The Congress leader claimed that Talaq could be uttered thrice in anger like a curse, and may not be actually executed, and therefore, men cannot be punished for it. Triple Talaq according to Supreme Court is null and void, Azad said, wondering how Muslim men after staying in jail for three years will go home and live peacefully with their wives.
Accusing the government of being selective in honouring Supreme Court order, Azad asked Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad if he would implement all the minority judgements given by the apex court since He said it will lead to discord in Muslim families and society and if the government wants to listen to the Supreme Court, it should also bring a law on lynching and not resort to selective implementation. Opposing the Bill, he said a law should not be made to "finish one particular religion" and claimed that the "cat has come out of the bag", demanding that it be sent to Select Committee, which will see what has to be retained in the Bill.
He said the government should not target one section by framing an "unconstitutional" law but instead provide 33 per cent reservation to women for their empowerment, the way Congress government had earlier brought in reservation for women in panchayats, corporations and local bodies. Azad also accused the government of "double speak" and said empowerment is needed not only for Muslim women but also for Hindu, Christian and Jain women. He demanded that the bill should be sent to a select committee. TMC member Dola Sen raised the same demand.
Earlier Lok Sabha sent 60 to 70 per cent bills to select or standing committee for scrutiny," he said. She said, "Just because an ordinance to ban instant triple talaq has been brought, it does not mean that it has been scrutinised We have not become Presidential form of government or dictatorship Government says it is historic. She demanded that if the government is so keen on women empowerment then it should extend the session by one more day and bring Women's Reservation Bill as it would benefit 60 crore women.
Elaborating on why the bill should be sent to select committee, she explained, "The husband can be jailed for three years under the bill. Will that mean that women would not be allowed to marry for three years.
- roundup Archives - UK Human Rights Blog.
- (PDF) The Prism of Fundamental Rights | Janneke Gerards - nkilearpucho.ml.
- Free email updates;
How the maintenance will be paid. SP member Javed Ali Khan made the same demand.
He alleged that the the government is having a "hidden agenda" in the garb of the bill which was directed to "score a point" with its vote bank. He also asked the Law Ministry about the status of the group of minister on women empowerment formed in October which had to submit its report in three months.
Prisons Management System (PRISMS)
He said one of the ministers on the panel had found a mention in the 'Metoo' campaign with allegations that he had exploited women. He also said that an act can be categorised as offence in law only when it causes public disorder, but as per experts triple talaq does not do that. He explained that marriage in Muslim law is a civil contract and breach of contract divorce cannot be criminalised.
He said that when Supreme Court has decided that instant triple talaq is null and void then it cannot be declared as offence.
The Supreme Court and the Development of Law
Strongly opposing the bill, he demanded that the bill be sent to select committee. Echoing similar views, Elamaram Kareem CPM said that the Supreme Court has already set aside instant triple talaq saying it is void and unconstitutional and nowhere the apex court has said that instate triple talaq needs to be criminalised. He said that this bill is an encroachment on the rights of the people. RJD member Manoj Jha claimed the bill is a "violent tampering with the Article 14 of the Constitution equality before law.
You want to demonise Muslim men. Don't get the bill passed by managed majority. Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam placed strong reliance on Section , Cr. However, it may be necessary to state the legal evolution of the legislation for better appreciation of the issues at hand. The Reformatory Schools Act , , provided for establishment of reformatory schools for the detention of youthful offenders. As per Section 4 a of the Reformatory Schools Act, a youthful offender means any boy who has been convicted of any offence punishable with transportation or imprisonment and who, at the time of such conviction, was under the age of fifteen years.
The said Act created two schools, viz. It must be remembered that the date of offence was not the criterion, but, the date of conviction was the criterion for sending a youthful offender to the senior or junior certified school. See Vallabhapuram Ravi's case.
The statement of objects and reasons of the Borstal Schools Act reads as under:. It is now generally recognised that the period of adolescence is the most critical in an individual's life when the mind is specially susceptible to fresh impressions and when it is peculiarly important to prevent habits of immorality and crime from being formed, and that it is undesirable from all points of view to familiarise adolescents with ordinary jail life and bring them into contact with adult prisoners. The results of the experiment have been satisfactory and the Bill is framed with a view to the expansion and extension of the system.
The chief defect of the existing system is the admission in Borstal cannot profit by the Borstal treatment. The present procedure about releases is also cumbrous as every case has to be dealt with under Section of the Criminal Procedure Code. We are placing our emphasis on this because, a person lodged in the borstal school is bound to subject himself to a certain discipline, the relevance of which, will be made clear in the later portion of this order.
In Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar [ 5 SCC ], a 2 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the crucial date to determine whether an accused is a juvenile or not under the Act is the date on which the accused first appears in the Court in any enquiry or proceedings. State of Bihar [ 7 SCC ] declined to answer the reference as the Constitution Bench found that the matter was only of academic interest.
State of Bihar [ 5 SCC ] and held that the age of the offender must be reckoned from the date when the alleged offence was committed and overruled Arnit Das' case. The reason for coming to this conclusion can be found in paragraph 6 of the order, which reads thus:. If after conviction of an adolescent offender it has been thought of by the legislature to order such detention only in a borstal school, it will have to be held that at the pre-conviction stage also the same principle should be applied and the Judicial Magistrate concerned, while ordering the detention of an adolescent offender, should ensure that such detention is entrusted with the custody of the borstal school and not in a regular jail.
If any other course is adopted by the Judicial Magistrate, it would run counter to the object and purport of the enactment, namely, the Madras Borstal Schools Act and the same cannot be permitted to be continued. An under-trial prisoner cannot be categorised as an offender, because, his guilt has not yet been established in a Court of law and he has been directed by the order of a Court to be kept in judicial custody, pending decision by a Court about his culpability.
An under-trial prisoner is a temporary guest in a gaol and can, at any time, be released on bail by the order of a Court. Rules and of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules may be relevant and the same read thus:. No under-trial prisoner shall be required to labour and nothing in Chapter XXIV shall apply to such prisoners. They may be permitted to work in their yard if they desire it, but shall not be employed outside it.
He will have to be produced before the Court for extension of remand from time to time, whereas, borstal school was constituted for the purpose of giving sustained industrial training and other instructions to convicted prisoners in the age group of 18 to 21 years and they will be subjected to such disciplinary and moral influences as will be conducive for their reformation. This discipline cannot be imposed on an under-trial prisoner. The rules framed under the Borstal Schools Act mandated certain minimum requirements for running a borstal school.
Each school shall be divided into houses, each of which shall contain approximately the same number of inmates, care being taken to ensure that neither the best nor the worst inmates are concentrated in one house. Each house shall have a house-master who shall be selected by the Superintendent from the teachers and instructors of the school.
A petty officer shall be appointed to assist each house-masters. The following daily routine shall be observed in the school:. Unlocking 5. Morning prayer, visit to latrine and ablutions 6 to 7 a.
Parade and Physical Training 7 to 7. Morning Meal 7. Workshops, Schools, Agricultural Training, etc. Midday meal, prayer and rest Workshops, School and Agricultural Training, etc. Recreation and games 5 to 5. Bath 5. Meals 6 to 7 p. Lock-up From 16 March to 15th June, inclusive, the recreation and games period shall start at such times between 4.
Had it been brought to the notice of the Division Bench that there was only one borstal school in the whole State of Tamil Nadu and that is at Pudukkottai, we doubt whether the Division Bench would have passed such an omnibus direction. The State Government could not brace itself to handle the sudden inflow of under-trial prisoners in the borstal school and by a knee-jerk reaction, the State Government notified all the sub jails as borstal schools in order to meet the exigency.
A borstal school is not akin to proliferating nursery schools that are mushrooming in every locality these days. It does not admit of any other interpretation. It is trite that the words employed in a statue should be given their literal meaning, when there is no ambiguity. We quote Viscount Simon, L. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd.
No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons - Predators and Victims
Venkatachalam and others vs. Deputy Transport Commissioner and others [AIR SC ], the Supreme Court has cautioned that Courts must avoid the danger of a priori determination of the meaning of a provision based on their own pre-conceived notions of ideological structure or scheme into which the provision to be interpreted is somewhat fitted. The support drawn by the Division Bench in Shanmuganathan's case and by the Full Bench in Thangammal's case, from the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, in our view, is misplaced.
At the risk of repetition, the Juvenile Justice Act deals with a child in conflict with law, who is below the age of 18 years at the time of commission of the offence irrespective of the age at the time of conviction, whereas, the Borstal Schools Act deals with convicted persons, who, on the date of conviction, is not less than 16 years in the case of a boy and not less than 18 years in the case of a girl, but, not more than 21 years of age in either case. Since the Juvenile Justice Act is a special enactment for dealing with juveniles in conflict with law, it will eclipse a certain portion of the Borstal Schools Act.
In other words, a boy or a girl who is in conflict with law and who is below the age of 18 years, can never fall within the purview of the Borstal Schools Act, because, he or she will automatically come under the protective umbrella of the Juvenile Justice Act.
The age of a juvenile prior to the present Act was 16 years and a legal anachronism palpably exists requiring an amendment to the Borstal Schools Act substituting the age of 16 years by 18 years for a boy In the light of the above, there cannot be a complaint of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because, only when equals are treated differently, can one complain of discrimination.
For these reasons, we hold that the judgment of the Division Bench in Shanmuganathan's case does not lay down the correct proposition of law and is, ergo, overruled. Section 8 of the Madras Borstal Schools Act, , as it stood in , read as under:. Where it appears to a Court having jurisdiction under this Act that an adolescent offender should, by reason of his criminal habits or tendencies, or association with persons of bad character, be subject to detention for such term and under such instruction and discipline as appears most conducive to his reformation and the repression of crime, it shall be lawful for the Court, in lieu of passing a sentence of imprisonment, to pass a sentence of detention in a Borstal school for a term which shall not be less than two years and shall not exceed five years:.
Provided that, before passing such sentence, the Court shall consider any report or representations which may be made to it as to the suitability of the case for treatment in a Borstal school and shall be satisfied that the character, state of health and mental condition of the offender and other circumstances of the case are such that the offender is likely to profit by such instruction and discipline as aforesaid.bandcawono.cf
Gillian Triggs – Jim Carlton Memorial Lecture – The Decline of Democracy in a Post Truth Era
Sections , , and of the Indian Penal Code envisaged death or transportation for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term, which may extend to 10 years. In every case in which an offender is punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, it shall be competent to the court which sentences such offender, instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment, to sentence the offender to transportation for a term not less than seven years, and not exceeding the term for which by this Code such offender is liable to imprisonment.
- Information Computing and Applications: International Conference, ICICA 2010, Tangshan, China, October 15-18, 2010. Proceedings, Part I!
- Bringing them Home - Chapter 13 | Australian Human Rights Commission;
- Main navigation!
- News latest;
- Through the Prism of Prisoners’ Rights.
- Expert SharePoint 2010 Practices.
- Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (5th Edition).
Ganapati [ LW Crl. Chidambaram Pillai were convicted under Section A of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to transportation for fixed terms. Section 53 , as it stands now, reads as under:. Thirdly, -- Deleted Fourthly, -- Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely, Mohan Lal vs.
Neither the meaning, nor the definition of the term in one statute affords a guide to the construction of the same term in another statute and the sense in which the term has been understood in the several statutes does not necessarily throw any light on the manner in which the term should be understood generally. On the other hand it is a sound, and, indeed, a well known principle of construction that meaning of words and expressions used in an Act must take their colour from the content in which they appear.