- Clarion Of Dalit - Weekly Newspaper On
Working For The Rights
& Survival Of The Oppressed
Editor: NAGARAJA.M.R… VOL.8
Muslim personal law is barbaric: Justice Markandey Katju
Press Council of India chief Markandey Katju on Tuesday described
the Muslim personal law as barbaric and backward supporting the
imposition of the uniform civil code. He contended that every modern
country has a uniform civil code but no one speaks out in India due to
the "Muslim vote bank", citing the reversal of apex court judgment in
Shah Bano case.
Speaking on the lack of equal access to
justice for women at the Indian Women's Press Corps Katju said, "The
Muslim personal law is barbaric, backward and unjust...it is a feudal
law. All countries in the world have one law...why shouldn't we? I
support the uniform civil code."
The uniform civil code has
been a core issue for the BJP. In fact law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad
in a recent Parliament response said that the government would consult
all stakeholders before taking any steps in the direction.
Katju also bemoaned the "alarming trend" of corruption in judiciary.
Katju had recently stirred a controversy by raising the issue of
corruption amongst judges. When asked about the increasing cases of
corruption the former SC judge said, "Harsh punishment should be given
to corrupt judges...the corrupt should be hanged."
differed with former Chief Justice R M Lodha on the issue of "cooling
period' for two years saying there was no rule restraining judges from
taking up government assignments or constitutional posts after their
"There is no such hard and fast rule. There is no such
rule (of two year cooling-off period). There are number of institutions
(required to be occupied by the retired judges like tribunals), do you
want them to be occupied by politicians?" he asked.
Defending former CJI P. Sathasivam becoming the Kerala governor, he said
that there was nothing wrong in it. "If you want to criticize for the
sake of criticism, you are welcome. Give him some time. Don't start
attacking him right away. There is nothing wrong (in accepting the
governorship)," said Katju.
Hundreds of judges have been
appointed as the head of various organisations, of late. Justice
G.S.Singhvi was appointed to head the Competition Appellate Tribunal and
Justice B.S.Chauhan as the head of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, he
He also criticized former CJI Lodha for saying that
Justice Katju was defaming the higher judiciary by exposing the
questionable acts of certain judges, wondering whether the judiciary was
being defamed by those indulging in corrupt activities or those who are
exposing them and bringing them to light.
He claimed that very
often chief justices shove under the carpet such cases when they are
brought to their notice, and demanded harsh punishment for judges
accused of corruption.
Editorial : AN APPEAL TO
HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA - MORE
IMRAANAS & SHA BANOOS - URGENT NEED FOR UNIFORM CIVIL
Take recent cases of Maryada Murders or Honour
killings , rape cases of women . Decades old case of rape victim, SMT. Imraana
has proved that how inhuman , illogical the fatwa & shariat laws of muslim
community are. It remindsus of medieval times. The so-called ardent followers
of shariat laws, only force it on their women folk. The shariat laws with
respect to men folk like prohibition on drinking, smoking, adultery,etc &
the punishments like public stoning to death are not enforced. The muslim men
are authorised by shariat to marry more women but they must look after all
their needs as per shariat. They can divorce their wives by triple talaq if
they are not satisfied with them. This part of shariat is carried out by
menfolk however the other part of shariat which stipulates paying back of
dukthari, woman's belongings,her properties all to her after talaq are not at
The male chauvinists in muslim community are the worst violators
of shariat. They are suitably manipulating shariat to supress muslim women. The
central government is also dancing to the tunes to safeguard it's vote bank.
Take the case of shaa banoo during P.M. Rajiv gandhi's regime. Inspite of
supreme court ruling to pay living expenses to her by her ex-husband, the govt
passed a bill annulling the SC verdict.
The govt gives subsidy to haj pilgrims, does it give the same
amount of subsidy to kashi pilgrims, bodhgaya pilgrims, bethleham &
Jerusalem pilgrims ? The women folk of different religions don't enjoy same
property rights in their parent's property. The govt has enacted
laws which are itself unequal, illogical & violative of fundamental rights
of citizens, all to appease a votebank.
All religions are based on humanity & equitable justice, are
good, great & lead to the same supreme power. It is the subsequent
interpretations which are inhuman. According to times, the medieval rituals
which may be right at that time, at that place but now inhuman, illogical at
this time & at this place-india, should be dropped. The religion must be
within the confines of home. Before law, everybody is equal & must be
treated as equals, both women & men.
Hereby, HRW urges the honourable supreme court of india to order
the govt of india to enact uniform civil code within a time frame. JAI HIND.
Nagaraja. M. R .
Raped at gunpoint by father-in-law, clerics order to treat her
husband as her son
In a chilling reminder
of the Imrana case, yet another young woman from Muzaffarnagar who allegedly
fell victim to her father-in-law’s sexual assault faces a bleak future after
mullahs declared that the husband of the victim will be treated as her son.
The 28-year-old victim
alleged that her husband has been working in Dubai for the last two years and
her father-in-law has been sexually assaulting her at gun point since 2013.
She remained silent
because he used to threaten to kill her. He also video recorded his act and
threatened to make it public if she opened her mouth.
When she told her
husband about it, he blamed her for making a false allegation against his
When she finally told
her parents, they suggested her to take legal action against her rapist
She created ruffles in
the local administration and the Muslim community on Thursday by moving an
application before District Magistrate Kaushal Raj Sharma to arrest her
father-in-law and allow her to abort her seven-month pregnancy.
After the application by
the victim, clerics jumped into the case and declared that the husband of the
victim will be treated as her son.
Avoiding any comment
against the father-in-law who repeatedly raped and blackmailed the victim,
Maulana Mohammad Nazar of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind said: “As per the Sharia law, the
baby in her womb is her husband’s brother. Her husband must divorce her, even
if his father looked at his wife with lust.”
In 2007, Imrana's case,
which was broadly similar with the clerics declaring her marriage null and void
after she was raped by her father-in-law, had led to a tsunami of criticism of
the mullahs who have been treading cautiously on inter-personal issues ever
From Wikipedia, the
The Imrana rape case is the case of the sexual assault of a 28 year-old Indian Muslim woman by her father-in-law on 6 June 2005 in
Charthawal village in the Muzaffarnagar districtUttar Pradesh, India (located 70 km from Delhi). The village elders and subsequently,
several levels of Islamic legal opinion regarded Imrana's marriage with her
husband null, as the Sharia regards sexual relations with both the father and
son as incestuous. This sparked nation-wide controversy as critics argued the
case was treated as adultery and not rape.
Rape and Islamic rulings
On 6 June 2005, Imrana, 28 years old at the time, and the
mother of five children, was raped by her 69-year-old father-in-law Ali
Soon after she was raped, a local Muslim panchayat (council of elders) asked
her to treat her husband Nur Ilahi as her son and declared their marriage null
and void. Imrana defied the
panchayat's ruling and continued living with her husband.
The leading Islamic seminary Darul
Uloom Deoband also issued a fatwa or opinion, which quotes
from Quran 4:22: wa la tankihoo ma nakaha
“And marry not women whom your fathers married”, and not distinguishing between
rape and adultery, said that as a result of her father-in-law's act, she should
now be treated as the mother of her husband and she could no longer live with
him even though Imrana had not married her father-in-law. She was still married
to her husband when she was raped by her father in law therefore the fatwa
provided by the panchayat's disregard the Islamic rulings against rape and the
punishment for the rapists. Due to such fatwa Imrana is in a way being
prosecuted instead of her rapist father in law as she is being ordered to leave
her husband and start a life with her rapist. The fatwa is a clarification of
the ruling by the village leaders who disregarded the Islamic teachings for
such cases for the sake of shunning Imrana who is thought to have brought shame
to the community by having sexual intercourse with her father in law.
Later, the Deoband seminary denied that it
has issued such a fatwa. Nur Ilahi continued to
stay with Imrana and said that "[they] neither sought advice nor counsel
from Deoband. [They] have not raised the issue before clerics."
After Imrana's case was highlighted by the
national media, the National Commission for Women directed authorities in
Muzaffarnagar to take action. The body's chairperson Girija Vyas asked the Uttar Pradesh
government to punish the guilty and sought a report on the incident.
Arrest of father-in-law
Police registered a case under sections 376
(rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code against Mohammed Ali and
arrested him. Police also filed a case against him on 30 June 2005 with a
medical report and recorded Imrana's statement before a magistrate. The court
had turned down Mohammed Ali's bail plea on 5 December 2005
In a video recorded by the Muslim Political
Council of India, Imrana (veiled) says that
once she screamed, Mohammed Ali had run away. On being asked again, she
reiterates that the forceful attempt was not successful.
However, the court took a different view
based on evidence presented in the trial. On October 2006, Mohammed Ali was
condemned to a prison term of ten years for raping Imrana. At one point the
defense lawyer sought a leniency based on age of the defendant, but this was
denied. The judge also directed
Mohammed Ali to pay compensation of Rs 8,000 to Imrana for
raping her. On the separate charge of
criminal intimidation, Mohammed ali was sentenced to three years in prison and
fined in Rs 3,000.
Chronology of events in the Imrana rape
13 June 2005: A local Muslim panchayat declared Imrana's
marriage to Nur Ilahi void as she "had sex" with her father-in-law
and asks her to treat her husband as her son, which means she would have to
stop living with him.
13 June 2005: Mohammed is arrested.
16 June 2005: Mohammed is sent to
30 June 2005: The police filed cases
against Mohammed along with a medical report. Imrana's statement is recorded
before a magistrate.
5 December 2005: The court turned down
Mohammed's bail plea.
30 December 2005: The charges are framed
19 October 2006: The court sentenced
Mohammed to 10 years in prison for raping Imrana. He also received a three-year
term for a separate charge of criminal intimidation.
Jump up^ "Tahir
Mahmood, The legal fiction behind the controversy". Tehelka.com.
Supreme Court calls for common civil code
The Supreme Court has expressed distress over
the government's failure in enacting a common civil code to end discrimination
between various religious communities in the areas of marriage, succession and
property and felt that such a code would help in removing contradictions based
on religious ideologies.
The court also
declared as unconstitutional section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925,
which applies to Christians alone and not any other community and imposes
restrictions on the community from bequeathing their property for religious and
charitable purposes by will.
This is not the
first time that the apex court has drawn the law makers' attention towards the
unfulfilled constitutional obligation to give effect to Article 44 of the
Constitution. This provision says: ``The state shall endeavour to secure for
the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.''
In the famous Shah Bano case and later in a
judgment relating to a Hindu husband converting to Islam in order to legally
justify bigamy and avoid penal action, the court had hoped that Parliament
would enact a common civil code.
judgment is a fall out of a writ petition filed by a Roman Catholic priest,
John Vallamattom, filed six years ago challenging the constitutional validity
of section 118 of the Indian Succession Act on the ground of discrimination.
Section 118 says
that a person having a nephew or niece or any near relative cannot bequeath his
property for religious or charitable purposes unless the will is executed not
less than 12 months before his death, or the will is deposited within six
months from its execution to a place provided by law and it remains in such
deposit till his death.
Justice A R
Lakshmanan described the provision as ``undue, harsh and special burden on the
Christian testor alone''. Chief Justice V N Khare said that the period of 12
months could not have been linked to the object of performing the philanthropic
act. ``As the charitable purposes are philanthropic and since a person's
freedom to dispose off property for such purposes has nothing to do with
religious influence, section 118 treating bequests for both religious and
charitable purposes is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution,'' he added.
said despite the Kerala High Court declaring the provision unconstitutional as
far back as 1998, Parliament had not removed it and hence the apex court must
declare it as unconstitutional.
significant observation dealing with the arguments against a common civil code,
CJI Khare said: ``It is no matter of doubt that marriage, succession and the
like matters of secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee
enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution (right to freedom of
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
Mohd. Ahmed Khan and Shah Bano Begum and
Full case name
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum And Ors
23 April 1985
1985 SCR (3) 844
A woman has a right to claim maintenance
under Section 125 of CrPC as the Code is a criminal law and
not a civil law.
Y. V. Chandrachud (Chief Justice), Rangnath Misra, D A
Desai, O Chinnappa Reddy, E S Venkataramiah
Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985 SCR
(3) 844), commonly referred to as the Shah
Bano case, was a controversial maintenance lawsuit in India.
Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim mother
of five from Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was divorced by her husband in
1978. She filed a criminal suit in the Supreme court of
India, in which she won the right to alimony from
her husband. However, she was subsequently denied the alimony when the Indian
Parliament reversed the judgement under pressure from Islamic orthodoxy. The judgement in favour of the woman in this case evoked
criticisms among Muslims some of whom cited Qur'an to show that the
judgement was in conflict with Islamic law. It triggered controversy about the extent of having
different civil codes for different religions, especially for Muslims in India. This case caused the Congress government, with its absolute
majority, to pass the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which diluted the judgment of the
Supreme Court and, in reality, denied even utterly destitute Muslim divorcées
the right to alimony from their former husbands. However, in the later Daniel
Latificase, the Supreme Court interpreted the act in a manner reassuring
the validity of the case.
In 1932, Shah Bano, a
Muslim woman was married to Mohammed Ahmad Khan, an affluent and well-known
advocate Indore, Madhya Pradesh and had five children from the marriage. After
14 years, Khan took a younger woman as second wife and after years of living
with both wives, he threw Shah Bano who was then aged 62 years and her five
children out. In April 1978, when Khan stopped giving her 200
per month he had apparently promised, claiming that she had no means to support herself and her
children, she filed a petition at a local court in Indore, against her husband
under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, asking him for a
maintenance amount of 500
for herself and her children. On November 1978 her husband gave an irrevocable talaq (divorce)
to her which is his prerogative under Islamic Law and took up the defence that
hence Bano had ceased to be his wife and therefore he was under no obligation
to provide maintenance for her as except prescribed under the Islamic law which
was in total 5,400. In August 1979, the local court directed Khan to pay a
sum of 25
per month to Bano by way of maintenance. On 1 July 1980, on a revisional
application of Bano, High Court of Madhya Pradesh enhanced the amount of
maintenance to 179.20
per month. Khan then filed a petition to appeal before the Supreme Court
claiming that Shah Bano is not his responsibility anymore because Mr. Khan had
a second marriage which is also permitted under Islamic Law.
On 3 February 1981,
the two judge bench composed of Justice Murtaza Fazal Ali and A. Varadarajan
who first heard the matter, in light of the earlier decisions of the court
which had held that section 125 of the Code applies to Muslims also, referred
Khan's appeal to a larger Bench. Muslim bodies All
India Muslim Personal Law Board and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hindjoined
the case as intervenor. The matter was then heard by a five judge bench
composed of chief justice Chandrachud, Jangnath Misra, D A Desai, O. Chinnappa Reddy,
and E S Venkataramiah. On 23 April 1985, Supreme Court in a unanimous decision,
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the High Court.
concluded that "there is no conflict between the provisions of section 125
and those of the Muslim Personal Law on the question of the Muslim husband's
obligation to provide maintenance for a divorced wife who is unable to maintain
herself." After referring to Holy Quran, holding it to the greatest
authority on the subject, it held that there was no doubt that the Quran
imposes an obligation on the Muslim husband to make provision for or to provide
maintenance to the divorced wife." Shah Bano, approached the courts for securing
maintenance from her husband. When the case reached the Supreme Court of
India, seven years had elapsed. The Supreme Court invoked Section
125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which applies to everyone regardless of
caste, creed, or religion. It ruled that Shah Bano be given maintenance money,
similar to alimony.
Court also regretted
that article 44 of Constitution of India in relation to bringing of Uniform Civil Code in India remained a dead letter and
held that a common civil code will help the cause of national integration by
removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies.
Some Muslims felt
threatened by what they perceived as an encroachment of the Muslim Personal Law, and protested loudly at the judgment.
Their spokesmen were Obaidullah Khan Azmi and Syed kazi. They had formed an
organization in 1973 known as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board devoted
to upholding what they saw as Muslim Personal Law.
The Shah Bano judgment, as claimed, became the
centre of raging controversy, with the press turning it into a major national
issue. The Shah Bano judgment elicited a protest from many
sections of Muslims who also took to the streets against what they saw, and
what they were led to believe, was an attack on their religion and their right
to their own religious personal laws.
article: The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act
In the Indian
general election, 1984, Indian National Congress had won absolute
majority in the Indian parliament. After the Shah
Bano judgment, many leaders
in the Indian National Congress, suggested then prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi that
if the government did not enact a law in Parliament overturning the Supreme
Court judgement, the Congress would face decimation in the polls ahead. In 1986, the Parliament of India passed an act titled The
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 that nullified the
Supreme Court's judgment in the Shah
Bano judgment. Diluting the
Supreme Court judgment, the act allowed maintenance to a divorced woman only
during the period of iddat, or till 90 days after the divorce, according to the
provisions of Islamic law. This was in stark contrast to Section 125 of the Code. The 'liability' of husband to pay the maintenance was
thus restricted to the period of the iddat only."
The "Statement of
Objects and Reasons" of the act stated that "the Shah Bano decision
had led to some controversy as to the obligation of the Muslim husband to pay
maintenance to the divorced wife and hence opportunity was therefore taken to
specify the rights which a Muslim divorced woman is entitled to at the time of
divorce and to protect her interests."
The law received
severe criticism from several sections of the society. The Opposition called it
another act of "appeasement" towards the minority community by the
Indian National Congress. The All India Democratic Women's Association (AIDWA)
organised demonstrations of Muslim women against the move to deprive them of
rights that they had hitherto shared with the Hindus. This law has been alleged
to have been brought by then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi for Muslim appeasement.
The Bharatiya Janata
Party regarded it as
an `appeasement' of the Muslim community and discriminatory to Non-muslim men
and saw it as a "violation of the sanctity of the country's highest
court". The 'Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act'
was seen as discriminatory as it denied divorced Muslim women the right to
basic maintenance which women of other faiths had access to under secular law. Makarand Paranjape sees the overruling of Supreme Court
verdict in Shah Bano case which happened when the Congress party
was in power, as one of the examples of the party's pseudo-secular tactics
which allowed "cynical manipulation of religion for political ends". Lawyer and former law minister of India, Ram Jethmalani has termed the act as
"retrogressive obscurantism for short-term minority populism". Rajiv Gandhi's colleague Arif Mohammad Khan who was INC member and a minister in
Gandhi's cabinet resigned from the post and party in protest.
Critics of the Act
point out that while divorce is within the purview of personal laws,
maintenance is not, and thus it is discriminatory to exclude Muslim women from
a civil law. Exclusion of non-Muslim men from a law that appears inherently
beneficial to men is also pointed out by them. Hindu nationalists have repeatedly contended that a
separate Muslim code is tantamount to preferential treatment and demanded a
uniform civil code.
The Act has led to
Muslim women receiving a large, one-time payment from their husbands during the period of iddat,
instead of a maximum monthly payment of 500
- an upper limit which has since been removed. Cases of women getting lump sum
payments for lifetime maintenance are becoming common. However it is seen that despite its unique feature of no
ceiling on quantum of maintenance, the Act is sparingly used because of the
lack of its knowledge even among lawyers. The legal fraternity generally uses
the CrPC provision while moving maintenance petitions, considering it handy.
The Shah Bano case had
once again spurred the debate on the Uniform Civil Code in India. Ironically,
the Hindu Right led by parties like the Jan Sangh which
had strongly opposed reform of Hindu law in the 50's, in its metamorphosis as
the Bharatiya Janata Party became an advocate for secular laws across the
board. However, their opposition to the reforms was based on the argument that
no similar provisions would be applied for the Muslims on the claim that they
weren't sufficiently advanced. The pressure exerted by orthodox Muslims caused
women's organizations and secularists to cave in.
validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was
challenged before the Supreme Court in Danial
Latifi & Anr v. Union Of India by
Daniel Latifi who was the lawyer of Shah Bano in the Shah Bano case. The
Supreme Court tried to maintain a balancing act, attempting to uphold Muslim
women's rights without addressing the constitutionality of gender and religious
discrimination in personal law. Court reiterated the validity of the Shah Bano
judgment. The Muslim Personal Law Board, an intervenor, questioned the
authority of the court to interpret religious texts.
The Court concluded
that the Act does not, in fact, preclude maintenance for divorced Muslim women,
and that Muslin men must pay spousal support until such time as the divorced
wife remarries. However the Court held that if the Act accorded Muslim
divorcees unequal rights to spousal support compared with the provisions of the
secular law under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, then the law
would in fact, be unconstitutional. Further the Supreme Court construed the statutory
provision in such a manner that it does not fall foul of articles 14 and 15 of
the Constitution of India. The provision in question is Section 3(1)(a) of the
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which states that
"a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to
her within the iddat period by her former husband". The Court held this
provision means that reasonable and fair provision and maintenance is not
limited for the iddat period (as evidenced by the use of word
"within" and not "for"). It extends for the entire life of
the divorced wife until she remarries.
OF UNTOUCHABILITY BY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN INDIA
- VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF DALITS
In india , rich people
belonging to forward castes form educational trusts , proclaiming that they
want to serve the society by providing education to all irrespective of caste
or creed. By this declaration they get Civic Amenity sites from government authorities
at concessional rates. Further they get tax , duty
exemptions on materials , machines they import for the educational institution.
However , while admitting students they are purely commercial minded ,
the highest bidder gets the seats.
IF AT ALL THE SOLE
AIM OF THESE INSTITUTIONS IS COMMERCIAL – LET THEM BE REGISTERED AS COMMERCIAL
BODIES , ASK THEM TO GET SITES AT COMMERCIAL MARKET RATES , ASK THEM TO PAY
MATERIALS , MACHINES & THEIR YEARLY INCOME. ENFORCE MINIMUM WAGES ACT ,
GRATUITIES ACT , P.F & ESI ACT TO THESE INSTITUTIONS WHO ARE PAYING A
PITTANCE TO THEIR STAFF.
Some institutions like industrial training institutes ( I.T.I) , polytechnics ,
engineering colleges & medical
colleges run by trusts floated by forward castes lack basic infrastructure , to
teach students properly , they only appoint staff belonging to thier castes.
Dalits , minorities , weaker section people are not at all selected. They don't
publicly advertise for vacancies. They fill all posts with thier own caste people
& finally even get government grant in aid. How ? These institutions are
getting affiliations , yearly approvals form the government , how ? actually
they should have been shut. These trusts want government backing for tax
exemptions , lands at concessional rates ,monetary benefits , etc , however the
same trusts are not willing to implement the social welfare objectives of the
government , by providing seats to weaker sections , by providing appointments
to dalits few posts in all category of positions ( not just group D -
dalits are also brilliant & capable of performing all jobs, they have
proved it ).
Hereby , we urge honourable prime minister of india , government of india
& honourable chief minister of karnataka , government of
karnataka to :
1. before giving lands at concessional rate , tax exemptions , to any
educational trusts the government must ensure that the trust must adhere to the
social welfare norms of the government from day one.
2. Before giving affiliations to educational institutions the govt must ensure
, are the institutions are providing sufficient infrastructure to students ?
3. Before giving grant in aid to any institution , the government must ensure
have the management provided jobs to dalits , minorities , etc as per norms
from the day one . if not grant in aid should be
rejected. Here there is no meaning in giving reservation of jobs in future
appointments in those institutions , as all the posts are presently filled with
forward castes , there is no expansion projects.
So , dalits have to wait for another 30-40 years to get the vacancies in those
institutions after the retirement of forward caste employees , which is not at
all practical or realistic .
4. In karnataka state , numerous Industrial Training Institutes ( ITI) have
mushroomed , some don't even have basic infrastructure. Still they are running
the show , how ? these ITIs run by forward caste people have appointed only
their caste people to all posts , not even a single dalit is there. Still they
have got government grant in aid , how ? we urge honourable chief minister of
karnataka , to look into this & in future to provide grant in aid in aid to
only those I.T.Is which have proper infrastructure & dalits , weaker
section employees on their pay-rolls.
5. To order all educational institutions to make public announcement of
vacancies in their institutions even though not covered under grant in aid , as
they have already taken sufficient monetary
benefits from the government.
6. To order all educational institutions , to admit students as per government
rates of fees. Some institutions are fleecing higher fees from the students ,
but are giving receipts for lesser amount only.
7. If any educational institutions don't agree with the government norms
, those institutions must be asked to be registered as commercial bodies , no
tax exemptions , lands at concessional rates ,
allotment of CA sites should be given to them by the government.
By these measures alone poor & weaker section people will get justice . you
are aware of merited but poor students committing suicides year after
year , CET fiasco - due to their financial inability to join medical or
engineering colleges. Numerous similar cases are there with regard to admission
to ITIs .
polytechnics. The greed & casteism of these educational
institutions is reigning high. In the positive hope that you will be kind
enough to put an end to this menace.
ELIMINATE MANUAL SCAVENGING BUT NOT SCAVENGERS
appeal to honourable supreme court of India
In India, since
independence certain affirmative actions by the government like job
reservations , reservations in educational institutions , loan facilities , etc
are extended to the backward class , oppressed people. However , the persons
who have economically, socially become stronger on the basis of these
government affirmative actions are not letting their own brethren – scavenging
community to utilize the same. The politicians are just making noises
about sub caste reservation for scheduled castes & tribes , but doing
nothing. As a result , today we find some sub-castes & tribes of SC / ST
better off than their previous generation, some other sub-castes & tribes
of SC / ST are reeling under utter poverty , social ostracism , etc.
A human being can be in a
civilized form , healthy - if we have scavengers to clean our toilets ,
drainages , if we have barbers to cut our hairs. The very same people who keep
us healthy & civilized are not treated in a civilized manner by the society
, why ? most of the town municiapalities , city corporations are employing
scavengers on daily wages without any statuotary benefits & are paid less
than the statuotary minimum wages. every towns & cities in India are
bursting with population growth , however the number of scavengers has not been
increased in proportion to the growth of population , In most of the cases the
existing scavengers are overburdened with the work load. , Most of them
are suffering from occupational health hazards , are dying at young ages
leaving their families in the lurch.
Hereby, we appeal to honourable
supreme court of India to treat this as a PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
& to order government of India , all state governments , statuotary bodies
1. to regularize the jobs of all
scavengers , to provide all statuotary benefits like ESI,PF, etc.
2. to take all necessary steps to
eradicate manual scavenging – carrying human excreta on heads.
3. to take all necessary steps to
protect their health & occupational safety.
Bottomline : all the citizens , the society must learn to respect
their brethren who keeps them healthy , tidy & civilized. JAI HIND.VANDE
Private Sector – Its obligations to Dalits
-- By Rajindar Sachar
A lively but in my view, ill-informed, discussion is taking place in public on
the question of job quota in the private sector. The controversy has become sharper by the
weight of legal opinion of the Attorney General that it was not possible to
provide reservation for SCs and STs in the private sector without amending the Constitution. I have my reservation on the correctness of this view. I realize that
emphasis is made on job quota possibility because of our feudal and
hierarchical social system which puts a job in an office whether inprivate or public sector as the highest achievement. However, I feel that
though emphasis on job may be kept up, the real battle dalits need to fight is to have a share in the
expanding business opportunities and that too in proprietary capacity. It is in
this context that I put forward an alternative which is immediately available
and which can give more affluence, recognition and opportunities to dalits not only for jobs in private sector but for expanding the opportunities to share in
the growth of Indian economy, and that too without amending the Constitution.
It is well known that Central and State Governments award thousands of crores
worth of public works and contracts to the private sector. All these activities flow from the Government
playing a very crucial and significant role either to make a particular avenue
open to the private sector like the privatization and modernization of
airports, express highways Public Works Department, Delhi Development Authority
(DDA), Delhi and similar ones in number of other States for roads or even
construction of Govt. properties which are to be executed by the private contractors. I am of the view that if proper
steps available even under the present legal set up are taken, a very large
segment ofdalits population can be
absorbed and can take benefit of the rising economy.
It is in this context that a reference to USA legislation called the
"Public Works Employment Act of 1997" would be apt. That Act had a
minority business enterprise clause which provided that 10% (minority
population of USA) of the federal funds granted for local public works projects
must be used by state and local grantees to procure services or supplies from
business owned and controlled by "minority group members", the latter
being defined in the Act as United States citizens who are "Negroes,
This provision was challenged as denying an equal protection clause provided
under the 14th amendment of the US Constitution (from which Article 14 of our
Constitution has been adopted). The Court upheld the validity of the
legislation as it contained provisions designed to uplift those
socially-economically disadvantaged persons to a level where they may
effectively participate in the business mainstream of USA economy.
The arguments raised as to why the private contractors should be compelled and limit their
choice in this particular manner as to from where the supplies will be received
and whom they will sub-contract was rejected, by holding that "legislation
When effectuating a limited and properly tailored remedy to cure the effects of
prior discrimination, such "a sharing of the burden by innocent parties is
Question of constitutional objection is totally off the mark. After 44th
amendment Right to Property is no longer a fundamental right. Only
Parliamentary legislation is necessary to deprive a person of it without
compensation. It is also well settled that Article 19 confers no right on an
individual to carry on business with the Govt. – if it wishes it has to be on
terms settled by Govt. As such, no objection can be taken by the private sector to the provision making it incumbent on it to
share proportionately with Dalits the funds given to it by the Govt. or local body agencies.
Similarly, governments could prescribe conditions as a part of scheme of
disinvestment of public sector. It would then be permissible for the Central and State
Governments to provide that out of these amounts the private contractor will have to ensure that a certain
percentage which, to start with, could be fixed at 10% (though it is low as
compared to the dalits population of 15-16%) to be made available to them either in the
matter of sub-contracting or executing some works or in the matter of
employment. Such a course would require not only no constitutional amendment
but not even an Act of Parliament. The reason being that the Government, being
the spending authority, it is permissible for it by executive orders to direct
that a certain portion of this money available will be utilized either for
providing employment or for sub-contracts to the dalits. This is what was done in USA and which while
upholding the said legislation very eloquently observed – "if we are ever
to become a fully integrated society, one in which the colour of a person's
skin will not determine the opportunities available to him or her, we must be
willing to take steps to open those doors." The same principle aptly
applies to the position of dalits in our country.
Our Supreme Court has held that "economic empowerment of the poor, in
particular the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as is enjoined under
Article 46, is a constitutional objective as basic human and fundamental right
to enable the labourer, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to raise their
I see no reason why our Supreme Court which is far more progressive and
poor-oriented than the USA's Supreme Court, will not reject similar challenge.
But of course the overriding question still remains – is there a political will
and determination in the Central and State Governments to take on the combined
forces of Big Business.
I am convinced that it is not only jobs but business opportunities that need to
be opened to Dalits, to make a real change in their social and economic set up.
edited , printed , published & owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ : LIG-2
/ 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR ,HEBBAL
,MYSORE -570017 INDIA
cell : 91 9341820313 , 91 8970318202
A Member of Amnesty International