittal have been filed by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No 1812 of 2012.
The petitioners respectfully submit that the petitioners are victims of the offence of mass carnage where more than eighty innocent people were done to death. The petitioners are extremely poor and are unable to pay the court fee amounting to Rs. 1.18 lac approx. It is under these circumstances the petitioner’s lawyer had tendered an application to the registry dtd. 28.07.2015. Annexed as ANNEXURE: “A” to this petition is the copy of the application to the registry of this Hon’ble Court. The petitioners can’t afford to pay such a huge amount, they are daily wage earners and are the Survivors of this brute act of targeted violence.
The petitioners respectfully submit that there is no communication from the registry but the registry has been insisting for the payment of this preposterously huge amount againstthe paperbook. Now that the appeal is likely to proceed same request has been renewed on behalf of the petitioners but paying a huge amount is a big hurdle. The petitioners submit thatconsidering the impecunious conditions of the petitioners it would not be possible for them to bear the huge cost of obtaining the paperbook and thereby assist this Hon’ble Court in best possible manner. The petitioners further submit that the petitioners have not been rehabilitated by the state government by providing any house/ shelterand have been compelled to survive on their own. Under these circumstances if the petitioners are deprived of the paperbook it would be extremely difficult for them to assist this Hon’ble Court. The lack of access to the paper book would be a denial of natural justice to the petioners also Victim Survivors of a brute massacre.
The petitioners have not filed any other petition either in this Hon’ble Court or in he Hon’ble Supreme Court of India withregard to the subject matter of this petition, and having no any other equally efficacious remedy, this petition is filed.

   6.        The petitioners therefore humbly prays that this HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED: –
(A)              YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to order the respondent no. 3 to allow the petitioners to get one set of the combined paperbook for Criminal Appeal No. 1812/2012 and allied appeals in the interest of justice;
(B)              YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL FOREVER PRAY

Ahmedabad:                                                       (Kalpesh Shashtri)

Date:    /12/2016                                                   Advocate for petitioners

                                             A F F I D A V I T

I, , Age:. herein do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:-

I am Petitioner in the memo of the petition and am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and am competent to depose that what is stated herein above is true to the best of my knowledge information and belief and I believe the same to be true and correct.
I have gone through a memo of petition and I solemnly affirm and state what is stated in para nos. 1 to 6 are true to the best of my knowledge and information and para no. 6 is a prayer clause which is based upon legal advice of advocate.
I state that the Annexures are produced with the accompanying petition are true copies of their original documents.

Solemnly affirmed at Ahmedabad on this day, of December, 2016
DEPONENT
Explained and interpreted
To the Deponent by me

The post Witness File Application for Free Access to Papers in Naroda Patiya Appeal :Gujarat HC, December 2016 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

महिला संगठनों की मांग यूनिफॉर्म सिविल कोड पर विधि आयोग की अपील और प्रश्नावली वापस हो

Sat, 29 Oct 2016 09:05:06 +0000

विधि आयोग सरकार के फरवरी, 2014 के दिशा-निर्देशों का पालन करने में बुरी तरह नाकाम रहा है। वह जेंडर जस्टिस (लैंगिक न्याय) के मुद्दे पर भ्रम पैदा करता हुआ दिख रहा है। मौजूदा सांप्रदायिक उत्तेजना के दौर में सुप्रीम कोर्ट में लंबित इस मामले पर भ्रम की स्थिति पैदा की जा रही है।

मुंबई स्थित फोरम अगेंस्ट ऑप्रेशन ऑफ विमेन (एफएओडब्ल्यू) ने एक हस्ताक्षर अभियान शुरू किया है। फोरम ने विधि आयोग (लॉ कमीशन) से उसकी ‘अपील’ और ‘प्रश्नावली’ को वापस लेने की अपील की है। फोरम ने देश भर के महिला समूहों और नागरिकों से समर्थन मांगा है। फोरम ने वो वजहें गिनाई हैं, जिनके आधार पर विधि आयोग को इस ‘अपील’ और ‘प्रश्नावली’ को वापस ले लेना चाहिए।

‘अपील’ और ‘प्रश्नावली’ को वापस लेने की जो वजहें गिनाईं गई उनमें कहा गया है कि विधि आयोग ने कानून बनाने से पहले सलाह-मशविरे की निर्धारित प्रक्रिया का पालन नहीं किया है। फोरम ने कहा है कि भारत सरकार ने 5 फरवरी 2014 को 12 ऐसे दिशा-निर्देश जारी किए हैं, जिनका कानून बनाने से पहले होने वाले सलाह-मशविरे में पालन किया जाना चाहिए। इनमें सबसे अहम वो निर्देश है, जिसमें कहा गया गया है कि कानून का प्रस्ताव करने वाले सरकार के सभी विभाग या मंत्रालयों को कानून के मसौदे को सार्वजनिक या प्रकाशित करना चाहिए। इन विभागों और मंत्रालयों को कम से कम प्रस्तावित कानून, इसके औचित्य और आवश्यक तत्वों को जरूर प्रस्तावित करना चाहिए। इसके साथ ही कम से कम 30 दिन तक इसके व्यापक वित्तीय प्रभाव के अलावा पर्यावरण, संबंधित लोगों की जीविका, मौलिक अधिकारों और जिंदगी पर पड़ने वाले इसके असर के बारे में सार्वजनिक सूचना प्रकाशित करना चाहिए। लेकिन मसौदे के बारे में सार्वजनिक सूचना देने के बजाय इसने एक प्रश्नावली पेश करने का फैसला किया। फोरम के मुताबिक कानून के मसौदे के बगैर इस तरह की प्रश्नावली का जवाब देना नामुमकिन है। इसके अलावा जब जेंडर जस्टिस के सवाल पर कई सारी याचिकाएं सुप्रीम कोर्ट में लंबित हों तो मौजूदा सामाजिक संदर्भ में बगैर कोई मसौदा सार्वजनिक किए प्रश्नावली प्रकाशित करना लैंगिक सवालों पर भ्रम पैदा करना है।

फोरम की ओर से भेजी गई चिट्ठी में कहा गया है कि मौजूदा सांप्रदायिक उत्तेजना के माहौल में इस मुद्दे पर बेहद संवेदनशीलता अपनाए जाने की जरूरत है। कुछ आदिवासी संगठनों ने तो समान नागरिक संहिता की धारणा को सुप्रीम कोर्ट को चुनौती दे भी डाली है।

फोरम ने विधि आयोग को भेजी अपनी चिट्ठी के लिए व्यापक समर्थन की अपील की है। जो लोग समर्थन करना चाहते हैं

वो faowindia@yahoo.co.in(link sends e-mail) sandhyagokhale@yahoo.com(link sends e-mail). पर मेल कर सकते हैं।

Image: Getty Images

विधि आयोग को फोरम की ओर से भेजी गई चिट्ठी का पूरा पाठ

इस चिट्ठी के नीचे उल्लिखित संगठन 21वें विधि आयोग की ओर से जारी 7 अक्टूबर 2016 को जारी अपील का जवाब दे रहे हैं। ताकि समान नागरिक संहिता की संभावना पर एक स्वस्थ बहस शुरू हो सके। –

हम सब जानते हैं कि भारतीय संविधान के आधार पर कोई कानूनी प्रस्ताव तैयार करना श्रमसाध्य काम है। संविधान के सेक्यूलर, लोकतांत्रिक समाजवादी ढांचे को बनाए रखने के लिए काफी प्रयास और प्रतिबद्धता की जरूरत पड़ती है।

संविधान का मसौदा तैयार करने के लिए 29 अगस्त, 1947 को डॉ. बी आर अंबेडकर की अध्यक्षता में संविधान सभा का गठन किया गया। सभा ने 166 दिनों तक कई सत्रों में इसके लिए विचार –विमर्श किया। यह काम दो साल, 11 महीने और 18 दिनों तक चला। इसके बाद संविधान सभा के 308 सदस्यों ने 24 जनवरी 1950 को संविधान के मसौदे पर हस्ताक्षर किए।

वर्ष, 1930 से ही महिला संगठनों ने एक व्यापक नागरिक संहिता की मांग की है। इस अपील को मानते हुए कानून मंत्री डॉ. अंबेडकर की अध्यक्षता में एक कमेटी बनाई गई जिसने 1941 में बने हिंदू कोड बिल को संशोधित किया। लेकिन संविधान सभा में मौजूद कई हिंदू कट्टरवादियों ने इस बिल को पास नहीं होने दिया और विरोध में डॉ. अंबेडकर ने इस्तीफा दे दिया। इसके बाद 1952 से 1956 के बीच जवाहरलाल नेहरू ने चार अलग-अलग हिस्सों में हिंदू कोड बिल को पारित कराने में कामयाबी हासिल की। इतना कहने का हमारा मतलब है कि इतनी कोशिश के बाद ही कोई दूरगामी प्रभाव वाला कानून बनाया जा सकता है। हमें पता है कि कोई भी कानूनी सुधार तीन चरणों से गुजरता है- कानून बनाने से पहले की प्रक्रिया, कानून बनाने की प्रक्रिया और कानून बनने के बाद की प्रक्रिया।

विधि आयोग का जो प्रयास है वह कानून बनने से पहले की प्रक्रिया के दायरे में आएगा। भारत सरकार के कानून और न्याय मंत्रालय ने 5 फरवरी 2014 को कानून बनाने से पहले सलाह-मशविरे की प्रक्रिया के तहत समान नागरिक संहिता पर अपने निर्देश प्रकाशित किए। इसमें कुल 12 निर्देशक सिद्धांत थे।

पहले दो अहम बिंदु इस तरह हैं-

हर विभाग या मंत्रालय इंटरनेट और अन्य माध्यमों पर प्रस्तावित कानूनों को प्रकाशित करेगा। इन प्रकाशनों को प्रकाशित करने का विस्तृत तरीका संबंधित मंत्रालय या विभाग ही तय करेगा।
संबंधित विभाग या मंत्रालय को कानून के मसौदे को सार्वजनिक या प्रकाशित करना चाहिए। इन विभागों और मंत्रालयों को कम से कम प्रस्तावित कानून, इसके औचित्य और आवश्यक तत्वों को जरूर प्रस्तावित करना चाहिए। इसके साथ ही कम से कम 30 दिन तक इसके व्यापक वित्तीय प्रभाव के अलावा पर्यावरण, संबंधित लोगों की जीविका, मौलिक अधिकारों और जिंदगी पर पड़ने वाले इसके असर के बारे में सार्वजनिक सूचना प्रकाशित करना चाहिए। कम से कम 30 दिनों तक यह सूचना लोगों तक प्रसारित होना चाहिए।

लेकिन 21वें विधि आयोग की ओर से प्रकाशित ‘अपील’ को देखें तो पता चलता है कि यह ऊपर के दो निर्धारित मानदंडों पर पूरी तरह नाकाम साबित हुआ है।
लिहाजा समान नागरिक संहिता के संदर्भ में हम अपनी चिंताओं से आपको अवगत करा रहे हैं-

सवाल, समान नागरिक संहिता के संदर्भ में पूछे जाने हैं। लेकिन अपील में इस संदर्भ में समान नागरिक संहिता का कोई मसौदा नहीं रखा गया है।
अपील के साथ सिर्फ एक प्रश्नावली है। कथित तौर पर इसका उद्देश्य परिवार कानून में संशोधन और सुधार पर व्यापक-विमर्श के लिए व्यापक सुझाव और सलाह आमंत्रित करना है। लेकिन बगैर किसी मसौदे के इनमें से कुछ सवालों का जवाब देना मुश्किल है।
ज्यादातर सवाल के बहुविकल्प या हां या नाम में जवाब सुझाए गए हैं। इस तरह की प्रश्नावली ज्यादातर आंकड़े संग्रह की संतुष्टि के लिए की जाती है। हमें लगता कि जिस तरह से सवाल किए गए हैं वे भ्रमित करते हैं। या फिर ये सवाल ऐसे जवाब की मांग करते हैं, जिनमें आंकड़े सहित विश्लेषण की जरूरत होती है। इससे ऐसा लगता है कि इस प्रक्रिया में आंकड़ों के आधार पर समाज के हाशिये पर रहने वाले वर्ग पर बहुसंख्यकों का मत थोप दिया जाएगा। इन सवालों में जो मुद्दे उठाए गए हैं वे हां और ना के दायरे में नहीं आ सकते या फिर एक लाइन में इनका जवाब नहीं दिया जा सकता। ये सवाल लंबी बहस की मांग करते हैं। इन पर विमर्श की जरूरत है।
इस तरह की अपील कानून बनाने की पूर्व की प्रक्रिया का मजाक है। ऐसा लगता है कि देश को आंकड़ो के आधार वाला चुनावी लोकतंत्र बनाने की कोशिश हो रही है।
इस वक्त मुस्लिम समुदायों, प्रगतिशील महिलाओं और अन्य संगठनों और सक्रिय पुरुष संगठनों की ओर से सुप्रीम कोर्ट के सामने लैंगिक समानता के मुद्दे उठाए गए हैं। सुप्रीम कोर्ट मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड के कानूनों के संदर्भ में अपीलों की सुनवाई कर रहा है। लिहाजा ऐसे समय में समान नागरिक संहिता पर कानून पूर्व मसौदे से संबंधित अपील कई शक और सवाल पैदा करता है। बगैर मसौदे के इस तरह की अपील और प्रश्नावली पेश करना लैंगिक न्याय पर भ्रम पैदा करता है।
मौजूदा सांप्रदायिक उत्तेजना के माहौल में इस मुद्दे पर बेहद संवेदनशीलता अपनाए जाने की जरूरत है। कुछ आदिवासी संगठनों ने तो समान नागरिक संहिता की धारणा को सुप्रीम कोर्ट को चुनौती दे भी डाली है।
कानून के मसौदे को सामने रखे बगैर इस तरह की अपील जारी करना निश्चित तौर पर देश के समुदायों के बीच ध्रुवीकरण और इसे जहरीला बनाने की कोशिश है। आने वाले कई राज्यों में होने वाले चुनावों के मद्देनजर इस तरह की अपील पर निश्चित तौर पर शक पैदा होता है।

इन बिंदुओं पर विचार करते हुए विधि आयोग को अपनी अपील और प्रश्नावली को तुरंत प्रभाव से वापस ले लेना चाहिए।

भवदीय
फोरम अगेंस्ट ऑप्रेशन ऑफ विमेन, मुंबई

The post महिला संगठनों की मांग यूनिफॉर्म सिविल कोड पर विधि आयोग की अपील और प्रश्नावली वापस हो appeared first on SabrangIndia.

UCC: Women’s Forum Launches Campaign for ‘Immediate Withdrawal’ of Law Commission’s ‘Appeal’, ‘Questionnaire’

Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:29:05 +0000

The Law Commission "fails miserably" in following the February 2014 guidelines laid down by the Indian government, is "likely to confuse issues of gender justice" pending before the Supreme Court and is ill-advised "the current communally charged atmosphere".

Photo: Jagrut Bharat

The Mumbai-based Forum Against Oppression of Women (FAOW) today launched a signature campaign calling upon the Union Law Commission to withdraw the “Appeal” and “Questionnaire” with immediate effect. It has appealed to women's groups and citizens across the country to endorse its statement detailing the reasons why the Commission should do so.

Among the reasons cited for the withdrawal is that the Commission "fails miserably" on all the guidelines stated by the government of India's “Pre Legislative Consultation Policy” published on February 5, 2014 which laid down 12 guidelines to be followed for the pre-legislative consultation. The most important of the guidelines stipulated that "Every department/ministry concerned should publish/place in public domain the draft legislation or at least the information that may inter alia include brief justification for such legislation, essential elements of the proposed legislation, its broad financial implications, and an estimated assessment of the impact of such legislation on environment, fundamental rights, lives and livelihoods of the concerned/affected people, etc… for a minimum period of 30 days."

Instead of placing a draft the Commission has chosen to put out a 'questionnaire'. According to the Forum, it is "impossible to respond to some of the questions" in the absence of such a draft.

Further, putting out such a draft at a time when several petitions on issues of gender justice are pending before the Supreme Court "without draft legislation in the current social context would in fact confuse the issue of gender justice".

"In the current communally charged atmosphere this issue requires utmost sensitivity. In fact some tribal organisations have already approached Supreme Court challenging the notion of a “Uniform Civil Code”, says the letter.

The Forum has appealed for an endorsement of its letter to the Commission. Those who agree to do so are requested to e-mail their endorsement to: faowindia@yahoo.co.in OR sandhyagokhale@yahoo.com.

Photo: Getty image

Full text of the letter addressed to the Law Commission:

We the undersigned organisations and individuals submit our response to the “Appeal” dated 7^Th October 2016, by the 21^st Law Commission to begin healthy conversation on viability of Uniform civil code as below.

We are aware that formulating any legal provision based on foundation of Indian constitution is an arduous task. It requires tremendous effort and commitment to basic tenets of the secular, democratic socialist framework of the Constitution.

For drafting of the constitution on 29 August 1947, Constituent Assembly set up a Drafting Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to prepare a draft Constitution for India. The assembly met in sessions open to the public, for 166 days, spread over a period of 2 years, 11 months and 18 days before adopting the Constitution, the 308 members of the assembly signed the document on 24 January 1950.

Not only that but from 1930 women’s organizations have put out the demand for a comprehensive code. In response to that, under the chairmanship of law minister Dr Ambedkar, a committee was formed which modified further the first draft of Hindu code bill formulated in 1941. But many hindu fundamentalist voices from the assembly did not allow passage of this bill and in protest Dr Ambedkar resigned as law minister. Thereafter between 1952 to 1956 Jawaharlal Nehru managed to get the Hindu code bill passed in four separate segments.
We state all this to emphasise that no far reaching effective, just legal reform can be carried out without putting in similar sustained and intense efforts.

We are aware that any legal reform follows three phases: Pre-legislative phase, Legislative phase and Post-legislative phase.

This current effort of the law commission will fall within the ambit of Pre-legislative phase. The Law and Justice ministry of the Government of India has published the “Pre Legislative Consultation Policy” on 5^th February 2014, which lays down the to be followed for the pre-legislative consultation. There are total 12 guiding principles laid down in this policy.
The first two important points are reiterated here:

Every Department/Ministry shall proactively publish the proposed legislations both on the internet as also through other means; the detailed modalities of such publication may be worked out by the Department/Ministry concerned.
The Department/Ministry concerned should publish/place in public domain the draft legislation or at least the information that may inter alia include brief justification for such legislation, essential elements of the proposed legislation, its broad financial implications, and an estimated assessment of the impact of such legislation on environment, fundamental rights, lives and livelihoods of the concerned/affected people, etc. Such details may be kept in the public domain for a minimum period of thirty days for being proactively shared with the public in such manner as may be specified by the Department/Ministry concerned.

If we look at the “Appeal” published by the 21^st Law commission of India, it fails miserably on all the guidelines stated by the PLCP referred to above.

In this context hence, we place before you our main concerns regarding your appeal in the context of the “Uniform Civil Code”:

The Questions are asked in context of “Uniform Civil Code”. But there is no draft put out of “Uniform Civil Code” referred to time and again in the “Appeal”.
The “Appeal” is accompanied by one questionnaire the purpose of which is purportedly to solicit ideas and opinions for a comprehensive exercise of revision and reform of family laws. In the absence of any draft put out, it is impossible to respond to some of the questions.
Most of the questions are “multiple” choice or binary in nature. Such kind of questionnaires are normally subjected to statistical analysis. We realise that the manner in which the questions are posed are misleading or at times leading to seek some answer which could then be put to some sort of statistical analysis. This leads us to wonder whether it is process in which some sort of majoritarian view point would get imposed on marginalized section of society based on the quantitative result. In fact, most of the issues raised in the questions do not confine to a yes-no/ one word/ multiple choice answers, but should be part of long debates, and consultative processes which should follow from detailed presentation of some existing draft.
This kind of an appeal makes a mockery of the pre-legislative process, which is not to be equated with “electoral” democracy based on numerical equations.
At this moment, many from the Muslim community, progressive women’s collectives and other organizations which also have men in forefront, are raising issues of gender equality before the Supreme Court. Given that the Supreme Court is hearing petitions challenging some of the gender biased aspects of Muslim Personal law, the timing of this “Appeal” and questionnaire raises many doubts. Introducing this “Appeal” and “Questionnaire” without draft legislation in the current social context would in fact confuse the issue of gender justice.
In the current communally charged atmosphere this issue requires utmost sensitivity. In fact some tribal organizations have already approached Supreme Court challenging the notion of a “Uniform Civil Code”.
This “Appeal” without a draft legislation would definitely be used as a tool to vitiate and polarize communities given the fact that elections are soon to be held in some states.

Taking into consideration our submissions above, we respectfully request the Law commission to withdraw the “Appeal” and “Questionnaire” with immediate effect.

Yours sincerely,

Forum Against oppression of Women, Mumbai

The post UCC: Women’s Forum Launches Campaign for ‘Immediate Withdrawal’ of Law Commission’s ‘Appeal’, ‘Questionnaire’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.