Tag

supreme court

Browsing

The University of Delhi has decided to challenge a Delhi High Court Order in the Supreme Court, which directed the University to grant monthly pension to over 300 teachers.

The decision to challenge the order was taken on Saturday, April 29th, 2017 in a meeting called to discuss issues centered around general provident fund (GPF), monthly pension, cumulative provident fund (CPF) and lump sum money at retirement for teachers. Issues around the absorption of ad-hoc teachers as permanent faculty, promotions and problems of physical education teachers were also discussed during the meeting that lasted for around 10 hours, as per a council member, who attended the same.

According to a Council member, Rajesh Jha, the decision to challenge the order was taken despite strong dissent from the members present. “We also submitted a statement of concerns over pension issues signed by five council members during the meeting,” he added.

Nandita Narain, the president of Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) told the media about the huge legal expenses and around a decade long litigation period the employees had to struggle through in order to earn the bench division litigation. The HC order challenge has been dissented against by a large number of employees of the University, and are dissapointed by the “callous approach” of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), added the DUTA President.

A dharna was also organised by the DUTA members outside the Vice Regal Lodge, the venue for the meeting, for voicing their concerns around the issue.

 

Feature Image Credits: Flickr

Priyal Mahtta
[email protected]

In a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court, the judicial body has passed governance wherein no political party can conjure votes on the foundation of religion, caste and creed.

The verdict by the apex court was announced as a result of deliberations by a seven-member bench and was a follow-up to a petition filed in 1996. Seeking to retain the secular ethos of the Constitution, it takes into account the vague nature of Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act (1951) which states that appeals made by candidates on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language would be banned. The ruling is sought to shed clarity on the wordings, so as the conclusion to be a wholesome ban on the use of religion in campaigning practices. This shall have rippling effects on the forthcoming state elections coined to take place in UP, Punjab, Goa, Uttarakhand, and Manipur; three out of five states where caste politics is a major factor in soliciting alliances and votes.

In its functional representation, a wall is being endeavored to be built between state and religion. The Constitution ascribes India as a secular country, and this move pushes the foundational strength of that claim. It can be understood that by the rule of extension, elections should also be viewed as a secular practice. Thus, the aim was to embellish the secular character of India; a country which is characterised by its confluence of diverse backgrounds.

This judicial activism aiming to fill the gap between one of the laws can be deemed promising, yet is a long throw from being effectively implemented to becoming successful. Firstly, there is the argument of Free Speech according to which discussions on religion and caste are constitutionally protected and cannot be restricted. Thus, any party genuinely working towards the escalation of minority classes will find itself in a predicament. Secondly, the law has existed before, and only a certain aspect of it has been modified. However, its working remains inadequate since Independence. Thirdly, the implementation is a major hindrance which needs to be entangled. Appealing for votes by pulling the banned strings is not done in the open, and is subtle in approaching voters which may prove to be hard to monitor. Fourthly, this controversial move can prove to be an advantage for BJP as it lobbies for Hindus and Hindutva particularly, which the Supreme Court in 1995 ruled as ‘a way of life’ and not a religion, and thus handing them a rabbit’s escape.

The apex court’s ruling is plausible for national reasons but unfortunately is also rigged with loopholes which might result in it being one of the forgotten laws of the land.

Image Credits: International Business Times

Saumya Kalia

[email protected]

The Supreme Court has heard many petitions in the past to ban jokes on the Sikh community. On March 17, it agreed to hear a plea by Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), along with other petitioners seeking a ban on the circulation of such jokes. The petition will be heard on April 5.

The petitioners believe that a stereotype has been forged against the Sikhs and the Sardars due to which they face discrimination. Even the PILs filed earlier, for example, by the lawyer Harvinder Chowdhury, supported by the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Managing Committee (DSGC), talked about how these jokes are a violation of the right to equality and how there are various websites which showcase these insensitive jokes, which tend to portray the Sardar community as people of low intellect. The petitioners want the Ministries of Telecom and Information and Broadcasting to either ban the said websites or formulate guidelines for the content on them.

The question that arises is, is it right for the court to ban these jokes or filter the websites for content? Is it not infringing upon the right to freedom of expression of people?

In hearings for the earlier petitions, a bench led by Chief Justice T S Thakur praised the Sikh community for their contribution in the development of our country but said that the court’s orders have to rational and within the judicial dimension for them to be implemented. They also pointed out that not all people of the community get offended by such jokes. Rather, people like Khushwant Singh have written books on such jokes which have been enjoyed by everyone. Yet, the PILs state that the community is hurt and offended, and can’t stand the lampooning anymore.

It makes one think- where does one draw a line? When does a joke start bordering on a regressive stereotype used to subjugate people of one community? Are the jokes on people of specific communities, like the Sardars, people from the North-East India, or Bihar only harmless or are they an indication of a very problematic mind-set? Is cracking a joke on another community intolerant or taking offence to it is? The issue is complex and can certainly be helped along in its disentanglement by the discussions and the verdict of the court, so that the blurred lines between harmless jokes and vicious prejudices become clearer.

Image credits: s3.india.com/

Nishita Agarwal

[email protected]

The Supreme Court of India, which is considered the ‘final guardian and interpreter’ of the Indian Constitution sent shock waves across the world as it overturned the judgement of the Delhi High Court(2009) which declared Section 377 unconstitutional. The SC verdict infringes the ‘right to life and personal liberty’ that the Constitution of India promises to each and every citizen irrespective of their place of birth, caste, creed, religion, race or sex.

The SC’s move has moved all spheres of society, Delhi University being no exception. Enactus Ramjas, in collaboration with NGO ‘NAZ Foundation’ plans to start an online petition to restore the rights of personal liberty to the LGBT community. They also wish to forward the demand for withdrawal of the judgement criminalising sexual intercourse between same sex people.

In order to muster maximum support from the youth of DU, a Facebook page in name of ‘E-queer-LIBRIUM’ has been launched that works towards sensitisation towards the gay community. The group provides a platform to reflect the voice of discriminated and reach out to the concerned authorities. Not only is Enactus Ramjas supporting the LGBT community in their legal battle for equality and justice, but also the members have started an innovative plan called – ‘TransCreations’ where the  transgenders are given an opportunity to work in the jewellery designing project of Enactus Ramjas. The jewellery designed is then sold online, in college fests and in select jewellery shops as well. “The workers are thus guaranteed an alternate respectable income, which is a small step towards making them socially acceptable, independent and strong.” said Robin Kumar, President, Enactus Ramjas.

Thus, while the fate of this minority group hangs on a loose thread, it is important for us to observe solidarity and create an atmosphere conducive to each and every member of the society.

Relevant links :

Official FB Page of ‘E-queer-LIBRIUM’ – https://www.facebook.com/equeelibrium

Official FB Page of the Trans’Creations’ Programme-https://www.facebook.com/Transcreations?fref=ts

If there is one institution that people see as something that is truly beyond reproach and has the integrity to do what is right, it is the Supreme Court. The hallowed chambers of this court are a place where the right to equality is truly sacrosanct. In light of the media spectacle surrounding the verdict on Section 377 and the condemnation of the entire world that accused the Supreme Court of being out of date, the court decided to answer its critics. The SC has decided to do away with standards of reasonable doubt and remove conventional defenses such as self defense and the insanity plea. In the spirit of equality however it has decided to impose these on everyone equally. The court believes that this move ensures that nobody can now claim that the moves of the court were illegal or against the notion of equality.

1)      The ‘it is not natural’ defence

The idea that anything or anyone unnatural go scot-free is something that the courts are not okay with. Hence they have decided to crack down on all those who defy natural and stray from the natural order. Under this, all individuals with hearing aids, prosthetic limbs, wheelchairs, breast implants and artificial joints can now be prosecuted. This is a bold move that ensures that individuals do what is natural and avoid any sort of deviant behaviour.

2)      The ‘it is against our culture’ defence

The SC believes that we must hold our culture on the highest possible pedestal and the law must take the backseat. With the cultural fabric of this nation withering away and the youth getting drawn to the ways of the west, the courts decided to take a stand. So people can now be held criminally liable for listening English music, going to modern hospitals rather than babas who practice ayurveda, not wearing ghoonghat or putting sindoor and commiting any other act that is not compatible with Indian culture.

3)      The ‘Baba Ramdev said it’ plea

This in essence is the replacement for the ‘Insanity Plea’. It’s not just limited to Baba Ramdev, rather all Yoga teachers turned moral experts turned political activist preachings are admissible in a court of law as evidence.  In accordance with this all schools shall no longer be teaching sex education, rather Yoga education is going to be the way forward. As per this law everything any baba says is true and sacrosanct and forms the fabric of our otherwise immoral society. As a result of this plea, Asaram Bapu and his son have just been released from jail. Also the system of community service has now been removed and all homosexuals can go to Baba Ramdev who claims to have found the cure for this deviant behaviour.

4)      The ‘religion’ appeal

The SC believes in equality and upholds the idea of secularism. In keeping with this spirit the SC decided to bring back the ancient religious laws. The first step was a historic one and ensures that all atheists are now criminals that can be imprisoned for life. All views that defy religion like abortion, use of condoms, committing one of the seven sins and many other such views are now regarded as illicit and criminal views that go against the state. Also the punishment for these acts will be decided by religious leaders and not the SC , so sharia law, crucifixion, sati are now all fair play.

5)      The ‘it is a disease’ defence

Many opponents of the LGBT community felt that not being straight is a disease and hence it should be criminalized. So in keeping with the court’s strong belief in equality it has decided to criminalize all people that are sick. Basically all individuals that are disabled or terminally ill can now be sent to jail.

These moves by the courts will surely make a statement. The SC also felt that people are actually getting more offended by the tag of being called a Criminal. They feel that many great leaders are criminals in this country and they continue to live their life normally. So why is the LGBT community getting so offended by the criminal tag. It’s time that they take inspiration from the many criminals of this nation like Salman Khan and live life to the fullest because all men are equal in the eyes of the law, even criminals.

Editor’s note: Bazinga is DU Beat’s fake news column. This piece is supposed to be a satire and is not aimed at offending supporters of the LGBT community. If in case you are not a supporter,  it was surely written to offend you.