Book on Uniform Civil Code - Unveiling

Justice Santosh Hegde today (now) unveiled a book on #UniformCivilCode authored by  #DrShivanandJamdaarIAS at Karnataka Chitrakala Parishath Bangalore

Takeaways:

If only British rulers & later Nehru had shown the same determination on #UCC while enacting laws pertaining to Hindu personal law.

Encouraging Inequality on basis of religion, how correct? Historical basis of unequal practice cannot justify it.

Policies were enacted assuming that Minority sections would always abide by the law. And Majority would violate. Said Ms. SushilaChintamani introducing the Book.

Divisiveness of Indian society would have ended if #UCC was enacted in 1955 itself.

This book of  Dr. Shivanand Jamdaar IAS should be Translated in more languages to reach all Indians.

https://t.co/C0Dh81oVYw

A Cyclists encounter with the Railway Police at Bangalore - The Logical Indian

From the #Facebook page #LogicalIndian:

#MyStory

“I have read of inhumane incidents happening in many parts of the country. But you won’t totally believe unless you encounter one. Now onward I can totally believe them.

I frequently travel to China for my official trips. One thing I always adored by Chinese people is their use of electrical or foldable bicycle which they carry with them in the subway.

This time, after coming to India I desperately started looking for such bicycle if available in India. At last, I found one BTWIN HOPTOWN bicycle at Decathlon. I immediately bought and started using it. Once I was carrying it with me on the train between the route KR PURAM to Bangalore Cantonment. I am proud of the fact that I am not the one contributing to the pollution in Bangalore.

On 9/2/2016, while exiting from Bangalore Cantonment railway station one ticket checking officer lady caught me and started demanding fine for carrying a bicycle with me. I tried to convince her, once folded it is not a bicycle at all, it weights hardly 14 kg and it is very much portable. But she insisted on asking for 6 times the fare of travel. I asked her for the railway rules regarding this and the receipt of the bill. She took my pass and made me wait for another 30 minutes and later came with an excuse that she doesn’t know the luggage rules. I was getting late and told her 6 times my fare of travel is 60 rupees and that she can have 100 rupees and let me go. But she demanded 300 rupees.

I told her even if it is 1000 rupees I will pay but I need the receipt. She presented the same excuse that she doesn’t know the luggage rules. At last, I lost my patience and started to call her corrupt. After which she slapped me, pushed me and called her police constable colleague to take me to the jail for misbehavior. He took me to the jail and started beating me. His other colleagues joined him, they undressed me and started beating me with hand, leg and sticks 5 people at a time. I was sure that I was going to die that day and only my body will be found next day. I begged them in all the possible way I can. At last, after an hour, one guy listened to my plea and asked me to pay 5000 rupees. He asked me to call any of my friends to come with 5000 rupees and then can take me back.

I called my manager Harish Haswani who came with two mutual colleagues of ours. All three had to plea to the railway police for more than an hour on my behalf as Railway police have threatened them that they will file a case against me of misbehaving with a lady officer and that I have tried to press her breast. I was very much shocked to see to what level character of a woman can fall. After too much of plea and the bribe from my colleagues they released me. The lady officer fined me 190Rs stating my bicycle weight is 40kg although it is 14kg only. Also, she fined me for ticket-less traveling though I was having the monthly pass. Also, the receipt she issued is of date 8/02/16 and not 9/02/16 on which date I travelled and the incident took place. We all were too much afraid and didn’t dare to ask her for the mistake in the receipt. All of our focus was just to save my life and get me out of there.

I am undergoing the treatment. My left hand is fractured. My friend Sarfaraz is taking care of me. I am determined never to travel by train in Bangalore again. My fold-able  BTWIN bicycle will never get used again. But at the same time, I have lost all the focus at my work. Fortunately, my mobile has done the voice recording of the entire incident. My mobile recording along CCTV camera recording at railway is enough to prove if I have done remotely any kind of misbehavior with the lady. I am determined to teach a lesson to these corrupt officials even if it cost me my life. I have written letters to all higher police authorities as well as human rights commission seeking action in this regards. They will respond but very unfortunatly as per indian goverment office time.”

And Comments thereon:


@drmsbc has replied to tweets on this issue saying that Railway police is state police and doesn’t come under railways.

https://twitter.com/drmsbc/status/698662569536417793

I will delete this post in some time since my suggestion is perhaps no longer relevant.

In the meanwhile, if you have any suggestions regarding how to approach this issue then let me know.

My original post:
-----------
The Logical Indian, could you please tweet this to @RailMinIndia
They are very prompt and they will take appropriate action.

Edit:
The summary of tweets made for this issue:
My tweet to @RailMinIndia:
https://twitter.com/amithbag/status/698599458020261888

Sidhharth (@siddhu_2011):
https://twitter.com/RailMinIndia/status/698595124578615296
(@RailMinIndia has replied to Siddharth’s tweet)

Avinash Surendran (@ashwin296):
https://twitter.com/ashwin296/status/698605652466405376

cibi s (@cibiindhu):
https://twitter.com/cibiindhu/status/698627271477870592

It looks like @drmsbc has replied to the tweets of Sidhharth, Avinash and cibi s:

“@cibiindhu @RailMinIndia @GMSWR @ashwin296 @siddhu_2011 Rly Police is state police, not under Rly. Clarification by @srdcmsbc.”
https://twitter.com/drmsbc/status/698662569536417793

So essentially it seems that they are saying that they can’t do much since Railway police is state police. Is that ticket checking lady also under Railway police and not Railway? Requesting Sidhharth, Avinash and cibi s to reply to @drmsbc and ask for clarification.
-----------

Comment #2:

Laws that were made to protect women are being used as a tool to extort money, take revenge, cry victim when a woman herself is the wrong doer and to teach a "lesson" to a man for being a man by the "empowered women". This is happening not only in metros but smallest areas around the country. While crime against Innocent and vulnerable women is happening everywhere, false accusations against innocent and vulnerable men and boys like one above is on a rise too. While there are stringent laws to take care of the former, there is little one can do in case of latter. Some time before everyone realizes the need to control this menace.

Comment #3:

#PMOIndia, Narendra Modi, Suresh Prabhu
After such incidents, do you still expect us to co-operate with the Police and have faith in these so called Law Enforcement forces in India?
Who gives them the right to even TOUCH US without any valid reason or proof? Are these people seriously the ones responsible for OUR SAFETY?
WE WILL NOT BE SUPPRESSED AND THIS NEEDS TO STOP. NOW.
#Shame

Comment #4:

Laws-

The Bangalore Metro Rail (Carriage and Ticket) Rules 2011 limit the weight of personal baggage to 15 kg. Rule 3 says: “No person shall, while travelling in metro railway, carry with him any goods other than a small baggage containing personal belongings not exceeding 60cm x 45cm x 25cm in size and 15kg in weight, except with the prior approval of the metro railway administration.” The rules also prohibit carrying explosive, inflammable, and poisonous substances.

The Metro Railway (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002, imposes fines and in some cases jail sentences for offences committed on the metro. Anyone indulging in sabotaging the train or maliciously hurting or attempting to hurt other passengers while travelling in the metro can face imprisonment up to 10 years. Pasting posters or drawing graffiti on the walls of stations or trains is punishable by a fine of ₹1,000 or imprisonment for up to 6 months. Travelling in an inebriated state or creating nuisance in the train is punishable by a ₹500 fine. Passengers are monitored at security checkpoints and those that are causing trouble, heavily drunk, or carrying forbidden items are not permitted to board. Spitting on the metro premises is punishable by a fine of ₹100.

Comment #5:

I hope you are innocent fight back and get back to work and train travel with your bicycle this time with any rule copy. If you are innocent nothing should stop you should fight back even if you dont have enough evidence . Expose them to society and put them to shame .believe your friends and family know your nature have confidence. We are all with you.

Reproduced here for Academic information.

Source : #Facebook #TheLogicalIndian

The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : India’s benign constitutional revolution

The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : India’s benign constitutional revolution:


How ‘We the People’ came to be the source of authority of the Constitution

This is the story of how and why the framers of the Constitution of India deliberately designed a procedural error in the adoption of the new Constitution with a view to severing the seamless transition of legal authority from the British Crown-in-Parliament to the new Republic of India. The deliberate procedural error consisted in a deviation from the Constitution making procedure prescribed by the Indian Independence Act, 1947 — the law enacted by the British Parliament granting India independence and formally authorising the Constituent Assembly to draft a Constitution for the newly liberated state. To be sure, the framers of the Constitution of India were not the first, and indeed they were not the last to deliberately incorporate such procedural errors in the process of Constitution making. The founders of the Constitutions of several other states including Ireland, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Ghana, which were being liberated from the British Empire, took such a step. In doing so, they were all motivated by the same goal: that of ensuring constitutional ‘autochthony.’


CONSTITUTIONAL AUTOCHTHONY

The etymological roots of ‘autochthony,’ which is not to be confused with ‘autonomy,’ are to be found in the Greek autos (self) and chthon (earth). The goal of constitutional autochthony is to deliver an indigenous Constitution, the source of whose ‘authority’ can be located in the new state’s own soil. The dominant academic view in the middle of the 20th Century was that autochthony could not be achieved simply by drafting an original Constitution or verbally invoking We the People as the source of its authority, for autochthony does not so much concern the content of the Constitution as its pedigree: the chain of legal validity authorising it.


This proposition found doctrinal support in the influential theory propounded by the legal philosopher, Hans Kelsen, which had it that it was inconceivable for a legal system to split into two independent legal systems through a purely legal process. One of the implications of Kelsen’s theory was that the basic norm (grundnorm) of the imperial predecessor’s Constitution would continue to be at the helm of the legal system of the newly liberated former colony despite the legal transfer of power, precisely because the transfer of power was recognised as ‘legal’ by the Constitution of the imperial predecessor.

On Kelsen’s account, only an ‘unlawful’ or ‘revolutionary’ act could ensure an autochthonous Constitution by rending asunder all continuity with the imperial predecessor.
Such break in legal continuity is automatically achieved where a former colony’s independence is won as the result of an armed revolution, as was the case with the United States of America. Independence in such instances is not granted ‘legally’ by the Crown-in-Parliament and the Constitution of the newly liberated former colony is in no way authorised by the imperial predecessor. The situation is very different where independence of a former colony is not brought about by armed revolution, but is ‘legally’ granted by the imperial predecessor. This was the case with India, Pakistan, Ireland, Sri Lanka and Ghana whose independence was the result of the British Crown-in-Parliament’s enactment of separate statutes of independence (Independence Act) for each of them. The statutes of independence also set up Constituent Assemblies authorising them to draft new Constitutions for each of these States. Following the constitution-making procedure stipulated in the statute of independence would have meant that the validity of the new Constitution could ultimately be traced to an imperial grant. The mere verbal invocation of We the People as the ‘source’ of authority in such cases would have rung hollow, apart from being jurisprudentially implausible since the source of authority of the new Constitution would continue to be the imperial predecessor’s Constitution. In such cases, it was thought that since there was no ‘revolution,’ one had to be deliberately made up in order to secure an autochthonous Constitution. Accordingly, as John Finnis argues, the framers of new Commonwealth Constitutions took great care to do something illegal “so as to make up a revolution, however contrived.”
IRISH INFLUENCE

The Irish were the pioneers in conceiving the idea of a benign legal revolution geared towards constitutional autochthony. Ireland was granted independence under the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922 enacted by the British Crown-in-Parliament which also authorised the Irish Constituent Assembly to draft a Constitution for the newly liberated state. Thus, the Irish Constitution of 1922 was not autochthonous.
Though it was drafted by an indigenous Constituent Assembly, its chain of legal validity could be traced to an imperial statutory grant. With a view to changing this state of affairs, in 1937 the Irish Parliament amended the Constitution by deliberately violating the procedure for amendment stipulated in the 1922 Constitution and put the amended Constitution for acceptance in a referendum. Going one step further, the Irish Parliament also repealed the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922 enacted by the British Parliament, though it was not empowered to do so. It is widely accepted that this successfully severed the chain of validity with the Crown-in-Parliament and ensured a truly autochthonous Constitution. The framers of the Indian Constitution appear to have rehearsed the Irish route to autochthony to the extent possible in Indian conditions.
Independence was formally granted to India by the Crown-in-Parliament’s enactment of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 though the executive decision to grant India independence was arrived at earlier in the Cabinet Mission Plan (1946). It was under the Cabinet Mission Plan that the Constituent Assembly was envisaged and charged with the mandate of drafting the new Constitution for India. This was legally recognised in Section 8 of the Independence Act. The Cabinet Mission Plan had envisaged that the new Constitution would be put to the Crown-in-Parliament for approval. Though the Indian Independence Act did not reiterate this requirement, it did specify that the new Constitution drafted by the Constituent Assembly would have to receive the assent of the Governor General of India, who would assent to such law in the name of the British Crown.
The framers introduced two deliberate procedural errors in the enactment of the Constitution of India in violation of the Independence Act: a) They did not put the Constitution to the approval of the either the British Parliament as envisaged by the Cabinet Mission Plan or the Governor-General as envisaged in the Indian Independence Act 1947; b) Following the Irish precedent, Article 395 of the Constitution of India repealed the Indian Independence Act — something the Constituent Assembly did not have the authorisation to do. In doing so, the framers not only repudiated the source which authorised them to enact the Constitution but it was also a denial, albeit symbolic, of Indian independence being a grant of the imperial Crown-in-Parliament. This ensured that the chain of constitutional validity did not extend all the way to the Crown-in-Parliament, thus delivering a completely autochthonous Constitution. In this fashion, We the People, through the members of the Constituent Assembly, came to be the ‘source’ of authority of the Constitution, rather than the authority being traceable to the Indian Independence Act enacted by the British Crown-in-Parliament.

WHY DID IT MATTER?

This quest for autochthony is likely to come across to some as an abstruse quibble that shouldn’t concern anyone other than the most pedantic legal theorists. There were, however, two reasons why the framers of new Commonwealth Constitutions felt constrained to pay such close attention to it. Firstly, it was feared that the British Crown-in-Parliament could, however improbably, reassert its authority over the newly liberated state by repealing the statute of independence and abrogating the new Constitution. There was, of course, no immediate apprehension of the British taking such a step. All the same, the framers of new Commonwealth Constitutions would have found, as Geoffrey Marshall notes, merely prudential reassurances to be precarious pegs to hang their nation’s independence on. Secondly, for sentimental considerations, the framers would have been loath to let the new Constitution be grounded in an imperial grant or be assented to by the British Crown. They would have wanted the new Constitution to be truly autochthonous, stemming from the authority of We the Peopleso that an independent future could, albeit symbolically, be insulated from a troubled imperial past.
(Shivprasad Swaminathan is Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School)

'via Blog this'