Category: Law and Order

LAC- India v/s China

Amid the going tensions of the world crisis, Indian and Chinese armies are again and again clashing at various points along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Although, there were many times in the past when the two armies clashed with each other since there has not been a proper demarcation of the border lines between the two large economies. Also, incidents as these are uncommon along the LAC as both sides have differing perceptions of the alignment of boundaries. But what has caused a sudden attack on the Line of Actual Control?

Reasons for the current standoff-

Recently the standoff at LAC occurred at four places- Pangong Tso, Galwan Nalah, Demchock in Ladakh and Naku La in Sikkim, though the specific reasons for these clashes remain unclear. However, co-ordinated nature of Chinese intrusions at different points along LAC have raised concerns about Beijing’s intentions. At times it’s been noted that China’s reaction to Indian efforts over the last few years to build border infrastructure has been ultrasensitive and it fears that activities such as-
  • Construction of a feeder road near Galwan river connecting with the DS-DBO road.
  • Building a road in Pangong lake area.
Although both the new roads lie on the Indian side of LAC, their purpose is to strengthen further the Indian position along the LAC which might have irritated China which feared it and might have threatened it’s occupation of Aksai Chin and Lhasa-Kashgar highway. Also, China remains much more concerned about the newly constructed Dharchula to Lipulekh and believes that this newly inaugurated road has affected China’s border security in Tibet. While India decided to split Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir last year, a that unsettled Pakistan. Many experts believe India’s aggressive position on the issue of Ladakh and PoK is the real reason behind current standoff.

What is China trying to signal?

This time, the scope, scale and posture of China’s moves were unprecedented. Against the backdrop of dramatically slowing economy, criticism for the handling of the outbreak of the Coronavirus and worsening ties with many countries, Chinese leaders may have felt the need to show strength, especially over questions of national sovereignty. This can be seen, not only regarding the border with India, but also regarding Taiwan, Hong Kong and the South China Sea. Considering the United States as it’s main “rival”, and not India, it generally seeks to maintain stability in the border dispute with India.

Current status-

After a tough tug and war between the two countries along their security lines, both the sides are currently engaged in the dialogue process at an appropriate level to avoid every kind of tensions between the two.Senior military commanders of India and China were scheduled to meet on 6th June to find a solution, and as a result, both sides have slightly retreated from their current positions. While Chinese Army had reportedly retreated by 2kms, the Indian Army has stepped back by one kilometres.

History of LAC-

In 1993, after years of territorial standoffs and negotiations, China and India finally signed an agreement which attempted to mark out a long stretch of border between the two countries. This came to be known as the Line of Actual Control, but it’s precise location can be blurry, and there is still dispute between both of the world’s leading powers.
So far, this LAC has served as the de facto border between these two countries. Since, India is close to complete a major upgrade of border roads, including a strategic military-use road that connects an airfield at Dalut Beg Oldie in northern tip of the Western section with the villages of Shyok and Darbuk towards the South, also India reactivated and rebuilt airfields along the border. It has also raised two mountain divisions and is creating a mountain strike corps to conduct offensive operations against China along the border.
Thus, the increased frequency of standoffs between the two are major cause of worry. If these standoffs drags on, nationalistic fervour is bound to kick in. The resultant public groundswell would restrict the options available to political leaders of both sides to resolve the issue.

Telecommunications workers held in Peru over Covid-19 5G cell tower conspiracy theoris

Villagers in rural Peru have detained technicians from broadband provider Gilat Peru over fears they were installing 5G technology, which they claimed was responsible for the coronavirus, police and the company said Friday.

The eight-member maintenance crew have been held since Wednesday by villagers in Acobamba province, more than 500 kilometers (300 miles) southeast of the capital Lima.The incident occurred late Wednesday when workers were sent to maintain an antenna in mountainous Acobamba’s Huancavelica region.

“They have detained eight workers from a telephone company, who maintained the antennas that provide internet to public places such as educational centers, under the pretext that they are 5G antennas that, in some way, cause Covid-19,” regional police chief Alejandro Oviedo told TV Peru.

“They were held when they tried to leave and we had no communication with them since Wednesday night,” said Gilat Peru spokesman Arieh Rohrstoc. “They mistakenly think Covid is transmitted by radio waves, our technology is wireless, and the virus cannot be transmitted by electromagnetic waves,” he said. Farmers from the Huachhua Chopcca community in Acobamba demanded the technicians remove existing antennas as a condition of their release.

“The engineers have not been kidnapped,” community spokesman Lorenzo Escobar told PPP radio, adding that they were free to move around and were given food. He said the men had been held when they entered the area after the start of the nighttime curfew and had broken quarantine rules. Escobar said the community council would hold talks with Gilat Peru representatives on Saturday and the men would be released.

Peru is the second-most afflicted country behind Brazil in Latin America, with more than 214,000 confirmed cases and more than 6,000 deaths. Acobamba province, which rises to just about 4,000 meters above sea level, has one of the country’s lowest infection rates.

Due to spread of misinformation and lack of awareness about the virus, paranoia and hysteria has spread rapidly around the world . As reported by The Hindu in April, mainly people around the world have been tearing down cell phone towers believing especially 5G towers to be linked to the spread of the Corona-virus.

I was reported that in the month of April alone , 50 towers had been damaged in Britain, and 16 in the Netherlands, along with similar reports surfacing from Ireland, Cyprus, and Belgium as well.

Popular beliefs and the conspiracy theories that wireless communications pose a threat have long been around, but the global spread of the virus at the time that countries were rolling out fifth generation wireless technology has seen some of those false narratives amplified.

“I am absolutely outraged, absolutely disgusted, that people would be taking action against the very infrastructure that we need to respond to this emergency,” said Stephen Powis, Medical Director of the National Health Service in England, in early April.

Posting treats of attacking phone masts were received on likes of Facebook.One Anti-Vaccine Group posted in April on Facebook 12 photos of charred phone mast, with quote, “Nobody wants cancer and covid19. Stop trying to make it happen or every pole and mobile store will end up like this one.”

Source: 1.https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/telecommunications-workers-held-in-peru-over-covid-19-5g-scare/story-PVu1bSAp7Uo7LwEGjvDOJP.html?utm_campaign=fullarticle&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=inshorts

2. https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/conspiracy-theorists-burn-5g-towers-claiming-link-to-coronavirus/article31395286.ece

World Blood Donor Day 2020

Today, WHO ( World Health Organization) and All countries celebrate World Blood Donor Day. This year’s theme is “Safe Blood Save lives” with the Slogan “Give blood and make the world healthier”. This event celebrates with a view to thank all selfless blood donors and encourage more people to Give blood freely. WHA (World Health Assembly) in 2005 designated this special day to create awareness among the people and it’s an initiative to increase blood banks in the world.

The history behind the date of celebration of WBD is the Nobel prize winner Scientist Karl Landsteiner. He has got the credit for finding the ABO blood group system. World Blood Donor Day is celebrated on the birthday of Karl Landsteiner which was on 14th June, who discovered various blood groups.

If your blood type is:O Positive, You can give to:O+, A+, B+, AB+ You can receive from :O+, O-

If your blood type is:A Positive , you can give to :A+, AB+ you can receive from : A+, A-, O+, O-

If your blood type is: B positive , you can give to : B+,AB+ you can receive from : B+,B-,O+,O–

If your blood type is: AB+ you can r give to AB+ only you can receive from all

the criteria to donate blood:

The donor must be fit and healthy, and should not be suffering from transmittable diseases.

Age and weight- The donor must be 18–65 years old and should weigh a minimum of 50 kg.

Pulse rate- Between 50 and 100 without irregularities.

Hemoglobin level- A minimum of 12.5 g/dL.

Blood pressure- Diastolic: 50–100 mm Hg, Systolic: 100–180 mm Hg.

Body temperature- Should be normal, with an oral temperature not exceeding 37.5 °C.

The time period between successive blood donations should be more than 3 months.

The need for safe blood is universal. Safe blood is critical both for treatments and urgent interventions. It can help patients suffering from life-threatening conditions live longer and with a higher quality of life and supports complex medical and surgical procedures.Blood donations are needed all over the worldto ensure individuals and communities have access to safe and quality-assured blood and blood products in both normal and emergency situations. Through the campaign, we call on more people all over the world to become life-savers by volunteering to donate blood regularly.

International organizations, including the World Health Organization, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the International Federation of Blood Donor Organizations and the International Society of Blood Transfusion, among others, continue to work in close collaboration to provide guidance and support to their membership in this endeavour.

“Safe Blood Save lives”. “Give blood and make the world healthier”.

Unshed Tears: The Pain of a Repressed Woman

When you’re sleeping peacefully at your home, some painful noises are being suppressed, or even lose their lives. Yes, the crime rates haven’t gone down even in this pandemic; instead, it has surged up a lot. Domestic violence, brutal behaviour towards women are prevalent these days. A girl roaming freely suddenly gets her wings cut and, in some cases, tied to someone who doesn’t even value her priorities and feelings. These women suffer a lot, made to work without any rest, misbehaviour among them is common, which we generally observe, but some people straightforwardly neglect them on the face when they ask for help. What’s wrong with society? Don’t they have a soul for those who want to enjoy and be part of the happiness shared in this world? Do the constitution rights make us so free that we can do anything we wish for ourselves? This behaviour is wrong, and the current generation mindset gets diverted to the wrong path.

A woman is crying and expressing her pain.
A woman is depicting her pain by clasping her face to hide tears.

Almost 35 percent of women have experienced some physical violence or mental tortures around the world. More than 58 percent of women get killed by their partners or family members. One hundred thirty-seven women die when their member of the family kills them. Nearly 49 percent of all human trafficking victims are adult women. According to an estimation, over 650 million women and girls in the world today get married before age 18 termed as child marriage, as mentioned in most country laws. These marriages often result in early pregnancy and social isolation; schooling gets abandoned; their opportunities get seized and increases more risk of experiencing domestic violence brutally every day. Globally, one out of three students get bullied by their fellow mates in the school.

A woman is screaming to express her pain.
A woman is screaming in grief.

The UN officially mentioned the above facts. There are many misconceptions across the globe. Sati, one of the historical practices followed in India, where women sacrifice their souls for their husbands’ death. Great enthusiasts like Raja Rammohan Roy, along with Lord William Bentinck, were able to stop the practice. But now, even if a voice gets raised, a thousand question is asked as a follow-up. One who’s already ashamed and shocked by the heinous crime made towards these women, how can they speak up for themselves? They need full support from society. What can we do to stop this? We can make people aware of the pain a woman suffers throughout their entire life. We can stand against the existing laws and create a revolution to curb such crimes, make stricter laws, and deploy faster court proceedings. They should get justice right on time. Just by rallying with candles across the streets won’t bring the change until the demons of the malpractices are caught and punished on time. These prisoners usually escape due to ease in the judiciary system and loopholes in the current policies. This issue requires a lot of attention before it is too late. Save the future and build a positive society around us. Otherwise, these will end up in a huge disaster.

CAN HARSHER PUNISHMENTS REDUCE CRIME RATES?

PC: Harsh Punishments backfires in prison, Josh Mitchell/Photolibrary/Getty Images.

Crime is so destructive that not only the victims suffer, but the life of a criminal also undergoes tribulation, and society bears the disturbing news of witnessing it.

It appeals to think that harsh punishment can reduce crime rates. Some criminals are aware of the penalties, but they feel that they will not get caught. They believe this because our crime fighters are limited in number, so efficient vigilance is not always possible over a territory. They know that we have a delayed justice system, procedures are tedious, and thus it doesn’t inhibit wrong intentions. No lawbreaker looks in the law book for penalty or punishment. For some criminals, getting caught does not matter. Committing that particular crime is the only thing which matters to them at that time. They hear, see, feel nothing and have all their senses attached with the wrong intention. For such people, whose minds are so corrupt that there can be no reversal at all, harsh punishment is the way forward.

Some people commit crimes due to unsatisfactory conditions. If India becomes self-sufficient, these crimes will end. There are crimes which occur out of habit, for example, kleptomaniacs (habitual thieves). Such people need rehabilitation more than punishment to condition their mindset and steer it in the right direction. Still, they will get punished as it is in our system. There is varying nature of crimes, and so it cannot be generalized that only harsh punishments reduce crimes. If the justice system is prompt in serving justice, it will substantially reduce crime as it will instil fear in potential lawbreakers. Hence, possible future crimes could be curb to an extent.

We live in a civilized society, and we have a background of a culture which emphasizes the virtue of forgiveness. This virtue shows that humane methods of punishment do work in some cases. Not always do we need to resort to harsh ones. The people who turn into criminals are a part of society, and the reason to ‘why they become criminals when living in the same society’ is a matter of great concern. There must be a stress on moral education at all levels. If it is there, then perhaps crime will reduce.

Crimes cannot be forgiven, and the guilty must be punished, but it does not mean the same person will always remain a criminal. The rebellious lawbreaker inside that person must be eradicated, and a resolve to live non-violent, law-abiding life must be spurred. We must not hate the person but the filth inside the person that created a criminal. If only the person had an atmosphere where he could re-create himself into a better person, then there would be more hope. We see crimes through the eyes of hatred and often get blinded by it. Nobody is born good or bad; the upbringing, circumstance and mental conditioning make a person good or bad.

Enough has been spoken about reducing crime when we should have been making efforts to wipe out the cause that leads to the generation of the criminal mindset. In a developing country like India, millions are starving to death; many have plenty but lacks the moral sense; many think it is fun to commit a crime’ there are many who do it out of emotional outbreak. Some do it because they are situational criminals. If we believe in God, then we must believe in the law of karma. For every good, we will receive will, and for every bad, we will get the same. If we don’t believe in God, then we must believe in our consciousness; we must not think or do anything which makes us fall in our own eyes. Lastly, the solution may not lie in philosophical or even realistic discussions. But why wait for a crime to happen when we must put our energy and mind in churning out ways that eradicate the generation of thought that leads to crime. In a nutshell, harsher punishment might deter people from committing crime to a certain extent, but it is not the only solution. There are more efficient and effective ways to do so as well.

Racism in the USA: Past and Present

Why it is in the news?

Recently, the accident happened in Minneapolis, the USA which brings this topic into the picture. On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, was killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during an arrest for allegedly using a counterfeit bill. Black Lives Matter Protest began and it broke out all across the USA after the death of George Floyd, an African-American lived in Minneapolis city.

Police have used tear gas and force against demonstrators and President Donald Trump threatened to send the military. Some acts of looting and arson also occurred. President Donald Trump called this movement as riots. 

Historical background of slavery

The revolutionary fights for African-American or The Black people’s rights are connected with the historical background of slavery. Many African citizens were brought from Africa to North America for slavery. There were slaves in 13 colonies which called them as “United States.” African people were working as “slave under The White people. It is a traditional activity from last more than three hundred seventy years. From 16th Century onwards slavery carried on unabated for almost 4 centuries. The United States got independence after the War of Independence even though these slaves were deprived of their fundamental rights and independence. But ultimately Civil War took place in 1861-1865 and the reason was only slavery. In the 1860s the slavery was abolished in Northern parts of the USA but still, slavery was common in the Southern part of USA. And this was the reason why the Civil War took place between Northern and Southern America.

Emancipation

Northern America won the Civil War and passed a law which is called as 13th Amendment by United States Congress for abolishing slavery except as a punishment for crime. By this law, 4 million slaves became freeman and freewoman.

Racism in American Policing

The police department was not in existence in past. The institution of police in modern USA Police started with systematic racism and violence in the form of ‘slave patrol’. At that time the slave state created patrols called as “slave patrol” to nip slave revolts and escape from southern part to northern part of USA. The state of South Carolina was the first to create slave patrols in 1704. By the end of the 1700s, every American slave state had slave patrols. 

The former southern slave patrol transformed into police departments that technically were different from slave patrols, but were still charged with controlling the freed former slaves. This carried on in the Reconstruction and Jim Crow Laws era for the next 80 years.

Reconstruction Era 1863-1877

Reconstruction era started at the end of the Civil War. The aim was to reconstruct the south and integrate frees black people into society. They put efforts to give some legal rights and economic support to recently freed slaves (The Blacks). But they failed to provide any substantial rights. 

For instance, just take the context of voting rights, 15 Amendment incarcerated voting rights discrimination based on race, it left the door open for states to determine the specific qualification for suffrage. Southern state legislatures used qualifications including literacy tests, poll taxes and other discriminatory practices to disenfranchise a majority of black voters in the decades following Reconstruction.

Repeating the History of Racial Segregation

Jim Crow Laws were one of the ways through which racial segregation started against Blacks. Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. Jim Crow was not the name of any person or place. It was used as a caricature to tease the Blacks. All these laws were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures to disenfranchise and remove political and economic gains made by blacks during the Reconstruction period. The Jim Crow laws were enforced until 1965. This is called Segregation – The Jim Crow Laws. The Jim Crow laws mandated the segregation for whites and blacks in the workplace, public school, public places, public transport, restrooms, restaurants and drinking water points.

Success and The Legal End of Segregation

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed by the Congress and this decisive action towards the ending of Racial Segregation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned segregation in schools and other public places. The Voting Rights Act 1965 banned literacy tests and other methods used to disenfranchise black voters.

#BlackLivesMatter Movement

This movement has past link when George Zimmerman fatally shot an unarmed Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African-American high school student. Zimmerman was charged with murder for Martin’s death, but acquitted at trial after claiming self-defence. It was Zimmerman’s acquittal that gave rise to a hashtag and a movement called Black Lives Matter (#Blacklivesmatter).  

 Many cases and accident apart from George Floyd Case and George Zimmerman Case happened in the USA. Racism always existed in the US Police department. In past, several cases were unregistered or not recorded in the form of pictures and videos but in modern times, nothing can hide from the third eye called cameras. Everything got recorded by cameras. The movement in which thousands and millions of people are getting involved during a time when there is a pandemic named COVID-19 a communicable disease which spread by touching and there is no way to save ourselves except social distancing. Therefore, it shows that the disease of racism is more dangerous than COVID-19 pandemic. 

Constitution Cannot Be Above Country Come What May

I still just cannot believe it. It will take some time for me to believe that the special status of Jammu and Kashmir has been abrogated! But what has happened has to be believed. Even in my wildest of dreams could I never expect that a day would come when Article 35A and Article 370 would become a thing of the past and Jammu and Kashmir would be made a Union Territory! But it has happened in reality! This NDA government led by Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi deserves all the praises, laurels and applaud for taking such a courageous decision which no Prime Minister could ever dare to take solely on the ground that what our first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru does cannot be ever questioned or challenged! This alone explains that why inspite of more than 72 years of independence we see that the most populated state of India that is Uttar Pradesh whom the former UN Secretary General ban ki moon had slammed as “rape and crime capital of India” has just one high court bench created way back on July 1, 1948 just about 200 km away from Allahabad at Lucknow and nowhere else compelling the people from hilly areas who now form separate state called Uttarakhand to travel thousands of kilometers all the way to Allahabad as there was no high court bench there even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice Jaswant Singh had recommended 3 high court benches for UP at Agra, Nainital and Dehradun yet not one was created even though benches were created at other places like Aurangabad in Maharashtra, Jalpaiguri in West Bengal and Madurai in Tamil Nadu only on the ground that Nehru’s decision can’t be changed!

                            Nothing on earth can be more ridiculous than this! We all respect and we must respect Jawaharlal Nehru for leading our nation as Prime Minister for the longest tenure from independence for 17 years! But this does not mean that if he committed some Himalayan blunders like approving just one high court bench for most populated state of India that is UP which has maximum pending cases should never be corrected or the other mistakes which he did in 1948 war by rushing to UN without conquering the whole of Jammu and Kashmir or in the 1962 war which we lost to China by not using Air Force which was far more advanced than that of China still they should never be corrected or even questioned solely on the ground that Nehru’s legacy can never be disturbed. He also was a human being and can commit error!

                                  Let me reiterate once again what I have always believed in since 1993-94: No individual, no leader, no Prime Minister, no President, no law, no Constitution, no Court not even the Supreme Court of India, no Judge not even the Chief Justice of India or anyone else can be above the country and we all as good citizens must be prepared to undergo any sacrifice to ensure that the unity and integrity of our country is always maintained under all circumstances! This was ingrained deep inside my mind by my best friend Sageer Khan whom I always admire, appreciate and adore! There can be no denying or disputing it!

                                      It was about 26 years ago in 1993 that my best friend Sageer Khan confided in me that if there are two articles in our Constitution which he considers as betrayal of India, they are none other than Article 35A and Article 370! He said that it is a matter of national shame and a national disgrace that despite being an Indian, no person could either buy any property in Jammu and Kashmir or apply for a job there or settle there or buy even an inch of land there even though one can buy property anywhere else in world and settle down yet no Prime Minister till date has ever shown the courage and conviction to come forward and abolish Article 35A and Article 370 in one go! He also said that what a tragedy that if I want to marry any women I can marry but if I want to marry a woman from Jammu and Kashmir I cannot marry because then she will lose all her rights and I would not be entitled to either settle there or apply for a job there as it is prohibited thanks to Article 35A and Article 370 but if a Pakistani wants to marry a woman from Jammu and Kashmiri, he can easily do so and neither will the women lose any rights nor will the Pakistani be denied citizenship or any right to settle there! How can this be ever justified in the name of autonomy? It is a national disgrace!”

                         It is a no brainer that he (Sageer Khan) very rightly said that, “Can on earth there be anything more dangerous than this? I fail to understand why Article 35A and Article 370 were inserted in the Constitution in the first place! Was it at the behest of some foreign power? I don’t know but it is most shocking that these two most dangerous Articles have been allowed to continue in the Constitution for so long! How can one country have two Constitutions, two citizenship, two set of laws, two flags and what not? It is because of these two most dangerous Articles! Constitution cannot be above our country under any circumstances come what may! Both these Articles must be thrown out or rather kicked out immediately because they are against the very concept of a united and strong India.”

                             Let me be candid to confess here: At that point of time I was simply just not aware as to what these two Articles postulate as I was doing BSc at that pointy of time where Constitution found no place but Sageer Khan was doing his BA and was studying Constitution as part of his course! Yet I nodded as if I too was aware about it!

                                      Let me say this on record: I too was most shocked to learn from my best friend Sageer Khan that such dangerous Articles exist in our Constitution which favours integration of Jammu and Kashmir with Pakistan and treats Indians as foreigners! How can this ever happen that a Pakistani be allowed to settle in Jammu and Kashmir and inherit all the rights after marrying a women there but no Indian from any state can ever settle there even if he marries a woman from Jammu and Kashmir rather the women herself will lose all her rights if she dares to do so as stipulated in Article 35A? This is nothing but an open betrayal of India and open treachery with our country! We all must always remember what my best friend Sageer Khan said in 1993 that, “Constitution can never be above country come what may. These two treacherous Articles 35A and 370 should never have been allowed to enter our Constitution in the first place!”  

                                        Needless to say, we all know fully well that even Dr BR Ambedkar never favoured the insertion of Article 370 and Article 35A and opposed them tooth and nail but yet they were later brought in even though in the original Constitution they had found no place! How can this be ever justified? What a joke that it is only for Jammu and Kashmir and not for any other state like Maharashtra or Gujarat that our leaders repeatedly say that it is an integral part of India yet have ensured that these two most dangerous Articles of our Constitution continue uninterruptedly for more than 70 years!    

                             No doubt, the scrapping of Presidential proclamation of 1954 by the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 which was passed on August 5 in concurrence with the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir with immediate effect is the most boldest step by any government in India since independence! This is a more bolder step than even surgical strikes of 2016 or the Balakot air strikes! This alone explains that why even Sushma Swaraj who was the former Union External Affairs Minister and who expired just recently before dying left a most memorable tweet in which she expressed her utmost happiness in the following words, “Thank you Prime Minister. Thank you very much. I was waiting to see this day in my lifetime.”

                            No doubt, even though Congress is fulminating  against revocation of Article 370 and Article 35A yet it is most heartening to note that many prominent faces of Congress party including Janardhan Dwivedi, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Deepender Hooda, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Salman Khurshid, Milind Deora among many others have expressed their solidarity with this latest move by Centre! Senior and eminent Congress leader Janardhan Dwivedi minced no words in saying that a historic blunder has been remedied today after the scrapping of Articles 35A and 370! Jyotiraditya Scindia said that he supported the Narendra Modi government’s proposed move to bifurcate the state into two Union Territories – Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. He tweeted minutes before the Lok Sabha voted on the resolution that, “I support the move on #JammuAnd Kashmir & #Ladakh and its full integration into union of India. Would have been better if constitutional process had been followed. No questions could have been raised then. Nevertheless, this is in our country’s interest and I support this.”

                               As things stand, Congress senior leader Janardhan Dwivedi said happily that, “It is a very old issue. After Independence, many freedom fighters did not want Article 370 to remain. I had my political training under Dr Ram Manohar Lohia, who was against this Article. Personally, this is an issue of a matter of satisfaction for the nation. This historical mistake that happened at the time of independence has been rectified today, even though late, and is welcomed.” Mumbai Congress Chief – Milind Deora said that it was “very unfortunate” that Article 370 was being converted into a “liberal vs conservative debate”. He said in a tweet that, “Parties should put aside ideological fixations & debate what’s best for India’s sovereignty and federalism, peace in J&K, jobs for Kashmiri youth and justice for Kashmiri Pandits.”

                                         Not stopping here, another Congress leader Deepender Hooda who is a three-time MP from Haryana’s Rohtak constituency said that, “I’ve always maintained that Article 370 should be scrapped. It is irrelevant and has no place in the 21st century. Abrogation of this article is in the interest of national integrity and the people of J&K which is an integral part of India. Senior Congress leader Anil Shastri also openly came out in support of Centre’s move and said that the the people are totally with the government on this issue! There can be no denying it!

                                         Above all, even the Congress’s chief whip in the Rajya Sabha – Bhubaneshwar Kalita strongly protested against his party’s stand and said emotionally while quitting his membership in Rajya Sabha after the party asked him to issue a whip to all members for opposing the bill that, “I was asked by the party to issue a whip but this is against the mood of the nation. The party as it is on its way towards destruction and I can’t be a contributor to it.” Even Congress MLA from Rae Bareli Aditi Singh said on Twitter that, “United we stand! Jai Hind. #Article 370”. She termed it a historic decision and urged people not to politicize it. When someone reminded that she was a Congress leader, she boldly retorted that, “Main ek Hindustani hoon (I am an Indian).” Absolutely right!

                                       Interestingly enough, even veteran Congress leader Karan Singh who is son of J&K’s last ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh who signed the Instrument of Accession in 1947 and who was a Union Minister in the Indira Gandhi Cabinet in 1967, has been a member of CWC and worked with four generations of the Nehru-Gandhi family took a divergent stand from that of his party and said that he did not agree with a “blanket condemnation” of the government’s decision and said that it has “several positive points”. He welcomed the government’s decision to make Ladakh a Union Territory and reminded that, “In fact, I had suggested this as far back as 1965, when I was still Sadr-i-Riyasat of J&K, when I had publically proposed reorganisation of the state.” He said that he hoped the hill councils of Leh and Kargil would “continue to function, so that in the absence of the Legislature, the grassroots opinion of the people of Ladakh are duly represented.” He minced no words to reiterate his support to scrap Article 35A and the government’s plan to initiate an exercise to redraw the contours of the Assembly constituencies. He said that, “The gender discrimination in Article 35A needed to be addressed as also the long-awaited and enfranchisement of lakhs of West Pakistan’s refugees and reservations for Scheduled Tribes which will be welcomed. There will also be a fresh delimitation which, for the first time, will ensure a division of political power between the Jammu and Kashmir regions.”     

                                       Be it noted, Union Home Minister Amit Shah who tabled the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019 and the statutory resolutions in Rajya Sabha around 11 am after the Union cabinet met at Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s residence at 9.30 am to grant the go-ahead said that, “Article 370 was a temporary provision…how long can a temporary provision be allowed to continue…After abrogation of Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir will truly become an integral part of India.” Saying Article 370 was at the root of terrorism, Amit Shah told the House that full state status will be restored to Jammu and Kashmir at an appropriate time when normalcy returns. He rightly said that the decision to do away with the special status of J&K and to bifurcate the state into two UTs was in the supreme national interest! No denying it!

                                        Why is it that so many opposition parties like AAP, BJD, BSP, TDP, AIADMK, YSR-Congress and many others extended their unstinted support to Centre? It is because this most historic decision reflected the true sentiments of every Indian! This alone explains that why so many top leaders of Congress party also which opposed this landmark decision came out in open support of it! Why even JD(U) which initially walked out in protest has now endorsed Centre’s move to scrap Article 370? It is because many senior party leaders came out in full support of Centre’s bold move! There were rumblings of discontent even within TMC led by Mamata Banerjee and many leaders openly voiced their unstinted support for Centre’s bold move!   

                                        Truth be told, the first statutory resolution stated: “That this House recommends the following public notification to be issued by the President of India under Article 370(3): ‘In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (3) of Article 370 read with clause (1) of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, the President, on the recommendation of the Parliament, is pleased to declare that, as from 5th of August, 2019, all clauses of the said Article 370 shall cease to be operative except clause (1).”

                          To put things in perspective, Article 370 will survive on paper but will now read “All provisions of this Constitution, as amended from time to time, without any modifications or exceptions, shall apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir notwithstanding anything contrary contained in Article 152 or Article 308 or any other article of this Constitution or any other provision of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir or any law, document, judgement, ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having force of law in the territory of India, or any other instrument, treaty or agreement as envisaged under Article 363 or otherwise.”

                           Going forward, the second resolution pertaining to the Bill said that the President has referred the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019 to the House “under the proviso to Article 3 of the Constituion of India for its views as this House is vested with the powers of the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir, as per proclamation of the President of India dated 19th December, 2018.” Amit Shah who is Union Home Minister tabled the Bill and the statutory resolutions after Ram Nath Kovind signed the official notification, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order 2019, superseding the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order 1954 under which the Constitution was applied only selectively to the State. The notification said that, “All the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the state of Jammu and Kashmir…”

                                        It would be pertinent to mention here that the government has added in Article 367 of the Constitution a clause 4 which makes four changes. The order said references to Sadar-i-Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir shall be construed as references to the Governor of J&K. Similarly, references to the Government of J&K shall be construed as reference to the Governor of J&K acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers. With Opposition members expressing their dismay that the Bill to bifurcate was not even circulated, Shah introduced the Bill and statutory resolutions again promptly. Shah also introduced the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019 providing for 10 percent reservation for SC, ST and OBCs in J&K which now after being passed and having received President’s assent have become a law.

                                     It must be mentioned here that Leader of Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad who toed his Congress party line of opposing it lashed out while taking potshots at BJP saying that, “The BJP has murdered the same Constitution and democracy. The Article 370 through which we had given Jammu and Kashmir to India… today the Modi government has torn it to pieces.” But Amit Shah countered this by saying that the Bill he has tabled is historic. He said that, “Because of Article 370, people of Kashmir are living in poverty. They don’t get the benefit of reservation…Corruption is rampant. Three families have looted Jammu and Kashmir all these years. The Leader of the Opposition has said Article 370 attached J&K to India. That is not true. Maharaja Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession on October 27, 1947. And Article 370 came into existence in 1949, two years later. It is not true that Article 370 attached J&K to India.” What Amit Shah is saying is hundred percent right. Article 370 was against national interests and this alone explains why the founding father of our Constitution – Dr BR Ambedkar opposed it vehemently and did not allow it as long as he was at the helm!

                                         Moving on, Amit Shah said that Article 370 was always considered temporary because it had to go one day. He said that, “But no one had the political will…then there was vote bank politics…they wanted to make a vote bank out of it. We don’t want to make a vote bank and neither do we lack political will.” Amit Shah said that the UT in Ladakh will have no legislature like Chandigarh while the UT of Jammu and Kashmir will have a legislature like Delhi and Puducherry.

                              While reading out provisions of Article 370 (3), the Home Minister said there are provisions within that which state that Article 370 shall cease to be operative or can be amended and the President has the right to issue such a notification or constitutional order. He told the House that, “We are adopting the same path as adopted by the Congress in 1952 and 1962 by amending the provisions of Article 370 the same way through a notification.” So what is wrong in it? Congress certainly didn’t cover itself with glory by alienating Jammu and Kashmir from India by not allowing anyone to either settle there or buy any property there and creating separate flag, separate Constitution, separate laws, separate citizenship for them! Even former CJI JS Khehar had rightly questioned and ridiculed this saying that, “How can one country have two sets of Constitutions, two sets of laws, two sets of citizenships, two sets of flags?”    

                                   It was most heartening to see that even the Lok Sabha approved the resolution and adopted the resolution abrogating special status to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution and a Bill for splitting the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union territories with 351 members voting in its support and 72 against it while one member abstained! Centre has rightly clarified that it would hold no talks with Hurriyat which always keeps singing the tune of Pakistan and would speak directly to the people of Jammu and Kashmir!

                          It was a national tragedy that earlier all was were applicable all over but not in J&K! This ensured that the Right to Education Bill could not be applied to J&K and the children living there were thus deprived wrongly of the fundamental right to get education! Same is the case with other landmark Bills like Right to Information among others! Amit Shah also rightly clarified that, “When I say J&K, I include Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Aksai Chin. Both are included in the territorial boundaries of J&K…We will give our lives for it.”

                           It is most heartening to note that when Pakistan rushed to United nations Security Council, it refused to intervene! Similarly China and USA also advised Pakistan not to severe its ties with India as it will itself suffer most and refused to intervene! I fail to understand that how can Pakistan decide that what India does in its Constitution? Did Pakistan authored Article 370 and Article 35A? Certainly not! Then who are they to jump and shout when we amend our Constitution?

                                Let us not forget that it is Pakistan who will suffer most if it dares to cross sword with India and this is what its traditional ally China has rightly advised them! Jammu and Kashmir is internal matter of India as rightly pointed by eminent Supreme Court senior lawyer and Congress leader and former Union Minister Salman Khurshid and who is Pakistan to ask us what we do in our Constitution! Pakistan’s belligerent approach on India kicking out Articles 35A and 370 speaks for itself as to who was gaining from it but Pakistan is only fooling itself if it thinks that by ending diplomatic relations or stopping train service it can put India under pressure! Pakistan should not forget that by Indus Water Treaty of 1960, it is getting 80 percent share and India just 20 percent. If India decides to scrap it, Pakistan’s already sinking economy will get completely drowned! Now the ball is clearly in court of Pakistan! Pakistan must mind its own business as India is a sovereign country! Supreme Court Judge NV Ramana rightly refused to entertain a plea of urgent hearing by senior Supreme Court lawyer ML Sharma who said that Pakistan would move the United Nations against the Presidential order and said that, “If they go to the United Nations, can the UN stay the constitutional amendment of the Union of India?”

                                          Before parting, let me say that every Indian must support this latest move by Centre which seeks to ensure complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India! We all must respect Constitution but let me again reiterate that Constitution cannot be above country come what may! Those Articles which are in conflict with our national interests have to be either amended or removed from our Constitution as Constitution cannot be above country come what may!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

BEEF BAN: AN OPINION

By Kartik Sharma

PC: Cow Slaughter & The Constitution, The Hindu June 7, 2017.

BANNING BEEF JUSTIFIED?

Can beef banning be justified in the multicultural society of India? Is it about respecting people’s sentiments or it disrespects freedom to eat? In the history of our country too, there have been conflicts on this topic as Mahatma Gandhi was against beef-eating as he saw religious aspects more. At the same time, J L Nehru considered Gandhi’s demand as unreasonable. So, is it justified to ban it? In 2015 Maharashtra’s Government banned the slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks and the possession of flesh of these animals.[1] It felt that it is a reasonable restriction as a cow and its progeny is the backbone of Maharashtra’s agrarian economy.[2] Reduction in the number of these animals will prove to be detrimental in the long run. There is no total ban on the import of meat or livestock but the trade of beef from Maharashtra. It believes that it is in the public interest. The act that government passed also criminalises possession of beef and in turn its consumption. This bill was a 20-year old bill, passed in February 2015 and enacted in March after state government received President’s assent.[3]

There can be three angles to the topic- the religious sentiments, the logic and political opportunity. A cow is considered to be holy in India, and anything that is done against it hurts religious feelings. Now, after the act, it will be seen as a legal offence too. The state will be encouraged to stop killing of other animals as well. But what about the livelihood of the people who depend on the cattle industry? The fact is that India is becoming a major exporter of beef, and people who have been employed in the beef industry may now resort to illegal trade. People will become jobless if bans are justified because promises are made by the government to set up a secondary platform for people of this industry. However, it is not practical for the government to create so many jobs readily. It is seen that, through this initiative, some politicians gather the support of people who have religious sentiments attached to the cow.

India, according to many sources, is one of the largest exporters of beef in the world. India majorly exports buffalo beef. There are over 30,000 illegal slaughterhouses in India.[4] Only the ones which possess required certificates should run a slaughterhouse. There is a pressing demand for milk in the Dairy industry. Therefore, cows are not treated nicely. The animals are inhumanely cramped into vehicles during transportation. Due to this, their bones break, and they get dehydrated. The dairy industry does not raise these animals for beef; it is mainly for the milk. Leather, beef are by-products of the dairy industry. But that is a different issue; still, people ask that why don’t we ban milk too? The process of mulching includes the ill-treatment of animals.

In many villages, it is ban just by a norm and not by law. People have decided to follow the standard. The places where there are a ban people have to give up their individual liberty, which is against the Constitution of India. Indian Constitution gives Right to choose what to eat under Article 21.[5] Some people say live and let live attitude should exist- ‘If you don’t like to eat, then don’t eat it, why force it onto others who do?’ In Malaysia and UAE, even though the culture does not permit the consumption of pork, one can get it in separate sections. Why do we only treat one animal as holy when every creature is a beautiful creation of God? If there is a ban on one animal, then it can be suggested that a ban should be there on every animal killing. However, nobody likes things to be done in this fashion. Bulls and bullocks are not considered holy; only a cow is; so why not put a ban on them too?

Smoking kills but the government doesn’t ban cigarettes but puts a mandate to show a large picture on the pocket that says smoking leads to cancer. Why does it not ban that? Bans have been mostly counterproductive in India. Gujarat is a dry state, and everybody knows that people who desire to consume alcohol manage to do it even there. It is written in ‘Bhagwad Gita’ that the supreme personality of Godhead has given us fruits and vegetables to eat. Then why must we take away the life of a creature for the pleasure of the tongue? Spiritually speaking, we must not kill animals for taste. Whatever vegetarian food we eat, we must take it from nature consciously. But if we talk practically, many people are vegetarian by choice, and they never force people to give up eating non-vegetarian items. We are a democratic nation, and we can encourage people to become vegetarian by pick but ban, as it seems, is unwarranted.

[1] Shibu Thomas, Beef ban is ‘reasonable restriction’, does not violate fundamental rights: Maharashtra Govt to HC, The Times of India Apr 20, 2015 available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Beef-ban-law-is-reasonable-restriction-does-not-violate-fundamental-rights-Maharashtra-govt-to-HC/articleshow/46986689.cms.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] As states to close illegal slaughterhouses, PETA India available at https://secure.petaindia.com/page/23016/action/1?locale=en-GB.

[5] The Indian Constitution, 1949, art 21(1).

CALL AGAINST RACISM

The death of the African American man, George Floyd aged 45 years old who got kneeled down on the neck by  white police officer, for nine minutes  in Minneapolis on 25th of May,2020 has set the whole world on fire. This has become the rallying point for protest against the black lives. It has even ignited fire in continents  beyond ,like Europe. In  no time since the video got viral on social media, George has become the most famous man on earth, and everyone took his an opportunity to express their anger by coming out on the  streets in huge numbers. His last words “I can’t breathe ,sir” remains engraved in people mind till now. Derek Chauvin, the culprit along with three controller present their have been charged of offence.

The activist aim of bringing drastic change to policing has been finally been seen achieving because of the death of George Floyd. People now seem to have a ray of hope for a complete transformation of public safety .Majority of Minneapolis city  council wants to put an end to discrimination by police superiors. A nine member council came together to pledge dismantle and disrupt police administration. They want to do this by rebuilding   the police administration from scratch, the objective behind this was to eliminate the bitter relationship developed between the people and the police department. This would finally put a full stop to “legal” racial discrimination. The whole scenario have now pushed the democrats to get  a bill passed, which would be aimed at reforming law enforcement in the country.

Protesters in their journey towards demanding justice, had to deal with smoke grenades, tear gas and nonlethal projectiles.Another video which went viral showed how  a old man, aged 75 years of age was protesting singlehandedly against the police officers, and he laid injured in the streets.US President Donald Trump got  slammed by New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo for tweeting without any proof that this was all a “setup”.

The continuous rising rage of the protests had led Trump to go down to the extend of sending army troops to the streets , in order to control the crowd. This could’ve been a possible solution for a country dominated by dictatorship, but not a country where democracy stands for long. People are protesting in huge number amidst the coronavirus, trying to break through all the stores in US and looting the government. The situation went to such an extent, that Donald Trump in fear had to go under bunkers. The government which  had earlier promised of building walls in lieu of their protection, now  has a covering made of steel all around The White House. The protest was even seen in Europe , after New York, Los Angeles ,London,etc. In Europe statue of Slave Trader Edward Colston was pulled down by protesters, made to roll down  through the streets to the green waters of the harbour.

Derek Chauvin ,  was addressed by the title “Sir” by George Floyd , seconds before he closed his eyes permanently . In a video clip recorded, it was seen that he is not set bail at $ 1.25 millions during a hearing. People crowded around Floyd’s last rites in hometown, Texas in order to pay him their tribute. He got buried next to his mother.

Philonise Floyd , George Floyd’s  brother  complained about how people from their background  have been ignored , and not paid importance. Democratic lawmaker Karen Bass told the house hearing that hopes America would pass the Rightful Police Reform by the end of December. George Floyd’s  brother  pleaded top the congress that his brother death should not go in vain , and he should be remembered , not as a mere picture. George Floyd  name has been engraved in the history pages, forever. He would now act as a catalyst to bring profound change.

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION: UNDERSTANDING KHATNA

PC: Sahiyo & StoryCentre. A screenshot from a video uploaded by The Indian Express.

WHAT IS ‘KHATNA’?

Khatna, a genital cutting in women, is practised by the Dawoodi Bohra community, a sub-sect of Shia Muslims. It involves the removal of either part or all of a woman’s genitalia or clitoral hood or closure of vulva with a small opening only for the urine to pass.

Dawoodi Bohra community came to India as traders from West Asian and African countries and predominantly resided in Kerala, Telangana, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Delhi. They have been practising this secret ritual of female circumcision for centuries. “They describe this as ‘Religious Purity’. They also say that according to Da’im al-Islam (a 10th-century book on jurisprudence), this practice is for hygiene or taharat- not just physical but also ‘spiritual’ and ‘religious’.”[1] They believe that the clitoral head is ‘unwanted skin’. It is a ‘source of sin’ that will make them ‘stray’ out of their marriages are reasons that lie at the heart of a practice that predates Islam but thrives amongst Bohras. The Prophet does not consider this practice as a religious requirement and does not ordain it. “The Holy Koran preaches that the Prophet breathes life into each body and that each body is in perfect shape. It is indicative in the following verse: “We have indeed created man in the ‘best of moulds’.” (Qur’an 95:4)[2]

The objective of the practice is to control a woman’s sexual desire and preserve her “honour” before marriage. The community believes that the clitoris causes sexual deviance in women. In a patriarchal society, a woman has no right to partake in sexual pleasure. Sex is a sin and a taboo, which ironically, only men have the freedom to enjoy.

As we know, in India no such practice goes without a challenge. In this article will refer an important case dealing with the matter at hand. It is an attempt to analyse the issues.

SUNITA TIWARI v UNION OF INDIA[3]

The three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, found that the practice of Khatna or Female Genital Mutilation (for short “FGM”) is a crime punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

The issues before the bench were-

  1. Whether the practice of female circumcision violates the right to privacy of the girls on whom the procedure is performed without their consent?
  2. Whether the practise violates the right to life and bodily autonomy of women and girls and infringes on Article 21 of the Constitution?
  3. Whether the practise is discriminatory against women and girls, and whether it violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution?
  4. Whether the practice is protected as a religious practice under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution?

The Petitioner, Sunita Tiwari, contended that the practice of Khatna, as performed on every girl child within the Dawoodi Bohra religious community, does not have any reference in the Quran and is carried out without any medical reason. It thereby expresses anguish over the atrocity, bodily pain, in-humanness and mental torture faced by the girls and women. All this because of traumatic, unhygienic and illegal surgeries performed on them in their childhood. She also argued that this practice violates women’s right to equality, right to privacy, and the right to personal liberty. She signed to make Khatna a cognizable, non-compoundable and non-bailable offence. She petitioned so as to declare this practice unconstitutional and illegal.

She also stated that the World Health Organization had declared Khatna or FGM to be a highly degrading practice. It is considered to be a violation of fundamental human rights and integrity of girls and women. It burdens young women with a slew of psychological problems such as trauma, depression, fear of sexual intimacy and nightmares. Also, in December 2012, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a unanimous resolution which called for the elimination of FGM.

Hygiene is another appalling issue. Often, Khatna is conducted by untrained midwives without anaesthesia, using unsterilised tools. This may cause infections or in some cases, even death. It is sad to observe that instead of standing strong together, women are guilty of harming other women through this practice. Khatna is a hushed affair, as shame and discomfort shroud female sexuality in a patriarchal society. Due to this secrecy, there is no actual data on FGM in India.

The respondents in their defence said that it is a religious practice and hence is protected under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution. They also stated that this practice is not discriminatory against women. Both men and women are required to be circumcised. The community considered this practice as an integral part of their religion.

At present day, this judgement is still pending before the Supreme Court. The original court referred the case to a five-judge bench which further referred to a seven-judge bench.

CONCLUSION

They promise you a bar of chocolate, a movie or just an outing; they take you instead to a dingy, dark room, pin you to a bed, take off your pants and cut that tiny part of you that was eventually supposed to make you experience one of the greatest pleasures of being a woman. With blades, knives or anything remotely sharp and long, they cut off your clitoris, and say it’s in the name of culture. All this happens when you are a girl of seven or eight. In spite of being banned by such a big organisation as the UN and WHO, there is no ban on this act in India. This practice prima facie violates the rights of women in India. It’s the worst nightmare a girl can ever have. Even the ones who remember look at sexual intercourse as just an activity they need to do after marriage; the idea of pleasure thrown out of the window. Above all, the irony is, the Bohra Community is known to be a more ‘open’ Muslim community than most others, as it allows for its girls to get an education and travel if they wish to. This case may become a landmark case if it results in banning FGM in India. Just like Talaq e-biddat Judgement, this case may also curb this arbitrary practice in which consent of women is not considered, and exploitation is on its zenith.

[1] Aarefa Johari, Why do Dawoodi Bohras practice Khatna, or female genital mutilation, May 19, 2017, https://sahiyo.com/2017/05/19/why-do-dawoodi-bohras-practice-khatna-or-female-genital-cutting/ (Last Visited on October 4, 2018).

[2] The Indian Economist, Female genital Mutilation: The case of the Bohra Muslims in India, March 24, 2017 https://www.magzter.com/news/764/2674/032017/d7evp (Last Visited on October 4, 2018).

[3] Sunita Tiwari v Union of India, W.P. (C) No.286/2017.