Hell homes

Renu (name changed) got married in February 2012.  In June, the same year she had to escape from her matrimonial home in order to save her dignity and life.  This was a marriage that had a very turbulent beginning.  So to say, the husband and his relatives created enough nuisance on the eve of the marriage, which in my view was sufficient enough even to call off the wedding.  The bride was allowed to enter the wedding hall only after all the jewels demanded were brought there.  The groom's mother even had a weighing scale in place to verify if the quantity demanded was brought by the girl's parents.  There was even a goldsmith present to appraise the gold brought in as dowry.  I am perplexed why the girl's family went ahead with the wedding.  


Societal pressure, they tell me.  How much longer are girls in this country going to be sacrificed for this society?  Of course, in this day and age many girls are willing to stand up for their rights, though it is no mean task.  With all its material advancement the Indian mind   still retains an element of primitiveness in such matters.  I am not talking about some girl in an obscure village that has gone through this trauma. Renu is a Post Graduate and was employed as a Professor in an Engineering college.  She quit this job to get married.  Now, she is on the way out of the marriage and is finding it tough to get into another employment.  


This is only one of the thousands of such cases.  The facts of each case may vary, but it cannot be denied that behind all these stories there will be evil people and hell homes.  Many a time, it is one woman who destroys the life of another.  Mother-in-law or sister-in-law or both ensuring that the daughter-in-law is abused, both physically and mentally.  There are also cases where the mother-in-law is edged out.  We are not yet ready to accept that counselling can help to minimise the pressure, if not solving the problem.  Parents get their children married only to see them happy.  And it is the very same parents that become the hurdle to their children's matrimonial bliss.  


Apart from the existing laws, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is now coming to the rescue of many affected women.  Under this Act any lady treated with cruelty by her husband or his relatives can petition the Court for remedy.  In fact, the complaint need not even be given by the woman.  It can be given by anyone interested in her welfare.  The parties involved need not be married.  The Act applies to those living in a shared household.  The society popularly knows it as living together.  They should have been in a domestic relationship.  That is all.  


An aggrieved woman, or anyone interested in her cause, can file a petition in the Court of the Magistrate having jurisdiction.  Abuse could be physical, sexual, emotional or verbal and financial.  The Act describes each of these abuses in detail.  The Court is empowered to pass orders of protection, interim maintenance and restraining orders preventing the respondent from going to the place of residence or work of the wife.  Such a complaint can also be made to the Protection Officer appointed by the Government.  A Domestic Incident Report will be prepared and sent to the Court.  This report will have complete details of the nature of abuse.  


An encouraging provision in this Act is the power given to the Court to utilise the services of Service Providers whose services can be utilised for legal, counselling, medical or shelter home requirements of the aggrieved lady.  Service Providers should be registered with the State Government in order to enable the Court to utilise its services.   The Court shall endeavour to dispose off the petition within 60 days.  


There can be so many laws.  Newer features can be introduced into existing laws.  Yet, if there is no basic respect for another individual, it not even be love and affection, just respect, hell homes and evil people will never cease to exist.   

Supreme Mercy - Passive Euthanasia

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising their Lordships, Hon'ble Mr.Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra delivered a landmark judgement recently on a very sensitive issue, euthanasia (painless killing to relieve suffering).

In the preliminary paragraphs of this judgement, their Lordships have briefly visited the thought of dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable, on the ground that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to live, but not to die. On this score alone the petition filed by Ms.Pinky Virani could have been dismissed. However, as their Lordships have rightly felt that there is a need to answer larger questions on this subject, the Court has gone into a very detailed exploration of euthanasia, keeping in mind the case on hand, that of Aruna Shaunbaug, a hapless young nurse who was sodomised on a dark November night in 1973 by a devil in human form. Thereafter, Aruna is in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) and thankfully is completely unaware of the wide media glare her frail existence is deriving.

His Lordship Markandey Katju opens the judgement with a couplet of Mirza Ghalib.

“Marte hain aarzoo mein marne ki

Maut aati hai par nahin aati”

These lines, perhaps, best portray the mute mind of Aruna Shanbaug who awaits the elusive end. There is still so much life in her lifeless form. A few gasps of breath still cling on to a few bones and meagre flesh.

The Court, being presented with contradicting set of facts by the petitioner, Ms.Virani and the Dean of the KEM hospital, where Ms.Shanbaug lies in misery, constituted a team of three eminent Doctors to go investigate and submit a report about the actual physical and medical condition of Aruna. Upon a reading of the text of the judgement one finds that the report submitted by this three member panel of eminent experts is comprehensive, the least to say. It has gone into all aspects of the condition that Aruna is in today and has concluded that she is in a permanent vegetative state and that there are no medicines to cure her present condition.

The judgement has also gone into euthanasia laws in other countries and discussed the merits and demerits thereof. It is evident that only a very few countries have legalised euthanasia, while most others have opted not to do so. Our country does not permit euthanasia. As mentioned earlier, the Constitution, under Article 21 has only guaranteed a right to life and not to death.

However, keeping in mind the pressing need for relief from the misery of not being able to die a dignified death that thousands of terminally ill patients cannot even speak of, the Bench has formulated certain guidelines to be followed in such cases. Of course, only the Parliament can enact a law legalising euthanasia. Till such time, this judgement has given an option to the patients like Aruna Shanbaug to decide, either on their own or in through their kith and kin or friends to end their misery by embracing death.

The Bench has also observed that the moral fabric of our country is very precarious. The following extract from paragraph 127 of the judgement is a must read:

"Considering the low ethical levels prevailing in our society today and the rampant commercialization and corruption, we cannot rule out the possibility that unscrupulous persons with the help of some unscrupulous doctors may fabricate material to show that it is a terminal case with no chance of recovery. There are doctors and doctors. While many doctors are upright, there are others who can do anything for money (see George Bernard Shaw’s play ‘The Doctors Dilemma’). The commercialization of our society has crossed all limits. Hence we have to guard against the potential of misuse (see Robin Cook’s novel ‘Coma’). In our opinion, while giving great weight to the wishes of the parents, spouse, or other close relatives or next friend of the incompetent patient and also giving due weight to the opinion of the attending doctors, we cannot leave it entirely to their discretion whether to discontinue the life support or not."

Keeping the above in mind, the Bench has laid down guidelines for enabling passive euthanasia, or in simple terms, withdrawal of medical attention being already provided to hasten death. Some of the guidelines are:

• Petition to the be presented to the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned
• Chief Justice to constitute a Bench to hear such petition
• The Bench (of at least two Judges) to decided on grant of approval or otherwise
• Bench should seek the opinion of a panel comprising three Doctors (where one should be preferably a neurologist, one a psychiatrist and the other a general physician)
• The High Court to prepare a panel of such Doctors in every city
• The Committee of Doctors should very carefully examine the patient and all relevant past medical records and also obtain views of the Doctors treating the patient, and the hospital staff attending to the patient and submit a report to the High Court.
• When the Committee of Doctors is appointed, the High Court shall give notice to the State Government concerned, relatives of the patient, if there are no relatives then to the next friend and hear them.
• After considering the report of the Committee of Doctors and hearing the views of the relatives/next friend, the High Court shall give its verdict as expeditiously as possible.
• The decision of the High Court should give a complete background for arriving at such a decision.

Thus, a cruel moment in the life of a spirited and dedicated young nurse at Mumbai has, after 37 years, paved way for succour to a million sufferings. As citizens of this country, we can be proud of the very noble institution that our Supreme Court is and be reassured that there is a forum that will come to our rescue when needed.

Men in Black

     The recent clash between Advocates and the Police within the premises of the Madras High Court has consumed a vast amount of space, both in the print and electronic media, and, in the imaginations of millions of people across the country, especially in Tamil Nadu.  The legal fraternity in the state was much discussed, with quite a bit of disgust, by the public at large.  Their stand of boycotting court proceedings was seen as a coercive move to get the High Court and the Government to buckle under pressure.  

What happened in the High Court on February 19th?  Were the Lawyers justified in their rebellion?  Where do the police exceed the power vested in them?  What is the role of the Learned Judges as sentinels of Justice? Does the media convey a true picture of an incident to the public? These are questions that linger in one's mind about this rather unwanted incident.  

There was an ongoing protest, first for the cause of Sri Lankan Tamils, and then opposing the Draconian amendments sought to be introduced to the Criminal Procedure Code by the Government of India.  A procession was held in New Delhi, which saw Lawyers from across the country voicing their protest against these amendments.  That the Government, as usual, paid no heed to these protests and enacted the Law is an entirely different subject.  The saving grace is that the law is yet to be notified, at least, in Tamil Nadu.  

While the lawyers were boycotting Court proceedings, Mr.Subramanian Swamy, himself a lawyer, appeared before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court seeking to implead himself in a Writ petition filed by the Dheekshitars of the Chidambaram Temple aggrieved by the Governments move to take over the temple's administration.  In the course of the bench hearing Mr.Swamy, a few advocates shouted slogans against him from outside the Court hall, and when he paid no heed to their marked protests, eggs were thrown at him.  It is certainly not a matter of debate that the conduct of the advocates who hurled eggs at Mr.Swamy is deplorable.  This was the genesis of the crisis.  

A case was registered against these advocates by the police station inside the High Court campus.  After the protest march in Delhi on the 18th of February, lawyers resumed work the next day.  The advocates who were suspected of the misdemenour against Mr.Swami came forward to surrender before the police.  However, much remains to be explained why the police dragged their feet in registering a case against Mr.Swami based on a complaint preferred by one of the lawyers.  After all, the fundamental of criminal jurisprudence is that an FIR (First Information Report) is only a document that sets the law in motion.  Subsequently, there has to be investigation into the complaint, and if sufficient material is made out, further course of action according to law has to be taken.  The police, somehow, failed to do this.  

This irked the lawyers who demanded to know why no case was registered against Mr.Swami even though a complaint had been preferred.  And, then they told the police that the proposed surrender of the advocates would happen if the case against Mr.Swamy is regsitered.  This led to a verbal duel between the advocates and the police.  In the resultant confusion a few of the advocates were man-handled while they were forcibly pushed into the police van.  This happened in full view of the lawyers present.  Immediately they protested against the behaviour of the police. 

What followed was absolute carnage.  The khaki clad, lathi wielding bunch of cops, ineberiated with the immense power vested in them embarked on a spree of destruction.  Anyone, irrespective of his stature and designation, was brutally attacked.  Even High Court judges were not spared.  The entire campus of the Madras High Court was taken over by the police for the next three hours or so.  They cracked skulls, broke bones, caused blood shed, broke doors, windows, tables, desks, damaged vehicles and exposed their true side, which is otherwise tucked into the confines of the compelled discipline of khaki.  

What was the need for so many policemen, in excess of 200 as reported, to be present at that particular time in the High Court campus?  What information did they have to deploy so many men on an otherwise uneventful day?  They are yet to explain.  

By training, vocation and instinct, lawyers are known to defend a cause.  Be it the cause of their clients or going back in time, the Independence movement, lawyers have been at the forefront.  Remember, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, was a lawyer himself. And scores of other leaders who championed the cause of independence for India were lawyers of significant eminence.  If at all anyone can question the action of the police it is the lawyers.  This is something that the men in khaki are yet to come to terms with.  And in any clash between the advocates and the police this is the undercurrent that causes such clashes.  

While it is true that the advocates are in no way justified in being the aggressors, there can be no reason for the police to behave in the manner in which they did.  Let us presume that the advocates had returned to work the next day without showing any protest to the police excesses, won't it be giving them a license to shed the discipline that is warranted of them as and when they feel like.  One must remember that it took much goading from the Supreme Court to make the Government of Tamil Nadu to name the officers who were in charge and who gave instructions that were carried out on the fateful day.  

The Justice Sri Krishna Commission's mission was only fact finding.  The report says that lawyers were at fault and the police used excessive power.  Even after the report was tabled before the Supreme Court, the Tamil Nadu government did not come forward to take action against the erring officers.  The relentless pressure mounted by the advocates also did not shake the government.  The Chief Minister was only making political statements of unwanted bravado, instead of investing his immense wisdom in resolving the issue.  

Even after the High Court has directed suspension of two officers, the Government has delayed matters allowing them to prefer appeals before the Supreme Court.  Would the Government extent the same courtesy to officers who are not in favour?  Certainly not.  There is a lot to be read between lines here.  The inaction of the Government fortifies the contention that it could be party to the decisions taken by the police officers.  Why is the government protecting them so much?  

If the advocate community, that fights for the rights of others, is treated with such disdain, what will be the fate of the common man when facing unfettered police action?  The police force has to understand that the huge power vested in them comes with an equal sense of responsibility.  Until this is realised by the law enforcing agency and put into action, they will be ever viewed with suspicion.  Let me place a poser for you here.  Will you dare to take on a policeman whom you know is acting in excess of what is required?  If your answer is yes, then, most probably, you must be a lawyer.  

Trial by media is a recent trend.  The media often trespasses into territory where it is expected to show restraint.  The classic example on hand is the live telecast of the rescue operations during the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack.  The channels could not think beyond TRP ratings.  Each one wanted to bring "exclusive footings".  They were so cold hearted that the families of the brave slain officers could not have a moment with the mortal remains of the dear departed and grieve in private.  What more is going to be "live and exclusive"?  My conscience is nauseated when I think that I was a party to this media excess, as these "exclusive" footages were watched by me, along with millions like you.  Not to mention the media's disregard for national security when telecasting live pictures which helped the handlers of the terrorist inside the Taj and other places to give more precise instructions.  Likewise, the lawyer-police clash never received an impartial coverage, either in the print or in the electronic media.  Opinions expressed by the media depended on the political affiliation of the channel or newspaper.  The day has come now where we have to heavily discount what the media reports and take only minimum congnizance of these "live and exclusive" reports.  

In order to ensure that such incidents do not repeat themselves frequently, the conscience of every Indian has to rise to the occassion.  The abysmally low moral standards that prevails now has to be raised.  We should establish the rule of law.  Every citizen has a duty to do that.  We must replace the present inept and unqualified leadership that sits in the Legislative Assemblies and in the Parliament.   A new freedom movement must now be launched.   We should free ourselves from criminals, rougues and anti-social elements that rule us now.  

India is a country with a great heritage.  We have the material to produce world class leadership.  We have the resources to become a super power and more.  We have the values that will drive us towards this goal.  What we do not have is the involvement and committment to do it.   Until we collectively resolve to do it for our country and our progeny, there is no point in blaming anyone.  There will be errant lawyers, violent policemen and scheming politicians waiting to make hay while the sun shines.