Thursday Brief

Today on the front page of the newspaper which I read, is having many stories about various  court cases in the country, where Supreme Court (SC) and High Court (HC) are involved.

1 The SC rules that Protestors can not block roads or any public places and directed authorities that such  things should not be allowed in the future. This ruling came during the hearing of Shaheen Bagh cases in Delhi, where protestors who were protesting against the new law  Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register for Citizen (NRC). SC commented that  “ striking a balance between the democratic right to protest and need to spare inconvenience to common public, due to blockade should not be permitted.” The judges further stressed that blockade of public  spaces and roads, popular means protest against colonial rulers, can not be resorted in a self ruled democracy as the Constitution, while conferring certain rights, has obligated everyone to perform fundamental duties. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but if people want to demonstrate their dissent, then they have to express the same at designated places alone. The present case of Shaheen Bagh was not even one of the protests taking place in undesignated area, but was blockade of public way which caused the grave inconvenience to commuters. The EC judges chide the HC for creating a fluid situation, when the petition against the protestors were presented in HC, as HC had commented that the administration ought to take action to keep the area clear of encroachments or obstructions. The HC should have monitored the matter rather then disposing of writ petition and creating a fluid situation.

This is a welcome decision by SC, and was needed very badly, otherwise all these political parties in the name of protests resort to Rasta Roko, Dharna on roads, blockade of pubic areas and causing inconvenience to public. Now the administration of all the cities have to designate the area where protestors can stage their dissent and protest against the govt.

2 Yesterday I had written about the denial of bail to Rhea Chakravorty by NDPS court. But  yesterday only Bombay High Court (HC) granted her the bail. The HC held that there was no substance to the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) ‘s  allegation that Rhea was “ financing or trafficking” in drugs. HC did not accept the argument that she would attract stringent charges under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for spending money in procuring drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput. She is not part of chain of drug dealers, no drugs were recovered from her possession nor she did benefit from deals. HC further noted “ It is highly disproportionate and extremely unreasonable” that the person (Sushant) who consumed drugs, would have got one year in jail or immunity from trial, but the one who (Rhea) gives money for the drugs faces the prospect of 20 years in jail.

The judgement only proves that NCB was under the pressure to somehow get Rhea arrested under any charge, as Sushant’s death case was going no where and Rhea’s involvement in his death could not be proven whether it was murder probe or abetment of suicide.

3 Yesterday there was one more classic case in SC, which depicts the situation of Indian judiciary. A person who committed a crime in 1981, when he was little above 16 years. Now one court ie HC considered him as adult, as per the law amended in 1986 which said any juvenile who is above 16 years of age should be treated as adult and punishment be awarded accordingly, if found guilty. However, by the time the trial was completed and HC decided the appeal in 2018, the Juvenile Act of 2000 had come into force, which termed a person minor if he had not been 18 years of age at the time of commission of crime. The HC had sentence him for life imprisonment. The convicted person filed the appeal in SC claiming the benefit of juvenile under the 2000 Act. So SC gave the order that “ As he was less than 18 years of age on date of commission of offence, he is entitled to be treated as a juvenile and be given benefit as per the 2000 Act. While upholding that the person has been convicted, SC set aside the life imprisonment judgement of HC and directed the Juvenile Board should decide the punishment, as he was juvenile at the time of offence.

See the Indian judiciary, the person who is now 55 years old committed the crime when he was 16+ of age, but has not served his sentence, even after his conviction because of lacunae in our legal system, and different judges interpreting the law differently.

Awaiting for your views/comments/feed backs.

Anil Malik

Mumbai, India

8^th October 2020