Holding The Tongue Is Indeed, A Herculean Task!

If the Nehru-Gandhi scion Rahul Gandhi is in the state of befuddlement today since his conviction in a defamation case immediately followed by his ouster from the Lok Sabha, his uncontrollable tongue alone is to be blamed. The tongue-twisting game is not for all. Perhaps it requires greater skill and manoeuvring than any other mundane game! In short, it is not a cup of tea for everybody.

Unfortunately, today all and sundry indulge in this highly complicated game. Politicians of all hues jump at a slight provocation or even without a provocation and let their tongue spit venom or acid whatever you call. It is also true that many a victim do not give any importance to such 'nonsense' utterances of an opponent, otherwise we could have had to set up atleast a million 'special fast-track courts' to cope up with the unimaginable number of defamation cases and other relevant criminal cases, such as criminal intimidation, threatening a woman to outrage her modesty and what not. One more reason why a majority of the victims of such loose-tongue elements go scot free is the disinclination of the victims because of heavy litigation costs, judicial delays and a punishment of just two years imprisonment to the convict.

Perhaps, the father of the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, 1861, Thomas Babington Macaulay was too optimistic about the social behaviour of the future generations of our society. Therefore, he provided the maximum of two years and/or fine for the offence of defamation. This punishment was rather meagre as it was meant to give an opportunity to the irresponsible tongue twisters. But as could be seen today, the people by and large are not afraid of such an insignificant quantum of punishment for using abusive or defamatory language.

Perturbed by the increasing incidents of hate speech which is nothing but an aggravated form of loose tongue, and visible 'inaction' of the concerned government, recently the apex was constrained to use the strong epithet of 'impotency' for such inactive governments.Though, considering its august and adorable position the honourable court ought to have exercised some restraint before using such a humiliating word.

But this does not absolve the Executive wing of the Constitution from its regulatory function. The state administration is, indeed, duty bound to act swiftly against the venom spitting elements irrespective of their social, financial, educational or political status. Further, it is high time that the quantum of punishment for defamation is enhanced from five years to at least seven years for the first offence and ten years for the subsequent offences besides a hefty fine of rupees one lakh for the first offence and rupees three lakhs for the subsequent offences.

The parliament and legislative assemblies and other bodies where the elected public representatives meet and deliberate the public affairs are considered as temples of democracy. In order to maintain their dignified status it is necessary that the rules of business of these houses are suitably changed on the lines suggested supra without any delay. Indeed, our largest democracy in the world cannot be allowed to be derided by irresponsible and uncultured public representatives anymore.

SC ON BAIL IN NDPS CASES

In an important judgment on the issue of granting bail to the accused persons under the dreaded Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), the Supreme Court has held that undue delay in trial can be a ground to grant bail to an accused, despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

A division bench comprising Justice SRavindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta while granting bail to an alleged ganjasupplier who was arrested seven years ago held as under:

"Grant of bail on the ground of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436 A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too."

According to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court can grant bail to the accused only if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Reference was also made to the decision in Union of India Vs. Najeeb where it was held that stringent conditions under the UAPA will not fetter the right of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the ground of violation of fundamental rights and added that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right.

This landmark judgment was delivered in the case titled, Mohd. Muslim Vs. State (NCT of Delhi).

BOMBAY-HC ON DV ACT

A single bench of Justice Amit Borkar of the Bombay High Court has recently held that a transgender woman who has undergone sex re-alignment surgery can be an 'aggrieved person' under the Domestic Violence Act and has the right to seek interim maintenance in a domestic violence case.

Dismissing the petition filed by a man who had challenged the maintenance awarded to his wife, a trans-woman, observed:

" ...the Transgender who has performed surgery to change gender to a female, needs to be termed as an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is, therefore, held that a person who has exercised his right to decide the self-identified gender of woman is an aggrieved person."

This broad interpretation of the expression, aggrieved person was given in the present case, titled, VithalManikKhatri Vs. Sagar Sanjay Kamble @ Sakshi Vithal Khatri and Another.

KEJRIWAL FINED RS. 25,000 !

In a case titled Gujarat University Vs Madabhushi Sridhar, the High Court of Gujarat slapped a fine of Rs. 25,000 on Aravind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi.

The case in question pertains to thesuomotu RTI query about the BA and MA degrees of the Prime minister Narendra Modi. The Gujarat University approached the High Court saying that the particulars of the M.A degree were available in public domain on its website. The details of the prime minister's B.A degree which he obtained from the Delhi University were also available in public domain. Therefore, there is no need to comply with the direction of the Central Information Commission in this regard. Further, the petitioner stated that there was total absence of 'public interest', hence the information sought for need not be given.

The High Court observed that it was immaterial whether the Prime Minister had a degree or not and there was no public interest involved. The court also termed the whole exercise of Kejriwal as 'childish' and imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on him.