Noted criminal jurisprudence lawyer and Supreme Court Bar Association lifetime member PAMARTY VENKATARAMANA has radical views on how to tackle hate speech crimes. He tells MOHAMMAD JAVED RASHEEDI that an effective method would be to get the accused tried by military courts as these crimes are tantamount to anti-national actions and a court-martial is the best and most effective way to stem this rot.
Excerpts of the interview:
In the Delhi Dharam Sansad hate speech case, the Delhi Police recently closed all the complaints filed regarding the event. In its affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the Police questioned the petitioners for moving the Court without first approaching it. Is it wrong to directly approach the apex court?
India is a plural society. It has a comprehensive book of the people, the Constitution. Rule of law prevails in black and white. The Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code are applicable to all citizens. The provisions are clearcut and the procedures are well laid-out every literate person to understand. Sadly, the complexities and absurdities in both implementation and interpretation have arisen out of a Himalayan blunder by the founding fathers of the Constitution and the Constituent Assembly—the lack of a Uniform Civil Code which will bind customs, practices and erstwhile beliefs of the new Republic of India into one single law, be it on matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption or succession. As a result, the Orwellian line—“All men are equal but some men are more equal than others” – has literally come true in the country. This is compounded with unbridled freedom of expression enjoyed by TRP-hungry massmedia channels. There is no sanctity or curb on the "breaking news” hyped up by them, resulting in a whipping of emotions of the gullible public.
Diese Geschichte stammt aus der May 02, 2022-Ausgabe von India Legal.
Starten Sie Ihre 7-tägige kostenlose Testversion von Magzter GOLD, um auf Tausende kuratierte Premium-Storys sowie über 8.000 Zeitschriften und Zeitungen zuzugreifen.
Bereits Abonnent ? Anmelden
Diese Geschichte stammt aus der May 02, 2022-Ausgabe von India Legal.
Starten Sie Ihre 7-tägige kostenlose Testversion von Magzter GOLD, um auf Tausende kuratierte Premium-Storys sowie über 8.000 Zeitschriften und Zeitungen zuzugreifen.
Bereits Abonnent? Anmelden
PIL, Difficult To Swallow?
In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court lamented the increasing number of frivolous public interest litigations being filed in courts and echoed the sentiments of the Supreme Court that such litigations are the bane of the judicial system. Is there any way to restrict their misuse?
Till Infertility Do Us Part...
The Calcutta High Court slammed a husband for initiating divorce proceedings due to his wife's infertility and asked him to be a pillar of support for her. Courts have often taken an empathetic view in such matters
IS THAT LEGAL?
Ignorance of law is no excuse. Here are answers to frequently asked queries regarding matters that affect us on a day-to-day basis
The Big Lie
In America, The Big Lie is an idiom used by Donald Trump's opponents and the media to describe his constant gripe about election fraud. Now, it seems more suited to another Republican, Congressman George Santos (right), who has been facing growing calls to resign after he admitted fabricating parts of his resume and biography since his election in New York last year.
RIGHT TO DIE
Recently, a ruling by a five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court made the process of passive euthanasia less difficult and less time-consuming. What is the legal history of this matter and the issues involved?
ADANIGATE
The explosive crisis is a defining test for India Inc and corporate governance. The government can soften the national and international fallout only by investigating the Gautam Adani affair thoroughly and with extensive public disclosure
Supreme Court celebrates its Foundation Day
The Supreme Court celebrated its 73rd foundation day on February 4, for the first time since its inception in 1950. The event was organised in the auditorium of the apex court’s additional building complex.
Supreme Court says only Parliament can bar a candidate from contesting from two constituencies
The Supreme Court has refused to quash Section 33(7) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, that permitted a candidate to contest from two seats in elections, stating that no judicial interference was required in a matter that fell in the domain of legislative policy.
UNFORMED CIVIL CODE
The concept has been revived in recent times with a new bill which envisages the setting up of a committee to examine the issue. The code has enormous implications for religious minorities. Freedom of religion is the core of our culture. Even the slightest deviation can undermine the social fibre
MIGRANT VOTES
The Election Commission of India says it has developed a prototype for a Multi-Constituency Remote Electronic Voting Machine which would enable remote voting by migrant voters. The move is long overdue