Ab Ki Bar 'Supreme' Par 'War' !!
January 11 and 12 of the current year 2021 will go into the history of our democracy as very trying days for the judiciary.
January 11 and 12 of the current year 2021 will go into the history of our democracy as very trying days for the judiciary. It was on these two days that the highest court of the country faced the herculean task of maintaining balance between its Constitutional obligations and self-respect because both these vital elements faced a threat from the anti-India forces.
After having miserably failed even after a month and half relentless efforts, to provoke the government to use 'force' ( which they deserved very much) against their 'five star' agitation, fashionably packed as the farmers' protests, the Khalistani, Jihadi, terrorist and extremist elements took the 'judiciary' route via proxy petitioners to get a snub from the apex court for the government. Had the much-needed force been used to protect the fundamental rights of the non-protesting citizens by the authorities, the bogey of 'assault on democracy' would have been raised by the masters and managers of the so-called farmers' agitation on international arena.
What transpired in the Supreme Court on January 11 and 12 was indeed, unprecedented. The chief justice without mincing the words conveyed his concern for the women and old people protesting in the shivering cold and asked the Counsel of the farmers to convey his message to protestors.
In a bid to defuse the situation, the apex court temporarily suspended the three contentious laws which have been the central point of the tangle. The court also formed a four-member Committee to meet the protestors and study the pros and cons of the contentious laws and finally submit the recommendations to the court. While the government readily agreed to the verdict, the defiant farmers not only dissented with the apex court but also cast aspersions on the neutrality of the Committee members nominated by the court. The self-styled messiahs of the country's farmers in utter disregard to the apex court declared that they reject the Committee and will not be a party to the deliberations by the said Committee.
Meanwhile, ninth round of 'talks' of the government with the much-pampered farmer-leaders too, has ended inconclusive on January 15. Now the tenth round has been scheduled for January 19.
Indeed, this issue has become a naughty riddle. When the so-called farmers touted as the annadaata, have in the most unequivocal terms declared that they want nothing less than scrapping of three laws and the government too, is rightly on its firm wicket that it won't succumb to the former's demand, where is the question of holding any parleys running into now double digit ?
The real face of the agitation has been recognised by the people of the country and it is pity that the government of the day does not want to recognise. Calling the foodgrain cultivators as annadaata is also a kind of excessive pampering. Applying the same analogy, the weavers should be called, Kapda Daata and the cobblers as, Joote Daata. In fact, every vocation and rendering of service is based on the economic principle of give and take. Therefore, there is no question of glorifying one occupation to the detriment of others. In fact, while a huge majority of real farmers who toils in the fields, gets a pittance from agriculture while the 'five star' farmers with tax-free income are capable of indulging in the arm-twisting game.
Needless to say, under the garb of 'farmers' divisive forces have a full play. The apex court ought to take a serious and urgent note of this and come down heavily on such criminal gangs. A few well-to-do farmers claiming no links with the anti-national forces may be given a chance to bundle out their tractors, washing machines, massage wares and automatic food preparing kitchen-wares within one hour failing which the law enforcing agencies should be given a free hand to tackle the situation. It is high time, we take a leaf or two from other democracies like USA, France, Spain, Britain and Australia where threatening mobs in recent times, have been shown their right place.
scba president resigns on moral ground
The President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Dushant Dave tendered his resignation on January 14 stating the term of the Executive Committee has already expired and as such, he has no moral right to continue in that position.
In a letter addressed to the Executive Committee, Dave said that as the term of the Executive Committee had already ended they had planned to hold virtual elections. However, due to reservations expressed by some lawyers, the same could not be done. He expressed deep gratitude to the Executive Committee while putting in the papers.
many karnataka courts to function normally
The Karnataka High Court has issued the modified Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) stating that except the specified seven districts , the rest of the districts in the State having less than 200 of Covid-19 active cases for last about 10 days, will function in the normal manner as they were functioning prior to March 15, 2020. However, the courts will have to enforce 13 guidelines listed in the SOP.
turkey mulla sentenced to 1,075 years jail
Creating a sort of record, a Turkish court has sentenced a Muslim evangelist, to 1,075 years in jail for sex crimes.
Adnan Oktar, 64 was initially detained in 2018 along with more than 200 other suspects as part of a crackdown on his group by the financial crimes unit of the Istanbul police. According to the reports, he was convicted for crimes including sexual assault, sexual abuse of minors, fraud and attempted political and military espionage. During the trial Oktar told the presiding judge that he had close to 1,000 girlfriends.
Along with him two of his Executives, Tarkan Yavas and Oktar Babuna too, have been sentenced to 211 and 186 years of imprisonment.
kerala hc on drunk driving
In a recent Judgment, the Kerala High Court has held that in order to attract the offence of drunken driving under Section 185(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the accused should have been subjected to a breathanalyser or any other test including a laboratory test and his blood must be found to contain alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml.
The bench of Justice V.G Arun in his Order dated January 8 in a case of drunken driving, Manoj Kumar K Vs. State of Kerala observed that the prosecution was based on the doctor's opinion who stated that the 'accused smelled like he had drunk' and observed that to prove the offence under Section 185 (a) of the MV Act, the aforementioned tests were mandatory.