Impersonating legislator penalised perfectly

The Hyderabad High Court in its recent landmark judgment has asked a former legislator, Shatrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju, to refund the entire amount received by him as salary and perquisites when he was a legislator for five years between 2009 and 2014.The terse order came after it was proved by the petitioner N Jayraj that the legislator had falsely declared himself to be a member of the Schedule Tribe and subsequently one the Assembly election from a constituency reserved for the Schedule Tribe. In fact, he belonged to the Konda Dora caste which is not a Schedule Caste, the petitioner had contended.

The High Court in a rare expression of anguish directed the impersonating legislator to pay back the entire amount received by him during his tenure as MLA. There is, however, a strong feeling that the action of the court is still ‘soft’ and in order to set a fitting example, the court ought to have awarded more stringent punishment to the wrongdoer. It is to be noted that the losers belong to the most downtrodden Schedule Tribe. In fact, this is not an isolated case where the seat reserved for the Schedule Tribe was deceptively grabbed by a higher caste person. There are many instances where the seats in the educational institutions and jobs reserved for the SC/ST have been knocked off by the unscrupulous elements like Shatrucharla.

Blasphemy caseOne of the most sensitive case with the potentials of tearing Pakistan apart into two pieces viz. protection of human rights and pleasing the vigilantes has been put into cold storage once again. The Supreme Court of Pakistan on October 13 adjourned the hearing of final appeal against the execution of Asia Bibi, accused for blasphemy. Bibi, a mother of two kids has been on death row since 2010 has been held in solitary confinement due to security reasons.

The adjournment was caused as one of the three-judge bench, Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur- Rehman, told the court he had to recuse himself, claiming a conflict of interest. In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, he said:“I was a part of the bench that was hearing the case of Salman Taseer, and this case is related to that ” and requested the Chief Justice to appoint another judge to the bench. The SC did not immediately set a new date for Bibi’s appeal.

What is the Salman Taseer’s case? In 2011, former Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer who spoke out in support of Bibi, was gunned down in broad daylight in Islamabad.His killer Mumtaz Qadri was subsequently executed in the current year after the court found him guilty of murder. Justice Rehman then was the chief justice of the Islamabad High Court which heard Qadri’s appeal in 2011.

The allegations of blasphemy against Asia Bibi, a catholic Christian, date back to June 2009, when she was working in a field and row broke out with some of her Muslim co-worker women. It is alleged that Asia Bibi had a tiff over fetching a bowl of water with other Muslim women. The Muslim women went to a local cleric and accused Bibi of blasphemy against the prophet Mohammed, a charge punishable by death under Pakistan’s Constitution which rights groups say is routinely abused to settle personal score, particularly against the people belonging to minorities.

Execution of Saudi PrinceAccording to media reports Saudi Arabia has carried out the punishment of death awarded by a Sharia court to its Prince Turkey Bin Saud Bin Turkey Bin Saud Al-Kabir who had shot dead a person in a scuffle.Though in Saudi Arabia which follows the Sunni way of administration, the death convict is beheaded publically, in this case details of the manner of execution of death sentence are not made public. After 1975 this is the first incident of a royal family member getting the death sentence. In 1975, Prince Faisal Bin Mussaid Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud was beheaded on his conviction for killing the ruler, Shah Faisal.

Incidentally, in India where the debate on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has reached crescendo, the large number of people are of the view that if Muslims oppose the UCC, let there be implementation of Shariat law in criminal matters also for them. But the protagonists Shariat law for the Civil and Family matters among the Muslims are adopting double standards on this matter for the simple reason that Shariat Criminal Laws are too harsh as compared to our Indian Penal Code and other family laws. That is why, opponents of UCC want to have the cake and eat it too!