Skip to main content

SC does a re-think on dowry harassment ruling (hindu)

‘Previous order dilutes woman’s right against dowry’

Two months after the Supreme Court stopped immediate arrests of accused in dowry harassment cases, the court on Friday did a re-think, saying its order dilutes the right of a woman to seek justice against the evil of dowry.

On July 27, a Bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit had concluded that Section 498A (dowry harassment) of the Indian Penal Code has come under much abuse. Dowry complaints are being filed in the heat of the moment by women over trivial issues. Innocent relatives, including parents of advanced age, siblings and grandparents, suffer harassment. Their judgment directed ‘Family Welfare Committees’ to sift the genuine cases of dowry harassment from the trivial ones. Police would take action only on the basis of the committee’s report.

These committees were directed to be made up of social workers, homemakers, retired persons and other citizens.

In an absolute U-turn, a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said the July 27 verdict blunted the purpose of Section 498A as an effective law to protect human rights of married woman who live in torture.

“The judgment (July 27) seems to have entered the legislative domain... We are not in agreement with the view taken as it is liable to affect the rights of woman,” Chief Justice Misra observed.

The Bench asked the Centre to respond by October 29.

The Bench was hearing a plea filed by an NGO ‘Nyayadhar’, an organisation of women advocates from Maharashtra, who sought a revival of Section 498A, which they said has now become “valueless.”

The July 27 ruling had held that no arrest should normally be effected on dowry harassment complaints until the committee confirms the genuineness.

The apex court had also ordered that trial judges should close Section 498A cases based on matrimonial disputes once the parties have reached a settlement. In fact, bail should be given on the same day, it said.

Interestingly, the court directed that even “recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected.”

However, none of these relaxations are applicable in cases which involve “tangible physical injuries or death.”

Steps like impounding of passports of NRIs in dowry harassment cases or issuance of Red Corner Notices should not be a routine, the court had directed on July 27. Personal appearance of all family members, and particularly outstation members, must be exempted by trial courts.

The court had sought a report from NALSA by March 31, 2018 on the progress of the experiment.

Comments

  1. Titanium Tarpet Tarpet | Tips - TITONIC RAFFET
    It's the easiest titanium engagement rings way to create your ford edge titanium for sale Tarpet. titanium wood stove you have the titanium scissors right amount of space on titanium bar your Tarpet table, right across from the surface.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NGT terminates chairmen of pollution control boards in 10 states (downtoearth,)

Cracking the whip on 10 State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) for ad-hoc appointments, the National Green Tribunal has ordered the termination of Chairpersons of these regulatory authorities. The concerned states are Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Rajasthan, Telangana, Haryana, Maharashtra and Manipur. The order was given last week by the principal bench of the NGT, chaired by Justice Swatanter Kumar. The recent order of June 8, 2017, comes as a follow-up to an NGT judgment given in August 2016. In that judgment, the NGT had issued directions on appointments of Chairmen and Member Secretaries of the SPCBs, emphasising on crucial roles they have in pollution control and abatement. It then specified required qualifications as well as tenure of the authorities. States were required to act on the orders within three months and frame Rules for appointment [See Box: Highlights of the NGT judgment of 2016 on criteria for SPCB chairperson appointment]. Having

High dose of Vitamin C and B3 can kill colon cancer cells: study (downtoearth)

In a first, a team of researchers has found that high doses of Vitamin C and niacin or Vitamin B3 can kill cancer stem cells. A study published in Cell Biology International showed the opposing effects of low and high dose of vitamin C and vitamin B3 on colon cancer stem cells. Led by Bipasha Bose and Sudheer Shenoy, the team found that while low doses (5-25 micromolar) of Vitamin C and B3 proliferate colon cancer stem cells, high doses (100 to 1,000 micromolar) killed cancer stem cells. Such high doses of vitamins can only be achieved through intravenous injections in colon cancer patients. The third leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, colon cancer can be prevented by an intake of dietary fibre and lifestyle changes. While the next step of the researchers is to delineate the mechanisms involved in such opposing effects, they also hope to establish a therapeutic dose of Vitamin C and B3 for colon cancer stem cell therapy. “If the therapeutic dose gets validated under in vivo

SC asks Centre to strike a balance on Rohingya issue (.hindu)

Supreme Court orally indicates that the government should not deport Rohingya “now” as the Centre prevails over it to not record any such views in its formal order, citing “international ramifications”. The Supreme Court on Friday came close to ordering the government not to deport the Rohingya. It finally settled on merely observing that a balance should be struck between humanitarian concern for the community and the country's national security and economic interests. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions, one filed by persons within the Rohingya community, against a proposed move to deport over 40,000 Rohingya refugees. A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, began by orally indicating that the government should not deport Rohingya “now”, but the government prevailed on the court to not pass any formal order, citing “international ramifications”. With this, the status quo continues even though the court gave the community liberty to approach i