|
|
|
|
| The Chennai Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts |
| my lack of morals | Views: 891 |
| Jun 23, 2010 4:49 am | | my lack of morals | # |
charu hasan | | There are number of things in today’s news that stuck me about the common mindset of the Madrasi PMK followers who walked out to assault an actress who had the audacity to recommend the use of condom to prevent HIV virus, 28 magistrates started 28 criminal prosecutions for a single act of the actor by throwing the universal theory of double Jeopardy to the political wolves, One supreme court warning to a husband in a divorce case that it is below his dignity to accuse a lady of an affair with his immediate boss, and another letter to the editor that Supreme Court has no business to think in terms of declaring suppression of Immoral Traffic legislation ultra vires of the Constitution.
What annoys me more among all this is the warning by Supreme Court against a husband accusing a wife with an act of sexual relations with her boss. It reminds of the chief Election Commissioner asking the Madras High Court to explain the legality advising the CEC to prosecute a political leader for non declaration, under an Act which was not in force at the time of filing of nominations. I may not be qualified to tell the Apex court about the existing law where no wife can be found guilty of adultery under our Penal law. I can agree that the remedy of the husband in cases of adultery is to prosecute the man who had sex with his wife and the instant case it is the wife’s boss. But living in adultery is one of the grounds for divorce by either spouse. How can The Supreme Court bar the fundamental right of using a ground that is allowed by imposing a moral code opposed to the law of the land?
Can any of our jurists tell me that our constitution defines Chastity? While Penal code provides punishment for man who has sex with another man’s wife (without the consent of the husband) it specifically adds a clause that the wife cannot be punished for abetment. There no provision for prosecuting a woman who has sex with another woman’s husband. I shall be thankful to any jurist who can explain the rationale behind this discrimination between genders. Private Reply to charu hasan |
| Jun 23, 2010 6:59 am | | re: my lack of morals | # |
SOEB FATEHI | | since i am not a jurist i know that offering any explanation will be a thankless exercise . . . .
most laws on this subject are not objective enough in the light of gender equality issues . . . mainly because the rationale of benefit of doubt and/or support or favor for the weaker gender prevails . . . .
in the absence of a constitutional definition of terms i presume that it is incumbent on the judiciary to use a majority accepted dictionary definition . . . .
i remember a very dear friend, many years my senior, who had used my help to compile correct definitions of names of some commodities from a dozen dictionaries and text books of electrical engineering supported by letters from eminent professors at VJTI and IITs . . . to explain that he was well within the law in his payment of Sales Tax in the 1970s . . . we succeeded in convincing the highest authorities about the wrongness of the Sales Tax Assessing Officer's contentions and interpretations . . . naturally it was all possible because we passionately pursued the matter with logical discussion instead of emotional shouting, sloganeering and rabble rousing . . . .
but the questions raised in this thread are very fundamental and require a questioning at constitutional level because the issues touch basic human rights . . . . good questions (and that is a judgmental statement) . . . Private Reply to SOEB FATEHI |
| Jun 24, 2010 1:35 am | | re: re: my lack of morals | # |
padmanabhan ramasubban | | Charu Anna,
Gender equality as a right has become established now more due to many organisation taking up the cause.
But we need to look at our own laws which is framed by adapting the on english jurisprudence.
I am in favour of amendment of law to make it applicable to both/all genders uniformly .
I agree law cannot look at gender and term one as weaker to offer them exemption from law.
Our eminent jurists should bring in many more legal reforms and also the need for uniform civil code now.Private Reply to padmanabhan ramasubban |
| Jun 24, 2010 3:49 am | | re: re: re: my lack of morals | # |
SOEB FATEHI | | will any uniform civil code be violated by reservations for one gender over another?
Private Reply to SOEB FATEHI |
| Jun 24, 2010 4:23 am | | re: re: re: re: my lack of morals | # |
charu hasan | |
Thanks for at least two people appling their minds on the issue raised by me. After 30 years working as a mediocre criminal trial lawyer I am inclined to agree with you that no law could be ultimate. The limitations of legislature is that we can not compel man to become pregnant and bear a child nor punish a woman for raping a man. Private Reply to charu hasan |
| Jun 25, 2010 2:11 am | | re: re: re: re: re: my lack of morals | # |
padmanabhan ramasubban | | //The limitations of legislature is that we can not compel man to become pregnant and bear a child nor punish a woman for raping a man.//
While medical science has not advanced to an extent to make a man pregnant now but it may happen if future.
While a woman cannot rape a man it is quite true that by enticement and seduction they can ruin a man or exercise manipulative control over him.Private Reply to padmanabhan ramasubban |
| Jun 25, 2010 2:41 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: my lack of morals | # |
SOEB FATEHI | | we should not argue over personal beliefs on morality as it would drive a wedge between us . . .
Private Reply to SOEB FATEHI |
| Jun 25, 2010 9:06 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: my lack of morals | # |
padmanabhan ramasubban | | We should be arguing over the wedge between if at all we believe morally in us! Private Reply to padmanabhan ramasubban |
 |
|
|
