Life or death decisions for India's new president

- AMMU KANNAMPILLY

Among the ceremonial invitations piled on the desk of India's new president Pranab Mukherjee sits a small file that could provide the veteran politician with one of his biggest challenges. The folder contains 11 mercy petitions from condemned convicts for whom Mukherjee now represents the last legal obstacle between their death row cells and the hangman.

As president, Mukherjee is required to decide on clemency petitions that are forwarded by the home ministry, in the final stage of India's death penalty appeals process. It is largely an inherited challenge.
India has more than 400 people on death row and the courts hand down fresh death sentences every year.
But Mukherjee's three presidential predecessors, while signing off on a number of recommendations for clemency, often stonewalled when it came to appeals the ministry recommended should be rejected. As a result, only one execution has taken place in 15 years -- that of a former security guard hanged in 2004 for the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl.

The lack of executions has led some to question why India retains a death penalty it so rarely enforces.
Colin Gonsalves, an advocate in the Supreme Court and a founder of the Human Rights Law Network, points to surveys showing public opinion strongly in favour of capital punishment.
"The idea of revenge is widely accepted here," Gonsalves said.
The ruling Congress Party is seen as having abolitionist leanings, but Gonsalves said it was unlikely to push for the death penalty to be eliminated, given its popular support.

"If they try to abolish it, then the opposition will appropriate the issue and attack them," Gonsalves said.
Some legal experts believe the hiatus on executions partly reflects reluctance to hang people affiliated with an ethnic, religious or political group.

The scheduled hanging of three Tamils for their role in the 1991 assassination of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi triggered large protests in the southern state of Tamil Nadu last year and the executions were eventually stayed.

There were similar protests this year by Sikhs in Punjab over a Sikh radical scheduled to hang for his role in the assassination of a state chief minister in 1995, another execution stayed at the last minute.

"The government has to wait and check which groups will be upset before you execute someone," said Supreme Court advocate Sanjay Hegde. Other observers say the main cause of the lack of executions has been the actions -- or not -- of Mukherjee's three predecessors, K.R. Narayanan, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Pratibha Patil.

The president's powers in deciding clemency petitions are limited. The recommendation of the home ministry can be returned for reconsideration -- but only once, after which the president is constitutionally obliged to follow the ministry's lead. However, there is no set time limit for providing the presidential signature, leaving room for endless delays.

After taking office in 1997, Narayanan opted to sit on eight clemency petitions until his term expired. Kalam followed suit. As well as the eight he inherited, he received 17 more, but acted on only two. One was approved and the other rejected -- leading to India's last execution in 2004. The growing list of 23 pending appeals was then passed on to Patil who received another nine petitions during her tenure.

In an attempt to clear the backlog, Patil acted on the home ministry's recommendations to grant clemency in 19 cases and refuse it in two, including the case of Rajiv Gandhi's murderers. She left 11 for Mukherjee, among them several toxic cases including Mohammed Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri Muslim sentenced to death for his role in the 2001 attack on India's parliament. Granting Afzal Guru clemency would risk a backlash, especially from Hindu right-wingers, while rejecting his appeal risks igniting Muslim separatist sentiment in volatile Kashmir.

Mukherjee may also come under pressure to reject any petition from Mohammed Kasab, the sole surviving gunman from the 2008 Mumbai attacks, who was sentenced to death two years ago. Political commentator R.Jagannathan told AFP Mukherjee was unlikely to hand down decisions that would upset public opinion ahead of elections in 2014. "Mukherjee is an acutely political person and he understands the impact of these decisions, so he is not going to push ahead with anything controversial," he said. "The Congress would like to see the death penalty go, but they cannot afford a fight."

This article was distributed through the NewsCred Smartwire.Original article © Agence France Presse 2012

Marriage Law or Husband killer ‘Gold Digger’ Law?

Marriage Law or Husband killer ‘Gold Digger’ Law?

400 hit the streets against unconstitutional and anti-male Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill

At the on-sight, it was a very nominal gathering that looked no more than 60-70 people and one could see that as more and more people were streaming in, banners and placards were coming up. A shamiana was put up and mattresses were laid down wherein people can sit. The mike was still to be connected and chaos yet ruled the place.

By around 10AM, things began to get clearer. Save Family Foundation (SFF), a Delhi based NGO that supports victimized and distressed men has organized an All India Protest against the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010. SFF is part of the Save Indian Family (SIF) movement that has been the spearhead of the men’s rights movement in India – talking and creating awareness about problems and issues faced by men, especially husbands and supporting them.



About the bill

This bill, which we prefer to call as The Gold Digger’s Law proposes to usurp at least 50% of moveable and immovable properties owned by husband in the event of a divorce. As per this bill named The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill,

1. It does not matter, as to why the marriage did not work.

2. It does not matter, whether wife already owns property.

3. It includes all properties (movable/immovable) that belong to the husband – bought prior to marriage, during marriage or acquired as part inheritance.

4. Duration of marriage is of no significance – a one month old marriage is same as a 20 year old marriage.

5. Only wife can oppose divorce if she thinks the divorce is going to create “financial hardship” for her. The husband has been deprived of this right.

6. This bill violates guidelines laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of India.

7. This bill is also silent on custody of children post-divorce.

Problem Areas

This bill has been brought forward owing to a recommendation made by the Honorable Supreme Court of India in Neetu Kohli vs. Naveen Kohli, wherein the court observed that litigations related to marriages were getting prolonged for no reason and because there was no ground for granting divorce under “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage”, parties kept on fighting to get divorce. Hence, it recommended that a ground for irretrievable breakdown of marriage be added in the divorce laws and the laws be so amended.

The recommendation also mentioned that with the introduction of such a ground, all other pending litigations between the parties like cases of dowry harassment, maintenance, child custody, etc. be also brought to an end and there was NO MENTION about any kind of division of property.

However, when the bill came out of the Govt. coffers, it was the exact opposite of the recommendation.

1. It made no mention about ending other pending litigations, and

2. It included a clause of giving at least 50% share of the husband’s property to wife.

The bill mentioned only about “financial hardship” of wives. What if, a man meets an accident that renders him handicapped for life and he is thrown into financial hardship and his wife files for divorce?


Ignoring interests of men and bowing to pressure from radical feminist groups, the Govt. of India went on violating one after another points in the recommendation made by the Honorable Supreme Court, rendering the bill as anti-husband as possible. Adding fuel to the fire was the male-hatred that reflected in the reporting by the mainstream media that called such an extortionary, unconstitutional, gender-biased and anti-male husband killer bill as PROGRESSIVE.

Various groups fighting for the welfare of men in society had also presented their recommendations and objections to this Bill before the Standing Committee of Parliament in November 2010. However, the committee conveniently chose to ignore men’s problems, even to the extent that remarks were coming like – “kya ho gaya jo aadha ghar de diya to, biwi ko hi diya hai na, naya bana lena dene ke baad, kisne roka hai?” (“So what if you have to part with 50% of your property, you are giving it to your wife only, make a new one after divorce, who has stopped you?”)

Such statements depict a very dangerous social mindset poised against men which considers men as disposable entities and beholds no respect for a man’s emotions. Only a man will understand the pain he undergoes when he is forced to pay to his abusive and demanding wife. And when laws are created with such a mindset at the background they will only wreak social havoc.

Sensing deep male hatred in the society, men’s rights activists decided “Enough is Enough” and demanded a complete rollback of this husband killer Gold Digger’s Law. As a result, a massive protest was organized, in which 400 leaders of the men’s rights movement, representing about 40 NGOs and 50000 members all over India, participated. This protest took place on the 18th of August 2012 from 10 AM to 4 PM and was held at the Jantar Mantar, New Delhi.

The protest went on day long wherein various leaders presented their thoughts on how this bill is going to adversely affect all marriages and how men are going to be harmed by this bill. Pamphlets were distributed to common people to create awareness about the bill. Street plays were organized by activists to showcase the pain of a husband and his family. Poems were recited to highlight the emotional trauma that a man undergoes in an abusive marriage.

Memorandums from various NGOs were submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office which contained a description about the objections and demands pertaining to this bill.

Prior to the event, men’s rights movement leaders met Members of Parliament (MPs) in Delhi and expressed concerns over the bill becoming a law. Many of the MPs resonated with the views of men’s rights movement and were ready to support us. Meeting the MPs would continue in future as well.



The demands made in the protest were,

1. “Rollback Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill” as Indian men do not want another extortionary law in the name of speedy divorce. As of now this bill has been approved by Cabinet and is pending debate in the houses. However, men’s rights organizations demand that the cabinet approval be undone and no such law should be passed.

2. A new bill must be re-written from scratch that will be as per the guidelines laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of India.

3. The Govt. of India, especially, the Ministry of Law and Justice must stop fooling the people of India and it must come out clean on the law-making process.

I would be ending this article in the words of Mr. Swarup Sarkar, Coordinator, Save Family Foundation, Delhi –

“Injustice somewhere is direct threat to justice everywhere.”

By: Virag Dhulia

Writer is an NIT Hamirpur Alumnus and a Software Engineer by profession

'Throw out illegal immigrants by process of law'

Excerpts from a speech made by the leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, on 9 August, in a discussion on the recent incidents of communal violence that took place in Assam

In Kokrajhar, the Bodo population is significant. Adjacent to the region is Dhubri. The 2001 Census shows here, almost 71 per cent of the population comprises not the ethnic minority but migrants. When the results of the 2011 Census are declared, this figure is likely to cross 80 per cent. Where do you have 80 per cent illegal immigrants adjacent to the Bangladesh border? Right next to the chicken's neck. Therefore, that is the kind of security threat it constitutes to India, besides being an expansion of the territory.

Today, we have friendly relations and we hope to strengthen those friendly relations. But no country will allow encroachment into its territory by illegal immigration. We have allowed it to take place. So, a question then arises: How do we get rid of these people? How do you say all of them are foreign nationals? Sir, I was reading and in terms of jurisprudence, the most legendary and liberal name in the world, at least from our jurisprudence point of view, has been that of Lord Denning. On the due process of law, how do you get rid of these people who are foreigners, who immigrate illegally, whether it is in America or anywhere? Whether it is a Pakistani or a British citizen or a Bangladeshi, who comes without legitimacy and enters our territory, must be thrown out by a due process.

You cannot say that a due process is not possible and, therefore, we do not throw them out. But Lord Denning has probably done the most monumental work on the due process of law. He is universally regarded as a global authority on the subject. Now, England does not face these kinds of threats. They only have some illegal immigration. Now, a liberal like him, when he refers to England, says, and I quote, “In recent times, England has been invaded” — he uses the word ‘invaded’ — “not by enemies, nor by friends but by those who seek England as a haven. In their own countries, there is poverty, disease and no homes. In England, there is social security, a national health service, guaranteed housing to all to be had for the asking without payment and without working for it. Once here, each seeks to bring his relatives to join him. So, they multiply exceedingly”.

This, he is speaking about the developed country, and here we are dealing with these bordering districts of Assam which are, as it is, economically deprived. So, you allow because there is pressure on land in Bangladesh, there is pressure on the economy in Bangladesh. So, you allow an en masse migration to take place. The result of that en masse migration is that you have a complete demographic change in those regions leading to social tensions.

What was the government’s approach? And, I will make good this charge against the present government. You had a law which is there in every country, which is called the Foreigners Act. The Foreigners Act is a law by which you check the illegitimate entry of foreigners into any country. The Foreigners Act always has a provision that whenever the State feels this man has entered the country illegally, the onus of proof is on this person to show he is a legitimate resident or a citizen. So, the Foreigners Act worked very well. So, every time the government of India feels that somebody, whether it is from any friendly or unfriendly state, has wrongfully entered into India or overstayed, the Foreigners Act notice is given.

The onus of proof is on him to show he has entered the country unlawfully. You should have applied the Foreigners Act. After all you had the Assam Accord in 1985. But the government said in 1983 that this Foreigners Act will not suit Assam. The state which is most affected by illegal entry of immigrants is Assam. So, you said, “This Act will not apply. We will bring the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act (IMDT Act)”. We have a tribunal which will determine it. What you did was, in that tribunal, you created a law so that you could make impossible the detection, determination and deportation of illegal foreigners.

The change which you suddenly brought about for Assam was for the rest of the country, the Foreigners Act would apply, but for Assam, the IMDT would apply.

Now, this Act was challenged. My party always had a view that this Act should be repealed; go back to the Foreigners Act. The Supreme Court struck down this Act.

We thought after the Supreme Court’s judgement, at least the government would now learn. So, what they did was they went back to the Foreigners Act, and framed rules under the Foreigners Act. The Foreigners Act said: “The onus is on the alleged foreigner to prove that he is an Indian citizen”. They said that this provision will not apply to Assam. For Assam, the provision is: The state will have to show that he is a foreigner. So, what the court struck down in the first round directly, they brought in indirectly with laws.

The Supreme Court considered the challenge a second time, again struck it down and said, ‘This is completely unconstitutional, this is not acceptable.’ So, your rules have also been struck down as ultra vires to the Act. We are back to square one and you are not allowing the Foreigners Act to operate.

Now what is the position in districts like Dhubri and Goalpara where you have 60, 70 or more than 80 per cent foreigners? On local inhabitants there is pressure, there is pressure on land, there is pressure on economy, there is pressure on resources, etc. You can say that there are so many people in the relief camps, these cases have been registered, the CBI will now investigate matters. This will be at best — I regret to use that word — a clerical approach to resolving this problem. Fortunately, we have the benefit of Mr Shinde who is looking at this matter afresh as the new home minister. I would urge him to please reject this approach, please go back to your present leadership. I do not know, I am getting mixed signals from your present chief minister, from the statements I read.
'via Blog this'