In October
2015, Justice N. Kirubakaran of the Madras high court commented that child
sexual abusers must be castrated... it appears that today we are lapsing from
the reformative theory of justice and are keen to adopt the retributive theory
of justice. Read the powerful article written by Flavia Agnes
Sunday, 31 January 2016
Vagaries of our justice system
Even while rape victims approach the
system with renewed faith, the system has failed to reciprocate with a
corresponding increase in conviction rate or by bringing in adequate victim
support.Read a thought provoking article written by by
Flavia Agnes Asian Age Dec 13, 2015
Thursday, 17 April 2014
Supreme Court recognises transgenders as third gender
In National legal service authority v union of India bench consist of justice Radhakrishnan and Sikri recognized transgender community as a third gender entitled to the same rights and constitutional protection as all other citizens have and the court extended the global principles of dignity, freedom and autonomy to this unfairly marginalized and vulnerable community.The bench observed that “The transgender people, as a whole, face multiple forms of oppression
in this country. Discrimination is so large and pronounced, especially
in healthcare, employment and education, leave aside social exclusion.
Now, it is time for us to recognize the rights of transgenders as a
separate category and to extend and interpret the Constitution in such a
manner as to ensure a dignified life for them,”
Sunday, 8 September 2013
Bench consist of Sathasivam, Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi clearly held that in rape cases compromise entered between parties should not been construed as leading factor based on which lesser punishment can be awarded.
Shimbhu and Anr v State of Haryana (27th august 2013)
Bench consist of Sathasivam, Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi clearly held that in rape cases compromise entered between parties should not been construed as leading factor based on which lesser punishment can be awarded.
In the instatnt case accused persons 1 and 2 raped prosecutrix at knife point and threatened her with dire consequences. Trial court convicted and sentenced accused. High court also confirmed the sentence. Before the Supreme Court the issue was Whether appellants have made out case
for imposition of lesser sentence than 10 years. The Apex Court Held that compromise
entered between parties should not be construed as leading factor based
on which lesser punishment should be awarded - Rape was non-compoundable
offence and it was offence against society and was not matter to be
left for parties to compromise and settle. Since Court should not
always be assured that consent given by victim in compromising case was
genuine consent, there was every chance that she might have been
pressurized by accused or trauma undergone by her all years might have
compelled her to opt for compromise. Some times Accused might use all his
influence to pressurize her for compromise. So, in interest of justice
and to avoid unnecessary pressure/harassment to victim, it would not be
safe in considering compromise arrived at between parties in rape cases
to be ground for Court to exercise discretionary power under proviso of
s. 376(2) of IPC - Hence, request for reduction of sentence was rejected
Friday, 19 July 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)