Today’s Highlight

Apex Justice

Supreme Court fights a  last ditch battle to keep information with it a secret from prying eyes, as reflected in the appeal it has filed with itself, making it a complainant, prosecutor and judge rolled into one, as noted in “Should Supreme Court Risk Suspicion?”              

Bob’s Banter 

Women-haters

Bob has his humorous take on the leaders who oppose reservation for women in Parliament in “The Crude, Crass, Conservative Yadavs..!”

For more insightful articles by Bob, hit his website – www.bobsbanter.com

CocktailPlaza

Also have a look at our trivia/sublime, random quotes, Indiana and recycled humour in this section – as and when we schedule them afresh – or in the archives.

The Laughter CD is on the website for you to view/download.

The CD on laughter is loaded in the archives of this website for free downloading and use. Alert your friends who may be interested.

 Stay with us and help us to grow!

- John B. Monteiro

Should Supreme Court Risk Suspicion?

By John B. Monteiro

 Julius Caesar divorced his wife Pompeia, but declared at the trial that he knew nothing of what was alleged against her and Clodius. When asked why, in that case, he had divorced her, he replied: “Because I would have the chastity of my wife clear even of suspicion.” –Plutarch, Greek philosopher and biographer (AD 46-110).

Nothing is so oppressive as a secret: women find it difficult to keep one long; and I know a goodly number of men who are women in this regard. – La Fontaine, French poet (1621-1695).

Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead. – Benjamin Franklin, US statesman (1706-1790).

 Secrecy and suspicion seem to go together. If you have nothing to hide, why be secretive? To that extent secretiveness is self-serving. In this age of scoops and sting operations, even persons within the organisation spill the beans as has happened in the case of the self-styled godman, Paramahamsa Nityananda of Bidadi Ashram, near Bangaluru, whose alleged amorous escapades were exposed through a secretly filmed video, later broadcast by TV channels, by his erstwhile close aide, Lenin Karuppan, alias Dharmananda. It is in this context that one has to analyse the fetish of the Chief Justice of India, Justice KG Balakrishnan, to go to great lengths to keep the apex court from the ambit of Right to Information Act.

  This website has tracked the subject more than once and this update concerns the Supreme Court appealing to itself. In an historic judgment, eminent jurist, Lord Denning, had said that a departmental appeal was like an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. That is what seems to be happening now in the Supreme Court case.

 The Supreme Court on February 8, 2010, filed an appeal before itself challenging the judgment of Delhi High Court, on January 10, 2010, holding that the Office of the Chief Justice of India came under the ambit of the RTI Act and was liable to reveal information under it. It may be recalled that holding that the CJI is a public authority under the Act, a full Bench of the High Court had said judges of the superior courts should make public their assets as they are not less accountable than the judicial officers of lower courts who are bound by service rules to declare assets. The Bench dismissed the plea of the SC which had vehemently opposed bringing the CJI’s office within the purview of the Act on the ground that it would encroach upon its judicial independence.

 The same arguments are recycled in the latest appeal (from Caesar to Caesar?). It says that the impugned judgment “has far reaching consequences for the institutional independence of the Supreme Court, the higher judiciary, the position of the Office of the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justices of the High Courts, the position of judges individually and the judiciary as an institution under the Constitution. The High Court has not correctly appreciated the scope and ambit of the Act and the position of the CJI in the constitutional scheme.”

 The appeal says: “The right to information under the RTI Act is applicable only to information which is in the public domain. The Act can be invoked only in relation to information pertaining to the public affairs of a public authority. If the matter or information is not in the public domain, there is no right under Section 2 (j) of the Act.”

 The appeal raises questions of law whether the CJI “holds information pertaining to  assets of individual judges in a fiduciary capacity” attracting the exceptions under the Act; whether the information on the assets is personal information of the judges exempted under the Act; whether the respondent has a right to ask information under the Act which militates against the basic constitutional feature and whether certain confidential information in the CJI’s possession could be disclosed. The appeal says that the High Court’s conclusions were erroneous as information under Section 2 (j) was not an unfettered constitutional right but was subject to restrictions under the Act itself, which contains exclusions and also exemptions under Section 8. It says that the High Court erred in concluding that the respondent had a right to information pertaining to the assets of judges under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

 The subject is open to many views. What are yours? Over to you.

I wondered why the three Yadavs were so afraid of having women in Parliament that they actually became physical and scuttled the Women’s Reservation Bill! I decided to meet two of them:

“Hey Lalu, what’s the problem?”

“Women!”

“I know, I know, but what’s wrong in having them in the House?”

“No kitchen!”

“No kitchen?”

“No kitchen in this House!”

“You want a kitchen in Parliament?”

“Yes, good idea, then we will pass the Bill, and we will pass all bills while women make chappatis like my wife, Rabri make chappatis in the kitchen and pass it to me!” 

I went across to the other Yadav, “Hey Mulayam sahib, what’s your problem?”

“I have no problem, you have problem!”

“I have a problem?”

“Yes you want women in Parliament that’s your problem no?”

“But sir, why don’t you want women in Parliament?”

“Because I am shy man!”

“You are anything but shy sir!”

“I am shy when women are around, and when half of Parliament be full of women then I will become so shy I will not open my mouth!”

“Ah sir, you are very conservative?”

“Conservative?”

“Yes, you belong to a generation that is not used to speaking to women?”

“That is it! That is it! Women are not meant to be spoken to, women are meant to be….”

“Molested?”

“Correct, correct!”

“Beaten?”

“Yes, yes, conservative man beat women!”

“Ridiculed?”

“What is that?”

“Sir to laugh at a women, when you are with men?”

“That is me, that is me, conservative man!”

“And sir Lalu believes that women should make chappatis?”

“He is also conservative man!”

“Sir maybe that’s why women want to get into Parliament!”

“Why?” asks Mulayam.

“Why?” asks Lalu.

“Because they are fed up of being beaten and raped and molested, they want to speak out against just making chappatis in your kitchen!”

“But we are shy conservative Yadavs no, we don’t want to hear..!”

Today’s Highlight

Justice Delivery

In considering a case, judiciary should hug the law rather than stray beyond it – as implied in “Should Custom Mitigate Punishment?”              

Bob’s Banter 

Forgiveness

Bob gives a gentle sermon on the virtues of forging in “A dose of Forgiveness..!”

For more insightful articles by Bob, hit his website – www.bobsbanter.com

CocktailPlaza

Also have a look at our trivia/sublime, random quotes, Indiana and recycled humour in this section – as and when we schedule them afresh – or in the archives.

The Laughter CD is on the website for you to view/download.

The CD on laughter is loaded in the archives of this website for free downloading and use. Alert your friends who may be interested.

 Stay with us and help us to grow!

- John B. Monteiro

Should Custom Mitigate Punishment?

By John B. Monteiro

 “He is next to gods whom reason, and not passion, impels and who, after weighing the facts, can measure the punishment with discretion.” – Claudius, epic poet of Alexandria (365-408).

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” – Genesis IX 6, Old Testament of the Bible.

“Hanging was the worst use a man could be put to.” – Sir Henry Wotton, English author (1568-1639).

“The severest punishment a man can receive who has injured another, is to have committed the injury; and no man is more severely punished than he who is subject to the whip of his own repentance.” –Seneca, Roman philosopher (BC4- AD65).

 These are samples of opinions held by philosophers, religions, writers and others on the subject of punishment, varying from an eye for an eye to let off for repentance. These views were based on religious, moral and ethical grounds. But, now we have the laws as anchors to judge the wrong and mete out punishment. Yet, our judges, even at the apex level, seem to bring in other considerations, such as mitigating the matter on the excuse of customs of the community, as reflected in the case cited below. But, first the facts.

 Coinciding with the International Women’s Day, Divya Gandhi, in an exclusive interview with Sushma Tiwari, titled Her struggle for justice against honour killing in The Hindu (8-3-10) highlights a case wherein The Supreme Court of India reduced a punishment on the ground that honour killing is customary for some communities. Sushma writes: “As the Women’s Reservation Bill rings in the centennial year of Women’s Day on a celebratory note, 25-year-old Sushma Tiwari’s story tells of an inspirational fight-back against a brutal form of patriarchy and caste oppression.”

 It has been a six-year legal battle for Sushma against the horrific ‘honour killing’ by her brother, Dilip, with his associates,  in 2004, seven months after the marriage, of almost her entire marital family: husband Prabhu Nochil, her father-in-law and two minors in their home  near Mumbai, all to avenge her marriage into  a family of ‘lower’ caste. Sushma is from a Brahmin family of UP, and Prabhu, an Ezhava from Kerala. A pregnant Sushma luckily escaped as she was visiting a relative.

 Although a fast track sessions court, and later the Bombay high Court, awarded the death penalty to  Dilip and his accomplices, the Supreme Curt, in December 2009, reduced the sentence to 25-year imprisonment. In February 2010 Sushma filed a revision petition questioning the decision to let the convicts off the noose.

 The Supreme Court, explaining its decision to revoke the death sentence, said: “It is a common experience that when the younger sister commits something unusual and in this case it was an inter-caste, intercommunity marriage out of  (a) secret love affair, then in society it is the elder brother who justifiably or otherwise is held responsible for not stopping such (an) affair…If he became the victim of his wrong but genuine caste considerations, it would not justify the death sentence.. The vicious grip of the caste, community and religion, though totally unjustified, is a stark reality.”

 Sushma has challenged this reasoning, stating that the perception “is wrong and totally illegal under our Constitution and various laws of the land .. and can never be made a ground for lessening the sentence. In fact, these feelings of caste hatred are themselves criminal”. Her petition states: “In fact, mass killing based on the concept of ‘honour’ must be viewed (by the court) as murder which must be given the highest deterrent sentence.”

 Since the case is due for review, it suffices to focus on the cards put on the table by Sushma and the reasoning of the court for reducing the penalty –without further comment.

 The subject is open to many views. What are yours? Over to you.

Something that startles me no end is to hear people talk about old hurts, insults and old humiliations, and know that forgiveness has not taken place. And as I listen to bitter, shrill voice expounding on such old incidents, I want to shake them and say, “It’s you who are killing yourself carrying your bitterness on!” And more than that, “You kill present day relationships, because nobody knows when dormant volcano within you, will erupt and intrude into everyday situations!”

Dr Frank Boehm learned long ago that not everything that happens to our body is assigned to medical facts. “My father who escaped the Holocaust believed that anger, resentment and unforgiveness, bred disease of the soul, as well as the body. Forgiveness is good medicine he told me.”

Some years ago a patient came to see Dr Boehm about her constant neck pain, headaches and high blood pressure. But he couldn’t find a medical cause for her ailments. “Tell me about your life,” he then said. She told him she was in conflict with her two sisters because they had forsaken her in her time of need earlier. Recalling his father’s words, the doctor encouraged her to forgive her sisters. Years later Boehm received a letter from his patient. She had made peace with her sisters and sure enough her physical ailments had abated. “She found forgiveness and from this good health,” said Boehm.

“When you are treated unjustly by another, anger is a natural response,” says Robert Enright, professor of educational psychology and author of ‘Forgiveness is a Choice’. “But if these resentful feelings are not resolved, a grudge will form: Victims, may want to hold a grudge because it gives them a regained sense of control and superiority. However when nursing a grudge you’re essentially stuck in the victim role and are inviting anger to become a companion in your everyday life and a toxin to your body..!”    

Says Dr Redford Williams, author of ‘Anger Kills’, “If you don’t forgive, resentment can erupt at any time and the cost to your body is ongoing. It’s like taking small doses of poison daily!”      

Forgiveness is not denying you’re angry or pretending the injury didn’t happen. Forgiveness is to reframe how one feels about the offense and those seen as responsible. It is moving from continually replaying your personal grievance story to revising it so that you are no more a victim of your past.

Start small by learning how to forgive minor slights. If you arrive home and trip on your son’s bicycle in the verandah or driveway, recognize that he isn’t out to get you, and forgive him.

“By changing your thinking you can decide whether your anger is appropriate,” says Williams, “and over time you will be able to forgive tougher injuries.”

“One forgiving act is the beginning,” says Enright, “as you continue offering forgiveness, your identity will no longer be that of a victim but of one who is powerful in the face of adversity!”

Want to be healthy? Swallow a dose of forgiveness..!

Today’s Highlight

Polygamy

Muslim co-wife can claim divorce on her mere stating that her husband has treated her inequitably, as explained in “What is the Price of Polygamy?”              

Bob’s Banter 

Dalit-chasing!

Bob has his say on mother’s love in “Blaming Mom..!”

For more insightful articles by Bob, hit his website – www.bobsbanter.com

CocktailPlaza

Also have a look at our trivia/sublime, random quotes, Indiana and recycled humour in this section – as and when we schedule them afresh – or in the archives.

The Laughter CD is on the website for you to view/download.

The CD on laughter is loaded in the archives of this website for free downloading and use. Alert your friends who may be interested.

 Stay with us and help us to grow!

- John B. Monteiro

What is the Price of Polygamy?

By John B. Monteiro

 Then let thy love be younger than thyself,

Or thy affection cannot hold the bent:

For women are as roses, whose fair flower

 Being once displayed, doth fall that very hour.

 - William Shakespeare, English dramatic poet (1564-1616).

 Polygamists take their cue from Shakespeare and go on adding younger dames to their harem. Islam allows four wives at a time subject to conditions. Apparently this involves the consent of the existing wife/wives and that all are treated equally. In a male-dominated society, where the woman is zero without the backing of the husband, consent can be cooked up. Even the equitable treatment can remain an unenforceable concept. Against such an unpromising situation Indian higher judiciary has come to the aid of the Muslim damsel in distress and laid down the law – even if it is only case law. But, first the facts.

 A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court recently declared that courts must accept the assertions of a Muslim wife in a polygamous marriage that she has been treated inequitably by her husband in claims for divorce under Section 2 (viii) (f) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939. The  Bench gave the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by a Muslim man against a single judge’s verdict upholding the lower court’s order for divorce on a petition filed by his wife.

 The court held that in a claim for divorce under the above-noted section of the Act, it was the assertion of the woman that mattered. She was the best judge to decide whether she has been treated equitably or not. When it was or proved that there has been a second marriage and the wife asserted that she had been treated inequitably and that she would like to walk out of such a marriage, no court could fetter her right to quit the marriage. Whether there was cross-examination or not, the assertion would have to be accepted. The Koran mandates that she must be ‘dealt with fairly and justly’. If she perceived the treatment to be unjust and inequitable, her assertion would have to be accepted totally.

 Setting the issue in proper perspective, the court pointed out that a Muslim husband had the right to walk out of the marriage. “At least when faced with the ignominy of polygamy, the wife must on her assertions be able to secure an order through court to quit such a marriage. Her assertions need not be tested on any other touchstone. It is, of course, true that Section 2 (viii) (f) of the Act does not recognize a polygamous marriage by itself as a ground for divorce; but read reasonably, the provision concedes to the wife the right  to walk out of the marriage if she is satisfied that she has not been treated equitably in such marriage”. The Bench said the fact that she had consented to a polygamous marriage, that she had lived with her co-wife happily for some time or that she had entered into  a polygamous marriage with a ‘consciousness’ that she would be a second wife were ‘all no effective defences’ in a claim for divorce.

 Further putting the subject into context of the easy option available to Muslim husbands to get instant divorce through the triple “talaq” route, the Bench observed that when it came to the unilateral right of the Muslim man to divorce his wife, he need not reveal intimate confidential details in the realm of privacy to anyone including the court or an outsider. He could divorce her  without making any allegations or without the intervention of courts. (It may be added that in this internet age, coward husbands, who cannot pick up courage to pronounce talaq in person, have been resorting to e-mail for delivery of message).

 Polygamy has light sidelights. In the case of one Hassan, he lodged his two wives separately and took turns to enjoy their favours. Past middle age, Hassan had salt and pepper hair. When he visited the first and older wife, she used to pluck his black hair so that he does not remain attractive to her younger co-wife. When he visited his younger second wife, she used to pluck out his grey hair so that he remained youthful and attractive to her. Hassan of two wives ended up bald! What would have been the scenario if Hassan had married four wives allowed to him?

 Finally, Artemus Ward tells us that Shakespeare, with whom we began this column, endorses polygamy: He speaks of Merry Wives of Windsor; how many wives did Mr. Windsor have?

 Jokes aside, the subject is open to many views. What are yours? Over to you.