The Lawyer’s behaviour in boycotting courts and executive orders concerning the Lawyers and the Court are on the increase.
In Tamil Nadu,Lawyers gave grouped themselves into two,one belonging to The DMK and the another to The AIADMK..
Whenever anything happens, the group belonging to the opposition takes out processions, boycott the Courts and often indulge in violence, including in the Courts.
The violence in the Court premises between the Lawyers and The Police in Tamil Nadu is still vivid in memory.
This has to be stopped.
It would not be a bad idea to ban the lawyers to have political affiliations as well,on the lines of the conduct for the Judges ,as some of thee Lawyers may become judges..
Story:
KOCHI: Fiat Justicia, an NGO working in the legal field, has approached the Kerala high court seeking a ban on strikes by lawyers. The strike by lawyers on July 11 and 12 led to gross miscarriage and delay of justice and is against the specific directions of the Supreme Court in the matter, the petition filed through advocate M R Hariraj said.
Lawyers in Kerala had stayed off courts on July 11 and 12 as a mark of protest against the High Education and Research Bill and alleging encroachment upon the functions of the Bar Council of India as well as the State Bar Councils by the ministry of human resources development. The decision to support the strike was adopted by the Bar Council of Kerala in a meeting of the state council and all bar associations on July 1.
According to the petition, the court must restrain lawyers from resorting to strike and impose penalty on those engaging in it. It is also alleged that the Centre, state and high court didn’t take any action to avert the strike. It resulted in adjournment of over 90% of cases and is a violation of the directions of the Supreme Court in various judgments, the NGO contends. The NGO also points out that a representation was made to the chief justice of India demanding initiation of suo motu proceedings against those who conducted the strike
“From testicle-biting police dogs to sonic cannons capable of inducing involuntary urination, Polish anti-hooligan squads have an array of weapons ready to deal with any troublesome England fans at Euro 2012.
“The Polish police are going to come down on troublemakers like a bag full of anvils and you don’t want to be there when it happens,” the paper warned.
“Krakow has a long history of hooligan violence — the local police have seen it all before and they will ruin your day if you try it on.
“These lads’ mums and dads rioted under Soviet machine guns — a few chairs thrown by beered-up fans is not going to intimidate them.
“Do not expect softly, softly police tactics.
“Poland’s anti-hooligan squads are armed with: Shotguns firing baton rounds that probably won’t kill you as long as you’re 30m away, a truck-mounted water cannon affectionately known as ?the typhoon’, a high-tech sonic cannon that can make you wet yourself on its lowest setting, dogs trained to bite you directly in the testicles.”
English fans are not expected to arrive in Krakow in significant numbers, with England’s Group D games all taking place in Ukraine.
As TOI has maintained raising the age for legal sex from 16 to 18 is a bad idea. Only a clutch of illiberal countries have it as 18 years. Why should India join that club? The age for legal sex should stay at 16. Further, where the age gap between two partners is less than five years, consensual sex should be decriminalized even if a partner is a teenager less than 16-years-old. There can be some deterrents if the age gap is higher. The proposal to hike the legal age for sex also smacks for an urban bias. In villages, getting married before the age of 18 is common. Would they all be treated as criminals now? Educating people about the advantages of a later marriage is one thing, but making teen sex illegal ignores the reality and criminalizes innocents. There is also the risk that such a move could lead to a spurt in young girls going to quacks for abortions to escape the clutches of the law. Suicides and honour killings too might rise with this ill-thought-out measure.”
1.Most Liberalised Countries of the World have 16 as the age for Sex.
What exactly is being liberalized?
Having sex at 16?
Do people know the destruction of family as an Institution is encouraged bu Acts like these.
Are people aware that Scandinavian Countries are grappling with the problem of unclaimed children born out of (?) Single parents and the State is maintaining them,with more than a probable chance of these children becoming asocial?
The State is paying for the peccadilloes of perverts.
2.” the age gap…….five years”
Do not people know that the marriageable age of a Boy is 21 and the Girl is 18, prescribed by Law?
3.”in villages……child marriages”
True.To combat this practice , the above mentioned law is enacted.
4.” such a move … to quacks for abortion’
By keeping the age at 16 none will go for Abortion!
The concept that Laws will breed more unlawful activities is quite funny.
Despite laws on Rape,Murder, these incidents happen.
Shall we do away with these Laws?
Continuing this argument there should be no age limit for Sex as there are instances of 10 year olds engaged in Sex.
Long Live Elitism?
Hope these writers have children.
NEW DELHI: Going by just the number of countries, the global average for the age of consent is 16. The government’s proposal of criminalizing consensual sex with any person below 18 will put India in the company of countries such as Rwanda, Uganda, Chile, Peru and Egypt, none of whom can be counted among liberal democracies.
While the age of consent across the world ranges from 13 to 18, the bulk of the countries, including the most liberal ones, have it at 16. Thus, India is currently bracketed with Britain, Norway, Canada, Switzerland, Israel, Russia, South Africa and a majority of the states of the US.
But if 11 states of the US, including California, took the conservative option of fixing the age of consent at 18, its impact has been softened by a close-in-age reprieve. This means that if the minor has three or fewer years of difference with the major, or if both partners are under the age of consent, they will be prosecuted for the minor offence of misdemeanor rather than statutory rape.
The principle of taking a lenient view of close-in-age relationships is adopted by several western countries. The absence of such a safeguard in the protection of children from sexual offences bill, which was cleared last week by the Cabinet, makes the proposed increase in the age of consent all the more regressive and draconian.
If the bill is passed by Parliament in its current form, the only countries that will be harsher than India on teenage sex are those who do not recognize any age of consent at all.
In Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran and Pakistan, any sex outside marriage is illegal and liable to severe punishment, even if it is entirely consensual.
The few countries that swung to the other extreme of reducing the age of consent to as low as 13 have adopted different safeguards to avert dangers of licentiousness. Though the national law in Japan puts 13 as the age of consent, local laws in most municipalities have overridden it with higher limits.
In Argentina, sexual relations with teenagers from 13 to 18, though legal, are fettered by laws meant to avoid exploitation. Spain has a safeguard to check deceit in gaining the consent of minor below 16, although its age of consent is 13.
Interesting, a lot of football powerhouses have a low age of consent, ranging from 13 to 15: Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France, Uruguay and so on. Is it just a coincidence? Or does the craze for football make a society more liberal?
The age of consent around the world
Spain, Japan, Argentina | 13 years
Brazil, China, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Colombia and one Indian state (Manipur) | 14 years
France, Denmark, Greece, Poland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Thailand, Uruguay | 15 years
Britain, Canada, Nepal, Norway, Russia, South Africa, Kenya, Switzerland, Malaysia, Jordan, Israel and majority of the states of US (Michigan, Connecticut, New Jersey) | 16 years
Ireland, some of the states of US (Illinois, Texas, Missouri) and of Australia (South Australia, Tasmania) | 17 years
Turkey, Egypt, Rwanda, Uganda, Philippines, Chile, Peru and some of the states of US (California, Arizona, Florida) | 18 years
Genuineness of a will cannot be disputed merely because the testator declined share in the family property to “ungrateful children”, and had bequeathed it solely to one of the sons who looked after the aged parents till their death, the Supreme Court has ruled.
A bench of justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya set aside a judgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which disbelieved the veracity of a will executed by Harishankar to one of his son Mahesh Kumar to the exclusion of two other sons – Vinod Kumar and Anand Kumar.
“Therefore, there was nothing unnatural or unusual in the decision of Shri Harishankar to give his share in the joint family property to the appellant. Any person of ordinary prudence would have adopted the same course and would not have given anything to the ungrateful children from his/her share in the property,” Justice Singhvi writing the judgement said.
The bench said that in the present case the evidence clearly proved that Harishankar had willed the property to Mahesh Kumar instead of the other two sons as the former along with his wife and kids had taken care of the aged parents till their death.
Hence it felt that the high court had wrongly assumed that the Will was shrouded in suspicion owing to the exclusion of property to the other children by Harishankar which was executed on February 10, 1992.
“The evidence produced by the parties unmistakably show that respondent No 2 had separated from the family in 1965 after taking his share and respondent No 1 also got his share in the 2nd partition which took place in 1985. Neither of them bothered to look after the parents in their old age.
“The attitude of respondent Nos 1 and 2 left Shri Harishankar and his wife with no choice but to live with the appellant, who along with his wife and children took care of the old parents and looked after them during their illness,” the apex court said.
Human Rights activists normally intervene in these types of instances and whenever law enforcing Agencies try to curb crimes which are heinous.
If these Agencies do not resort to strict measures, the very fabric of society will be torn.
If the law enforcing agencies do not check crime, then people accuse them of soft approach and dereliction of Duty.
You can not ask the law enforcing agencies to work with both hands and feet tied.
Normal precautions are taken for normal individuals.
People as these are not Human beings and are to be treated as such.
At times like these, Islamic law, though looks barbarous, is the Best.
”
Under German law, serious sex offenders can volunteer for the operation as part of their treatment.
The Strasbourg Council of Europe‘s anti-torture committee said the procedure was rare in Germany, with fewer than five cases a year over the past decade.
But surgical castration was mutilating and irreversible and there was no evidence it prevented men from committing new sex crimes, the committee said in a report on Germany.
“Surgical castration of detained sexual offenders could easily be considered as amounting to degrading treatment,” said the report.
“Therefore, the Committee recommends that immediate steps be taken by the relevant authorities to discontinue in all German Laender (federal states) the application of surgical castration in the context of treatment of sexual offenders,” it added.
The German government said in an official response to the report that the practice was under review but it believed there were medical grounds for continuing to offer the operation.
Under German regulations, a sex offender can be castrated if he ask for the procedure, is older than 25 and gets the approval of a panel of experts.
You must be logged in to post a comment.