SOS e - Clarion Of Dalit

IT IS A FORUM TOWARDS PROTECTING THE CIVIL , HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE OPPRESSED - DALITS , MINORITIES & TRIBALS.The Criminal - Police - Politician - Judge - Criminals Nexus is trying to silence me in many ways. If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA together with jurisdictional police & District Magistrate will be responsible for it. Secure Mail : Naag@torbox3uiot6wchz.onion

Saturday, October 4, 2014

Uniform Civil Code Needed in India

S.O.S   e - Clarion  Of  Dalit  -  Weekly  Newspaper  On  Web 
Working  For  The  Rights  &  Survival  Of  The Oppressed
Editor: NAGARAJA.M.R… VOL.8 issue.40… .01/10/2014

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 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."

He however 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 retirement.
"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 noted.

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.


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 all followed.
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
various 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. VANDE MATARAM.
Your's sincerely,
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 father.
When she finally told her parents, they suggested her to take legal action against her rapist father-in-law.
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 since.

Imrana rape case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.[1][2]
·         1 Rape and Islamic rulings
·         2 Arrest of father-in-law
·         3 Timeline
·         4 See also
·         5 References
Rape and Islamic rulings[edit]
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 Mohammad.
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.[3] Imrana defied the panchayat's ruling and continued living with her husband.
The leading Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband also issued a fatwa[4] or opinion, which quotes from Quran 4:22: wa la tankihoo ma nakaha aaba-o-kum, “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.[5]
This fatwa was based on the Abu Hanifa school of Islamic Jurisprudence (Hanafi fiqh), which rules that on having sex with a man she marries, a woman has the status of mother to all his children. The other three schools, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali, reject this position[6][7] The All India Muslim Personal Law Board also endorsed the fatwa,[8] but opinions were divided between the Hanafi and Shafi'i,[6] the two sunni fiqh's mostly represented in India.
Later, the Deoband seminary denied that it has issued such a fatwa.[citation needed] 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."
At one point, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav also endorsed the view of the Darul Uloom that she can no longer live with her husband.
After Imrana's case was highlighted by the national media, the National Commission for Women directed authorities in Muzaffarnagar to take action.[9] 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[edit]
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,[10] 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.[11]
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.[12] The judge also directed Mohammed Ali to pay compensation of Rs 8,000 to Imrana for raping her.[13] 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 case:
·         6 June 2005: Ali Mohammed raped his daughter-in-law Imrana.
·         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 judicial custody.
·         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 against Mohammed.
·         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.
See also[edit]
·         Shah Bano case
1.     Jump up^ "Let's be fair to Imrana". Retrieved 2012-09-22.
2.     Jump up^ "Tahir Mahmood, The legal fiction behind the controversy".
3.     Jump up^ "Whatever Happened to... Imrana"Tehelka. 22 September 2007. Retrieved 2007-09-29.
4.     Jump up^ "Text of the Question and fatwa on Imrana". Milligazette. 8, July 2005 02:40 IST. Retrieved 2007-09-29.
5.     Jump up^ "Fighting for Imrana". Retrieved 2012-09-22.
6.     Jump up to:a b Rasheed Kidwai (29 June 2005). "Imrana rape splits Muslim board"The Telegraph.
7.     Jump up^ Sharique (19 October 2006). "Imrana case update".
8.     Jump up^ Aditi Bhaduri (2007-09-24). "Muslim Women in India Seek Secular Justice".
9.     Jump up^ [1][dead link]
10.   Jump up^ "T.A. Rahamani, The Imrana case, published by the Milli Gazette". Retrieved 2012-09-22.
11.   Jump up^ "Imrana on video - no rape". Retrieved 2012-09-22.
12.   Jump up^ Press Trust of India (20 October 2006). "'No leniency could be shown in Imrana's case'"Indian Express. Retrieved 2007-09-29.
13.   Jump up^ "DNA - India - Ali Mohammad found guilty of raping Imrana". Daily News & Analysis. Retrieved 2012-09-22.

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. 

The present 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. 

Justice Lakshmanan 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. 

In another 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 religion).''

Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It has been suggested that The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 be merged into this article. (Discuss)Proposed since May 2014.

Mohd. Ahmed Khan and Shah Bano Begum and Others
Emblem of the Supreme Court of India.svg
Full case name
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum And Ors
23 April 1985
1985 SCR (3) 844
Case history
Prior action(s)
Criminal Revision No. 320 of 1979, Madhya Pradesh High Court
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.
Case opinions
Y. V. Chandrachud (Chief Justice), Rangnath Misra, D A Desai, O Chinnappa Reddy, E S Venkataramiah
Laws applied
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Indian Penal Code.
Mohd. 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.[1][2][3][4][5] The judgement in favour of the woman in this case evoked criticisms[6][7][8] among Muslims some of whom cited Qur'an to show that the judgement was in conflict with Islamic law.[7] It triggered controversy about the extent of having different civil codes for different religions, especially for Muslims in India.[1][9] 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.[5][9][8] However, in the later Daniel Latificase, the Supreme Court interpreted the act in a manner reassuring the validity of the case.[10]


·         1 Background
·         2 Reactions to the judgment
·         4 Later developments
·         6 See also
·         7 Notes
·         8 References
·         9 External links


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 INR200 per month he had apparently promised,[11] 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 INR500 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 INR5,400.[2] In August 1979, the local court directed Khan to pay a sum of INR25 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 INR179.20 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.[2][12]

Opinion of Supreme Court[edit]

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.[12]
Supreme 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.[5][9][8][12]
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.[12]
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.[5][9][8][4]

Reactions to the judgment[edit]

The Shah Bano judgment, as claimed, became the centre of raging controversy, with the press turning it into a major national issue.[13] 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.[14]

Dilution of the effect of the judgment[edit]

Main article: The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986
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.[14] 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.[15] The 'liability' of husband to pay the maintenance was thus restricted to the period of the iddat only."[5][9][8][16]
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."[17]

Reactions to the act[edit]

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.[15] 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.[18]
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".[5][19] 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.[5] 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".[20] Lawyer and former law minister of India, Ram Jethmalani has termed the act as "retrogressive obscurantism for short-term minority populism".[21][22] 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.[23]
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.[5] Hindu nationalists have repeatedly contended that a separate Muslim code is tantamount to preferential treatment and demanded a uniform civil code.[24]

Later developments[edit]

The Act has led to Muslim women receiving a large, one-time payment[5] from their husbands during the period of iddat, instead of a maximum monthly payment of INR500 - an upper limit which has since been removed. Cases of women getting lump sum payments for lifetime maintenance are becoming common.[9] 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.[15]
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.[5][8][16][1]

Challenge to the validity of the Act[edit]

The constitutional 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.[10][17] 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.[17]

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.


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.

-         an 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 MATARAM.

Your's sincerely,

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, Spanish-speaking, Orientals…….".

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 not impermissible".

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 economic empowerment."

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        
 home page:   
A   Member  of  Amnesty  International  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home