The 498A Survival Portal

 

We shall do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just.                    –John F Kennedy

____________________________________________

The CrPC amendments curtail the power of police to arrest.

Click the link below to know more.

CrPC Amendments

____________________________________________

If you’d like to know about Section 498A and how this blog came into existence, please continue reading. If you are already entangled in Section 498A and are here looking for help, jump to the 498A Survival Guide by scrolling down to it.

A decade ago, as a tradition bound Non Resident Indian living in the US, I settled for an Indian bride. She walked into my life in the US with motives at odds with mine…which led to conflicts and strife. An year later, unable to bear her presence in my life any more, I divorced her in the US and broke off all contacts with her.

Some years had passed since I last saw her and I was looking forward to a quieter and steadier future as she was no longer an unsettling part of my life. I assumed that as she got her American green card through me, she would move on with her life in the US and won’t harbor any ill-will towards me. That assumption was a fantasy.

Out of the blue, in 2006, my ex-wife flew back to India and accused me and my family of subjecting her to cruelty and domestic violence under India’s much abused domestic violence and dowry law, Section 498A. Without verifying any of her silly accusations, Indian policemen arrested my family on a Friday morning. Fridays are reserved by Indian cops to handle 498A cases. They arrest the accused on Friday mornings and then indulge in some foot-dragging till the evening in the police station. With the courts closed over the weekend, the accused — I like to call them victims — remain trapped in the paws of the cops. The cops spend all weekend intimidating the victims and by the time the sun rises on a Monday morning, these confounded and traumatized people are ready to pay a “settlement” to escape from the torturous clutches of the Indian criminal justice system. The tough ones and those who can’t pay remain entrapped in the Indian criminal justice system for years to come. Acquittals in 498A cases occur after the victims of this extortion racket endure long drawn trials lasting years. Convictions are the exceptions, unless there is overwhelming evidence. This was the established pattern of outcome in 498A cases since the introduction of this pernicious law.

After hearing about my family’s arrest, I chose to remain in the US.  My lawyer warned me that if I returned to India, I’d be jailed and worse, lose all chances of becoming an American citizen — I realized that the 498A placed my American citizenship at stake.

Back at the police station, with my family in the callous hands of corrupt cops, my ex-wife’s father demanded a $100,000 (USD) from them to close the case. This amount was the set rate extorted from non-resident Indians to settle 498A cases. When my family refused to “settle”,  they were produced in a local court and the corrupt judge jailed them in an attempt to force my return to India and “settle” the case. Obviously, the judge and the cops were promised a cut in the “settlement”.

Stranded in the US and unable to aid my jailed family in any way, I rapidly hit rock bottom and began to shed tears. It was at that instant that a light went on in my head. I realized that 498A was just an extortion racket. In reality it has nothing to do with justice, domestic violence, or the law and here’s why: Peddling 498A benefited Indian politicians as they could pander to the women’s vote bank. The cops made out like bandits  from the bribes gotten from accusers and the “settlements” extorted from the accused. And the legal fraternity, along with the lower judiciary, profited from the 498A Jail and Bail Industry (the lawyers protested the most when the CrPC amendments were introduced in 2009).

For the sake of the skeptics, I digress to show the valuation of the 498A Jail and Bail Industry. The numbers are numbing:

  •  100,000 498A cases are filed each year, per the NCRB (many cases go unreported so the actual figure is higher)
  •  $5,000 Dollars (Indian Rs 2 Lakhs) at the minimum, is paid to settle each case.
  •  Total money spent in dollars =  $500,000,000 (100,000 cases * $5,000) USD

That’s half a BILLION in US Dollars that flows through the Indian criminal justice system each year just from 498A cases. And my estimate is very low as many cases go unreported, and the money used to “settle” each case can range from $2000 to over $200,000 — the  amounts extorted depending upon the affluence of the accused.

A week had passed since my family was jailed and taking stock of the situation in my apartment, I understood that I was trapped in an extortion racket of national proportions. I decided to fight but awaited the eventual release of my family as a first step. They were released on bail after enduring 11 days of captivity.

Once they were out, I turned to the Internet seeking help and information to learn more about this extortion racket. I came across SIFF web sites and got a lot of support and advice from their wonderful volunteers. But the information they posted online on the laws of arrest in India and 498A in general was incorrect — I knew it instinctively as all the sites parroted that the police had the unrestricted power to arrest once a 498A  complaint was registered.

I just couldn’t believe that a democracy whose national motto was “Satyameva Jayate” would frame its laws with the intent to oppress its citizens…my disbelief aroused my curiosity.

At this stage, I read a book written by Prof Som K Shah calledFaith Belied. It mentioned a judgment of the Indian Supreme Court which prohibited arbitrary arrests. Intrigued, I delved into Indian court web sites to learn about Indian laws. I quickly unearthed judgments on the laws governing arrests and the rights of the accused. Reading these judgments, I realized that the Indian criminal justice system was acting in contravention of Indian laws when dealing with 498A cases. It is easy to explain how this happened: Over the decades, a belief was propagated in India that the police had the outright authority to arrest anyone implicated in a criminal case and corrupt policemen did so with impunity. This belief remained unquestioned and was promoted by police officers and lawyers.

Unfortunately, these same beliefs were packaged and presented to the public as facts at web sites of organizations committed to fighting 498A. I created this site/blog to dispel these beliefs and raise awareness of the laws and judgments which protect the rights of Indians though posts at this site. Over a span of several months, I devoted hours each day to reading and compiling judgments and articles about Indian laws. That’s how I learned about the right to due process in India.

Due process lays down that the procedure for depriving a person of his life or liberty must be lawful, reasonable, fair, and just. Due process means that no police officer has the right or the authority to effect the arrest of an individual merely because the person has been accused in a criminal case. Every member of the judiciary is also duty bound to respect the right to due process and cannot automatically send individuals to jail on account of being produced in a court room by the police.

Above all, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution asserts the importance of due process. It says:  “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.

You can read more about the right to due process here.

The Supreme Court of India enforced this right to due process and the right against arbitrary arrest in Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP in 1994.  This judgment explicitly states that:

“No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter.

This is the judgment Prof Som K Shah wrote about in his book; I owe him for the head start he gave me through his book.

Sadly, despite the existence of this order, the police and the lower courts colluded and jailed hundreds of thousands of innocent Indians accused under 498A for over a decade. I am amazed that this fact doesn’t seem to bother anyone in this country of a billion people.

Fortunately, the amendments made to the Indian criminal procedure code (CrPC) in 2009 finally incorporated the orders of this judgment into the criminal procedure code.

After accumulating a pile of information and reading hundreds of judgments, I condensed all that I learned into the 498A Survival Guide, and posted it here. I also worked hard to convince fellow activists of the importance of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP to end arrests by the police in 498A cases. As beliefs in the powers of the police to arrest were ingrained, it took a while, but I succeeded through persistence. Afterwards, I made several revisions to the 498A Survival Guide to keep it updated. It remains the definitive guide to surviving a 498A case since the time I posted it. Many victims have sworn that if it hadn’t been for it, they wouldn’t have fought or won their cases.

Over time, I’ve done my best to keep this site and its contents updated, but due to a punishing work and travel schedule, I haven’t been very successful at doing so. Also, I know that grammatical errors litter my posts and writings. I hope to eliminate these errors in the future. With 500+ posts, that is a lot of editing to do…and I’m trying.

The good news is the effect the passage of the CrPC Amendments had on the Jail and Bail Industry.  Click here to see how lawyers organized protests against the CrPC amendments. The amendments took the sting out of the 498A experience, as they prohibit arrests for offenses carrying sentences of less than 7 years. I believe that the Jail and Bail Industry is now heading into a recession.

But the fight isn’t over yet. The venal Indian establishment is trying to revive the Jail and Bail Industry by extending the sentence in 498A cases to 7 years or more. If they succeed in doing so, the CrPC amendments will no longer apply to 498A cases and the whole saga of arrests, jail and bail will start all over again.

The only way to end this tyranny is to fight using the RTI Act and having the courage, resilience, and the fortitude to resist the calls to pay bribes and make the case go away. Also, the judiciary falls under the RTI Act and know that the magistrates who summon you to face charges are not silent spectators. They must apply their heads to see if the accusations in the FIR (police complaint) constitute a crime.

I wrote the 498A Survival Guide to give those trapped in 498A cases hope and information to stand and fight. For thousands and maybe more, my work has been the only thing that stood between despair and hope. I believe that I may have succeeded in my efforts, but I can’t present any tangible evidence in the form of numbers or statistics.

Finally, for those who are wondering: I was never arrested. I  didn’t pay a penny to the cops or my ex-wife. And despite the odds, I stand holding my cherished trophy — my American passport.

Share

___________________________________

If you are visiting this site for the first time, please don’t be overwhelmed by the amount of information contained here. This information is empowering. It will inform you about Indian laws, your rights, and you’ll learn about the venality of the Indian criminal justice system.

Start with the The 498A Survival Guide and the rest will fall into place.

  1. The 498A Survival Guide: This 50+ page handout will help you defend yourself in your cases. It also has information detailing judgments which protect basic rights in India. (Updated Apr/2008)
  2. Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP – 1994: This Supreme Court judgment resulted from a writ of Habeas Corpus and it defines the powers of the police to arrest. You will be surprised to know how limited the powers of the Indian police to arrest truly are. If you are unable to get anticipatory bail, this judgment can protect you from an illegal arrest by the police. The recent CrPC amendment to Section 41, is the formal incorporation of this judgment into the Indian penal code.

  3. Understand The Right To Due Process:  This is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a citizen in accordance with the law, and holds the government subservient to the law of the land.
  4. Srinivasulu Vs State Of AP-2007:  The Supreme Court of India has stated that:  “Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman is required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC”. After the FIR is filed, read the FIR and question the cops on the basis for the applicability of 498A to your case, as given in this judgment. Most FIRs are a concoction of lies with no coherence or reason in them.

  5. SC Explains Anticipatory Bail – 2009 – This judgment explains the rules governing the granting of anticipatory bail. Everything you need to know is present in this judgment,

  6. The Final Report Of Film Actor Prashanth’s 498A Case (pdf is at the end of the post) – This article is the Final Report of film actor Prashanth. Read it to understand what a final report is.

  7. Justice Regupathy: Mechanical Judicial Remand Is ILLEGAL

  8. Justice Kailash Gambhir (Delhi HC) Guidelines On Prosecution Of 498A Cases

  9. Delhi Police Circular Forbidding Arrests In 498A Cases Without DCP’s Permission

  10. Hyderabad Police Circular Forbidding Arrests in 498A Cases Without DCP’s Permission

  11. Judgments of Justice Dhingra: Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra of the Delhi High Court has empowered victims of 498A cases with his judgments. Read these  to inform and motivate  yourselves to fight this racket.

  12. Chennai HC Justice Regupathy’s Orders On 498A Arrests

  13. SC Explains Conditions For The Quash Of An FIR – 2009

  14. 498A Counter Cases To Fight Back With – Compiled By Rudy

  15. The Important Sections Of The Dowry Prohibition Act
  16. AP Police’s Procedures for 498A Investigations
  17. The 498A FAQ (link to another blog)

498A Survival Guide In Regional Languages :

The Indian police force plays a huge role in this extortion racket. Read the judgments and articles about the Indian police to inform, educate and empower yourselves.

For immediate help and advice, contact:

The Supreme Court of India is the ultimate arbiter of the law on account of the The Doctrine Of Binding Precedent. Article 142 of the Constitution declares that any order of the Supreme Court is enforceable throughout the territory of India and article 144 mandates that all civil (police) and judicial authorities shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.

Repository Of Information:

OR

Compendium Of Judgments:

For Non Resident Indians (NRIs):

Documents on the Indian Police:

CBI Manuals:The CBI is the premier investigative agency of our country and I have a lot of respect for the capabilities of these guys. I just wish they would be a little more diligent before filing red corner notices against NRIs accused in dowry cases. In a sense they are insulting their own intelligence.
These manuals are a great source for detailing the process of investigation of cognizable offenses and also the laws of arrest. These are in the public domain (Internet) and I stumbled across them by accident; a gift from the gods. I believe that these manuals can serve as a good reference to file RTIs against corrupt police officers. Read these documents and you will get a clear idea of what the police are actually supposed to do upon the registration of cognizable offenses.

RTI is a powerful tool to combat the abuse of 498A. The police are required to answer within 48Hrs when an RTI is filed about a person who is arrested. Read about the basics of filing an RTI here:

Misc documents/links/News:

Archive:

Finally, regardless of what the 498A wives do to you, if you are innocent, you will prevail.

Read the disclaimer on the lower right hand side of the page.

Notice:

The content of this page is copyrighted.

The content of this blog is copyrighted. You are required to obtain prior permission before locally hosting or reproducing online or in print, any or part of the content. You are welcome to directly link to the content from your site.

Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape
MyFreeCopyright.com Registered & Protected
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under:

_______________________________________________

curtail the power of police to make arrests, thereby preventing any abuse of power.

A Note from Prof Som K Shah

I was pleasantly surprised to see a comment from Prof Som K Shah. I thought I should share it with all of you. He talks about the effort he put into writing his book, and the actions he took to get this pernicious 498A law amended.

Of special interest is the real story of why this law came into effect. So due to him, I now know that the mother of pussy politics is Indira Gandhi, who brought this law into effect to pander to the women’s vote bank. Unfortunately she didn’t realize that it would devastate families across India for decades to come. And now, it comes as no surprise that the Congress/UPA govt resisted all amendments to this law. After all, why would a party of dynasties ever want to discard their own legacy, however vile it may be?

Here is Prof Shah’s note:

Som K. Shah March 15, 2015 at 10:35 am

Hi ! This Is Som K. Shah. After so many years I was delighted to see that sufferers under ghastly 498-A are standing up. When I wrote the book, which the author of this blog has so gracefully acknowledged, in 2004 it was taken for granted that 498-A was a Brahmastra that destroyed all young men and their families. I was drawn into it when a very close relation of mine went through the trauma. We fought and as the present author of the blog gleefully declares, we did not pay a single penny to anyone. Not only that I got a number of policemen hauled up for the arrest and attempt to blackmail. I wrote the book and sent 2000 free copies to Ministers, Judges, MPs and media and opinion makers. The then law Minister Shri Arun Jaitley promised that he would do something about it. But they lost the government and nothing happened. Finally it was in 2009 that the law was amended.
The author of this blog has done a lot of Yeoman service and deserves all the kudos. i salute to him. Unfortunately my book is out of print, Though it is now dated but if anybody wants a copy, I have a few pre-print copies and I can send the same to anyone who is interested in having it.

Now a little aside on how the law 498-A came into existence. After the death of Sanjay Gandhi there was a continuous battle between Indira Gandhi and her daughter-in-law Maneka Gandhi. At one time the daughter-in-law was thrown out of the house with bag and baggage but she stayed put on the roadside inviting media who made a big story out of it. This brought in a lot of adverse publicity for the Prime Minister. Since the elections were approaching, she was advised to enact a law favouring women so that she may not lose female vote bank. 498-A was thus enacted in a huff.

———————————

Supreme Court of India: No Automatic Arrests in 498A Cases

All,

here is the judgment that made waves over the last few days. I’ll have more to say later, but for the moment, here is the judgment from the Supreme Court’s website:

Here are links to the judgement:

I hoped that Ranjana Kumari and the Indian commie dimwits will keep this peace, but I should have known better. They are back peddling their bullshit again, opposing this judgment. You can read about what they have to say here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/controversy-as-indias-highest-court-says-anti-dowry-laws-being-misused-by-disgruntled-wives-9582769.html

I will have a few things to say about the stand of these dimwits later.

===============================================

Supreme Court of India
Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014
Bench: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Pinaki Chandra Ghose

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1277 OF 2014

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9127 of 2013)

ARNESH KUMAR ….. APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. …. RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The maximum sentence provided under Section 498-A IPC is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine whereas the maximum sentence provided under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is two years and with fine.

Petitioner happens to be the husband of respondent no.2 Sweta Kiran. The marriage between them was solemnized on 1st July, 2007. His attempt to secure anticipatory bail has failed and hence he has knocked the door of this Court by way of this Special Leave Petition.

Leave granted.

In sum and substance, allegation levelled by the wife against the appellant is that demand of Rupees eight lacs, a maruti car, an air-conditioner, television set etc. was made by her mother-in-law and father-in-law and when this fact was brought to the appellant’s notice, he supported his mother and threatened to marry another woman. It has been alleged that she was driven out of the matrimonial home due to non- fulfilment of the demand of dowry.

Denying these allegations, the appellant preferred an application for anticipatory bail which was earlier rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter by the High Court.

There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. “Crime in India 2012 Statistics. published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.

Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the law makers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.PC. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive.

Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court in a large number of judgments emphasized the need to maintain a balance between individual liberty and societal order while exercising the power of arrest. Police officers make arrest as they believe that they possess the power to do so. As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever, we feel differently. We believe that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. Despite this legal position, the Legislature did not find any improvement. Numbers of arrest have not decreased. Ultimately, the Parliament had to intervene and on the recommendation of the 177th Report of the Law Commission submitted in the year 2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.PC), in the present form came to be enacted. It is interesting to note that such a recommendation was made by the Law Commission in its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as back in the year 1994. The value of the proportionality permeates the amendment relating to arrest. As the offence with which we are concerned in the present appeal, provides for a maximum punishment of imprisonment which may extend to seven years and fine, Section 41(1)(b), Cr.PC which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows:

“41. When police may arrest without warrant.-(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person –

(a)x x x x x x

(b)against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely :-

(i) x x x x x

(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary “

to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or

for proper investigation of the offence; or

to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or

to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or

as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured,

and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing:

Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

X x x x x x

From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that a person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on its satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. Police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts. Law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. Law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. In pith and core, the police office before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.PC.

An accused arrested without warrant by the police has the constitutional right under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57, Cr.PC to be produced before the Magistrate without unnecessary delay and in no circumstances beyond 24 hours excluding the time necessary for the journey. During the course of investigation of a case, an accused can be kept in detention beyond a period of 24 hours only when it is authorised by the Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 167 Cr.PC. The power to authorise detention is a very solemn function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. Our experience tells us that it is not exercised with the seriousness it deserves. In many of the cases, detention is authorised in a routine, casual and cavalier manner. Before a Magistrate authorises detention under Section 167, Cr.PC, he has to be first satisfied that the arrest made is legal and in accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of the person arrested is satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty bound not to authorise his further detention and release the accused. In other words, when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, the police officer effecting the arrest is required to furnish to the Magistrate, the facts, reasons and its conclusions for arrest and the Magistrate in turn is to be satisfied that condition precedent for arrest under Section 41 Cr.PC has been satisfied and it is only thereafter that he will authorise the detention of an accused. The Magistrate before authorising detention will record its own satisfaction, may be in brief but the said satisfaction must reflect from its order. It shall never be based upon the ipse dixit of the police officer, for example, in case the police officer considers the arrest necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence or for proper investigation of the case or for preventing an accused from tampering with evidence or making inducement etc., the police officer shall furnish to the Magistrate the facts, the reasons and materials on the basis of which the police officer had reached its conclusion. Those shall be perused by the Magistrate while authorising the detention and only after recording its satisfaction in writing that the Magistrate will authorise the detention of the accused. In fine, when a suspect is arrested and produced before a Magistrate for authorising detention, the Magistrate has to address the question whether specific reasons have been recorded for arrest and if so, prima facie those reasons are relevant and secondly a reasonable conclusion could at all be reached by the police officer that one or the other conditions stated above are attracted. To this limited extent the Magistrate will make judicial scrutiny.

Another provision i.e. Section 41A Cr.PC aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on accused requires to be vitalised. Section 41A as inserted by Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008(Act 5 of 2009), which is relevant in the context reads as follows:

“41A. Notice of appearance before police officer.-(1) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.

(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.

(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.

(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.

Aforesaid provision makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1), Cr.PC, the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police office is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.PC has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate as aforesaid.

We are of the opinion that if the provisions of Section 41, Cr.PC which authorises the police officer to arrest an accused without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant are scrupulously enforced, the wrong committed by the police officers intentionally or unwittingly would be reversed and the number of cases which come to the Court for grant of anticipatory bail will substantially reduce. We would like to emphasise that the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41 Cr.PC for effecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued.

Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;

All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

We direct that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Chief Secretaries as also the Director Generals of Police of all the State Governments and the Union Territories and the Registrar General of all the High Courts for onward transmission and ensuring its compliance.

By order dated 31st of October, 2013, this Court had granted provisional bail to the appellant on certain conditions. We make this order absolute.

In the result, we allow this appeal, making our aforesaid order dated 31st October, 2013 absolute; with the directions aforesaid.

—————————————————————————-

(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

—————————————————————————-

(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

NEW DELHI,

July 2, 2014.

Union of India Vs Mahaveer C. Singhvi (IFS) – The Devyani Khobragade String Pulling Case

Controversial Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade is very connected, wealthy, and has quite a controversial track record. Going by media reports, her powerful pop, Uttam Khobragade, has been pulling strings with impunity to advance her interests.

Let’s start with Preet Bharara’s (he’s in my list of heroes) complaint against her: US DOJ Complaint Against Devyani Khobragade

I watched Devyani speak in a YouTube video and wondered how a dumbass like her could land a coveted New York City posting.

Here’s the video I referred to:

“Medicine taught me the importance of hard work, blah, blah !!”     Eeesh !

At the start of her career, she landed in Germany by having her batch mate, Mahaveer C. Singhvi, bumped off the list.  The MEA retaliated against him when he protested.

“The mode of allotment was amended for the 1999 Batch in such a calculated fashion that Ms. Khobragade, who was at Serial No.7, was given her choice of German over and above the Respondent who was graded at two stages above her.

Whoa !! Talk about clout !!

Here’s the article from the Times Of India about this incident: MEA Bent Rules For Devyani Khobragade 

After Devyani’s unfairly treated batch mate, IFS officer Mahaveer Singhvi, sought and got redress in the Delhi High Court for dismissal from service, it looks like the crooks in the MEA sued him in the Indian Supreme Court where — fortunately — justice prevailed and he was reinstated.

Here’s Supreme Court Judgment:  Union of India Vs Mahaveer C. Singhvi (IFS)

“The mode of allotment was amended for the 1999 Batch in such a calculated fashion that Ms. Khobragade, who was at Serial No.7, was given her choice of German over and above the Respondent who was graded at two stages above her.

——

“Authorities were desperate to cover up the highly dubious and motivated manner in which the rules of allotment (of foreign language) were altered only in respect of the 1999 batch of IFS appointees in order to favour a particular candidate who was graded lower than Singhvi.”

Here are some links that reveal more about this strip-searched diplomat princess:

Questions needing answers:

  1. Uttam Khobragade has two daughters.  We know he stashed quite a bit for Devyani. What’s the amount he stashed for the other daugheter, SharmishtaKhobragade?
  2. How did Devyani land the New York City posting 3years after uncle?
  3. Who ordered the removal of the barricades around the US Embassy in Delhi? This happened after UttamKhobragade met with Sushil Kumar Shinde.
  4. How did a warrant against Sangeeta Richard get issued so quickly as Indian courts are notoriously slow?
  5. Where did she or her get the cash to own so much land around the country?
  6. Will the IT Dept open proceedings against her for tax evasion?

================================================

Some Things to Ponder About

What can be done to throw a light on this industry, and inform and empower innocent people?

  • Questions for Justice Dhingra: he did more than any one else to improve the lot of 498A victims. Get his views on 498A, criminal justice and investigation procedures, and what this mess has done to wreck the Indian criminal justice system.
  • Question for Former CJI MN Venkatachalliah:
    • Are the arrests of women or men documented in NCRB 498A statistics legal, when seen through the eyes of his judgment on Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP.
    • Magistrates remand automatically. Can they do that ?  What is the law on remand by magistrates?
  •  YS Dadwal of the Delhi Police:
  • Why did he prohibit arrests in 498A cases? What prompted him to issue the order.
  • Cops never investigate 498A accusations and file charge sheets.
  • What are the avenues of redress? Who do the accused approach to redress?
  • What is the procedure for investigations and gathering evidence in 498A cases? Get a copy of the procedures.
  • What is the procedure for filing a charge sheet? What are the different checkpoints to be documented?
  • What is the ratio of charge sheets filed in 498A cases to final reports dismissing the accusations since 2004 (Use RTIs)?
  • Questions for Indira Jaising (she claims to be a constitutional expert, but in reality, she is the leading Indian Feminazi)
    • What is Habeas Corpus?
    • What are the rules the police need to follow to arrest an Indian citizen?
    • Under what conditions can magistrate remand a person?
  • Best practices: Find people who won their case without getting into the court system. Tell their stories. What were the tools they used?
  • Budget for India’s judiciary is $43 Million. Corruption thrives by starving the judiciary of funds, and Indians of justice as the resources don’t exist to deliver justice in a country of a billion people. What is being done to reform the Indian judiciary?
  • Understand the size of this industry in Dollar amounts:

https://ipc498a.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/understanding-the-498a-and-dv-act-industry/

  • Connect the denial of justice to rape victims with the numbers of 498A and DV Act cases clogging the Indian courts. Thousands of rapists have escaped justice as the cops are geared to arrest people accused in 498A cases, than instigate and gather evidence capable of convicting rapists.
  • Why don’t the courts or cops punish women who abuse this law? The answer is simple: These women serve as the bait that lure the victims into the jaws of the criminal justice system. How else do lawyers, cops, and corrupt magistrates augment their income? Try to get the average number of cases in the portfolio of a Delhi HC lawyer. What’s the amount they charge to handle 498A cases?
  • Get the views of the Indian Feminazis on the arrests of thousands of women. Interview the likes of Ranjana Kumari and Indira Jaising. Get their views on record. What do they really want?
  • While the Feminazis and the criminal justice system is focused on 498A, what are the real issues affecting women that are escaping the attention of the public eye and the govt? (Think of sex trafficking and prostitution; infant mortality and maternity deaths)
  • Set up a website where people can discuss how they got things done without paying a bribe.
  • Create a website dedicated to listing corrupt public officials who demand bribes. Call it the Indian gallery of rogues.
  • Question Madhu Purnima Kishwar. Find out if these laws really help women. Get her opinion on who truly benefits from these laws.
  • What’s the common pattern of life or events for the 498A bridezillas, after the 498A cases they filed are over? Do they marry again? What are the numbers (statistics) of women who are now swatting flies on Shaadi.com or SecondShadi.com, while awaiting the arrival of their 2nd prince charming?
  • Why is it easy to get tossed into the criminal justice system and so hard to get out? Are quash petitions the only way out of this mess?
  • Who is behind the law to allow women to be given a share of ancestral property? What studies were done? Who sent the file to the union cabinet? (I’d be surprised if Indira Jaising’s name didn’t come up. Use RTIs.) .  How was this bill brought to the Union Cabinet without any warning to the public? How is this a priority for the Union Cabinet, above farmer’s starvation deaths and terrorism issues the country is facing? What about police corruption and brutality? What about the much needed reforms in the police force? Despite the orders of the India Supreme Court, nothing has happened.
  • Thousands are arrested in 498A cases by the police, but the country’s security apparatus is unable to prevent terrorist attacks, or effectively investigate and prosecute terrorists after terrorist attacks take place. Are Indian cops only good for arresting innocent men and women accused in 498A cases?
  • This is not about men’s rights or women’s rights or 498A. This is about the ability of the justice delivery system to deliver justice. This is about looking at the the widespread rot in governance in India, at the state and national level.
  • Why the system won’t change: For the political parties, 498A plays into vote bank politics. Feminazis like Ranjana Kumari and Indira Jaising have convinced the Congress that enacting laws like 498A is in their interest as it attracts the women’s vote bank. The govt won’t clamp down on abuses  by the cops, as they are employees of the Indian public sector, which forms a HUGE vote bank. Punishing them for corruption and excesses is akin to draining the vote bank of votes. Besides, the Indian public shouldn’t forget that the police is a tool used by the establishment to maintain law and order, not serve and protect the public. The purpose of the police is to oppress the local population — a legacy of the colonial system — and nothing will be done to change it. Besides, the police serve their political masters well by containing public unrest (the police roughed up the people protesting against the establishment’s corruption), so why will the masters deprive their dogs of their easy pickings (498A victims)?
  • NGOs like AIDWA, Lawyer’s Collective, and CSR derive their funding (Indira Jaising was paid over $1,40,000 to write Staying Alive, an annual report on the DV Act by Unifem) and base their exist by playing pussy politics. They can’t be pressured to  change their attitudes unless the consequences of their actions — such as the arrests of thousands of women under 498A — are exposed and brought to the public’s attention and opprobrium (Indira Jaising, the self proclaimed human rights activist, had a woman from Delhi jailed for a month in Calcutta. The lady was released only after her NRI brother paid a $100,000. How is she a human rights activist if she can do this to an innocent woman?).

=====================================

In 10 years, over 1 lakh rape accused walked free

In 10 years, over 1 lakh rape accused walked free

In 10 years, over 1 lakh rape accused walked free

Understanding The 498A and DV Act Industry

 

————————————————–

Rapes in India: The Duplicity of Ranjana Kumari of CSR

Ranjana Kumari, the fatuous Indian feminazi, charlatan, and director of the moribund Center for Social Research, is in the news again.

This time, she blares a silly theory about the increase in the incidence of rapes in the New York Times.

Rapes have increased at an alarming rate of roughly 25 percent in six years. Yet no one talks about measures to curb the increasing rates of sexual assaults in India. Instead, this country’s efforts on women’s empowerment are narrowly defined and focused on “protecting” women from  conflicts within the bedrooms of Indian homes–as this makes for good copy in the press, feeds the corrupt criminal justice system with new victims, and panders to the women’s vote bank. This is the reason I labeled these misdirected efforts at women’s empowerment in India as pussy politics.

Our dim witted feminazi, Ranjana Kumari, is a member of some standing in the club of practitioners of pussy politics in India. She is a cheerleader for strengthening laws like 498A and is against amending the clumsily drafted domestic violence act.

So what does this have to do with rapes?

In the New York Times article, Ranjana Kumari suggests that men regard women as a threat and challenge to their dominance in the paternalistic Indian society due to their increased visibility in public life that takes place when they attend schools and colleges; enter the work force  in strength; and choose their own spouses by bucking traditions.

I quote:

“This visibility is seen as a threat and a challenge,” said Ranjana Kumari, who runs the Center for Social Research in New Delhi.

That’s a load of crock and that’s because her views in this regard are silly, illogical, and seen through her cock-eyed lens of misandry.

Let’s look at her fatuous arguments from another angle. Ranjana Kumari argues that women are raped as men feel threatened by their rising presence and visibility in public life. Fine. But then, what about young girls and women trafficked into prostitution? These girls aren’t visible in public, yet they endure a rape with every customer they are forced to service. What does Ranjana Kumari have to say about that?

The answer is — nothing.

I just debunked her ditzy argument.

Before we move on, please look at the image below and think how you’d feel if this was a child you know:

Munni from Falkland Road

Feminazi’s like Ranjana Kumari have no empathy. They are in bed with the establishment and have access to power and privilege, all they need to do is play pussy-politics.

Getting back to the inanities on rape mouthed by our foremost of Feminazi … it’s not the increased visibility of women in public life that’s causing rapes in India to increase, but the absence of a credible, speedy, and competent criminal justice system which can arrest, try, and sentence perpetrators of rapes effectively. After all, it’s the existence of a competent criminal justice system that acts as deterrent to crime — any crime — in any country.

Statistics from the NCRB uphold my contention: Indian courts are clogged with frivolously filed 498A and DV Act cases. Over a 100,000 new 498A cases are filed each year. As Ranjana Kumari knows, they are frivolous cases with just 2% conviction rates. With cases like these clogging the Indian courts, how can rape victims expect to get timely justice?

Thanks to the efforts of pussy politicians like Ranjani Kumari, more women are arrested under laws like 498A than perpetrators of serious crimes like rapes. Please see a snippet of the stats from the NCRB  as a proof of my contention:

Here’s another statistic which shows that the chances of a rape to end in a trial have been declining:

Ranjana Kumari, I hope you understand that your actions have led to the denial of justice for thousands of sexually assaulted Indian women and little girls and women trafficked into prostitution. I hope you think of little Munni the next time you blare your misandry laced slogans.

So what are the women of the NCW doing about curbing rapes in India?

I believe its members rush from one atrocity against women to another and then … do nothing.

These women of the NCW  hold so much power and yet do so little to help the less fortunate women of India. Sadly, what they do want is more power and perks. Check out a snippet of their wish list I pulled from their web site:

These women are such a waste of oxygen.

Which brings me back to why I think Ranjana Kumari is such a charlatan.

Our Ranjana Kumari is married and her carnal calisthenics resulted in two offsprings. Her son is an “hospitality entrepreneur”, not sure what that means, but in a country like India it means that you can’t get there unless you have your head stuck up the read-end of the political establishment. That’s why I consider her to be a true hand maiden of the establishment … and she does the dirty work as a hand maiden. I digress to illustrate: when Delhi High Court’s Justice JD Kapoor condemned 498A in an unrelated judgment, our Ranjana Kumari was part of the sloganeering attack squad of Feminazis that barged into the Delhi High Court and protested against Justice Kapoor. Their number? 25 !  Our Ranjana Kumari is married, has kids, and yet somehow shouts about domestic violence and dowry abuse. How does she know? Hmm … isn’t shouting about women’s rights her profession? Isn’t she doing this for a pay check?  Since that’s the case, where’s the integrity in her actions?

Instead of mouthing inanities about the intolerance of men, how about she start talking about  reform ing the Indian criminal justice system which can deliver justice to rape victims and bring to book VVIPs involved in sexual exploitation of women? I know that can be hard, so what about taking on the silly khap panchayats?

Unfortunately, this is something she won’t do as it’ll lead to just one thing: the establishment’s boot on her fat butt, and the end of privileges, perks, and access that comes with pandering to the establishment. So please tell me, how is she a leader in the true struggle to empower the women of India?. Isn’t she a true charlatan?

It’s easier to mouth inanities than to fight the real fight. And our ditzy Ranjan Kumari has shown that she stand against corruption symbolically, but stand next to a corrupt person, such as the Congress party’s  Girija Vyas of the petrol pump scam fame, in substance.

Ranjana Kumari standing next to the corrupt Girija Vyas

In conclusion, I ask Ranjana Kumari to please have some shame, develop some empathy, and do victims of rapes in India a favor. She must stop playing pussy politics and seal her mouth — as nothing much flows from it except gutter detrimental to the progress of women’s rights in India.

====================================

The Pantheon of Indian Feminazis

The Indian political establishment, with an eye on the female vote bank, fronts a number of hand maidens like Indira Jaising, Girija Vyas, and Ranjana Kumari to showcase its commitment to women’s rights. Unfortunately, like most other things done by the Indian political establishment, there is more pernicious symbolism than substance to women’s empowerment in India. These hand maidens have done nothing to truly empower Indian women: There is widespread malnutrition amongst women in rural areas. Infant mortality rates  are rising.  And a woman dies in child birth every 10 mins.
These hand maidens added to their sins by allowing Indian courts to get clogged with with frivolous 498A and domestic violence cases – laws these charlatans shaped into existence and which reflect their perverse world view. Every year, 30,000 women are jailed in 498A cases without being afforded due process. This has turned the already decrepit Indian criminal justice delivery system into an injustice delivery system. There is enough blood on the hands of these charlatans due to the reasons I mentioned above.
But I labeled them Feminazis for a factual reason. After the failed attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler on July 20th 1944, his henchmen rounded up not just the plotters, but also their families under a doctrine pushed forward by Heinrich Himmler called Sippenhaft. You can read about it by clicking here.
Sippenhaft means that if a person commits a crime and is found guilty, then the family of the guilty is also considered to be guilty, and the entire family is punished collectively.

So who are th Feminazis of India? Here’s the short list of these dim wits:

Women:

Men (These morons were born without a pair; they couldn’t hack it in the real world, so they chose to play pussy politics to earn a pitiful buck):

498A is Sippenhaft in the Indian context, except that the accused men and their families aren’t found guilty by a fair trial , but are presumed to be guilty and summarily jailed. Hundreds of thousands of mothers, sisters, fathers, and brothers of men accused in 498A cases have seen the inside of Indian prisons thanks to this pernicious law.  Addtitionally, these Feminazis don’t push for reform of corrupt organs of the govt such as the police force or the judiciary. The Indian police force stands amongst the most corrupt and brutal police organizations in the  world. Check the picture below to see what I mean:

An Indian police officer kicks an old lady who’s obviously not a threat in any way to him

Indian cops torture a woman. What the Indian Feminazis have to say about this?

I am not against any laws legislated to empower women. But I do object to the fact that laws like 498A are enforced by corrupt Indian police personnel and basic rights are routinely abused. It’s like setting foxes to guard the chickens, and we all know how well that’ll work.

Feminazis like Ranjana Kumari have been vocal in their opposition to amending 498A despite the mounting evidence of injustice innocent Indians are being subjected to thanks to this pernicious law.

There is another unfortunate consequence resulting from the actions of these Feminazis: they take away attention from other aspects of women’s empowerment in India such as providing basic health care for women in rural India, and worse, the misery that girls and young women trafficked into prostitution experience.

A young street  prostitute and victim of Indian Feminazi apathy  cries in a cafe.

Hence, I call these charlatans the Feminazis of India.

Here are a few of the videos I watched when I first got  into this mess. The victims were arrested under 498A and recount their harrowing experience:

498A victim’s videos (need real player or vlc media player)

Mrs Bhavani

Mrs Uma Challa

==============================================

Indian Heroes and Indian Rogues

Here’s the gallery of Indian heroes:

Here’s the disheartening gallery of Indian rogues:

  • Indira Jaising
  • Ranjana Kumari
  • Girija Vyas
  • IGP “Pussy Politics” S Umapathy, AP Police

============================================

The Right To Know; The Right To Live: Aruna Roy Talks About The Right To Information

Aruna Roy is the driving force that led to the introduction of the RTI Act.

Click on the videos below to get her take on the RTI Act.

———–

================================

Little Justice For Rape Victims in India – The Hindu

Here’s the link to the pdf:

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/00948/Little_justice_for__948144a.pdf

Local copy if the pdf disappears:  Little Justice For Rape Victims in India – The Hindu

——————————–

India: Global Integrity Report Corruption Timeline

 

April 1987 — Swedish State Radio reports that a 60 billion rupee (US$1.3 billion) deal for 400 self-propelled howitzers between the Indian government and Swedish arms manufacturer Bofors in 1986 had been tainted by bribery. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi orders an investigation into the matter. In June, the Swedish government reveals that the company spent 1.3 billion to 1.8 billion rupees (US$29 million to US$39 million) on consultancy fees which were allegedly used to bribe Indian officials.

November 1989 — With the Bofors scandal as a backdrop, Gandhi’s Congress Party, which had ruled India for 42 years, is ousted from power in elections that leave the party with fewer than 200 of the 543 seats in Parliament.

May 1991 — Former Prime Minister Gandhi is assassinated by a suicide bomber at an election rally. The Congress Party installs veteran politician P.V. Narasimha Rao as provisional leader; Rao becomes prime minister following his party’s victory in June elections.

April 1992 — The Bombay stock market plummets as banks fail to meet payments on purchases of government securities. According to investigators, several banks had illegally conspired to funnel money held by Indian and foreign banks to stockbrokers in order to speculate on the Bombay exchange. The market collapse costs millions of Indian investors an estimated 69 billion rupees (US$1.5 billion).

June 1993 — Harshad Mehta, a stockbroker known as Big Bull and one of the main suspects implicated in the ongoing Bombay securities scandal, alleges that in late 1991 he delivered suitcases containing 10 million rupees (US$217,000) in political donations to Prime Minister Rao. In July, Rao and his Congress Party barely escape a no-confidence vote.

December 1993 — The Joint Parliamentary Committee investigating the 1992 Bombay securities scandal concludes it was a deliberate and criminal misuse of public funds by four banks caused by lax enforcement by the government, stock exchanges and banks. The committee criticizes the Ministry of Finance for not noticing problems, then failing to respond to them.

December 1994 — On the same day, two cabinet members quit due to their roles in the Bombay securities scandal, and a third resigns after a government report links him to a scandal in which sugar imports were intentionally delayed, enabling sugar companies to earn hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.

January 1996 — After a four-year inquiry into the so-called hawala scandal, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) charges 10 political leaders with accepting 650 million rupees (US$14 million) in bribes from the leader of a money-laundering racket. Hawala is a popular form of black market trading, whereby money from abroad is laundered through street dealers to family members in order to avoid taxes. Three cabinet ministers immediately resign.

March 1996 — A national newspaper reports that in July 1995, National Fertilizers Limited (NFL) contracted to buy 2 million metric tons of urea from the Turkish firm Karsan, yet despite an advance payment of 1.7 billion rupees (US$38 million) by NFL, Karsan never delivered any urea. Authorities uncover a kickback scheme surrounding the deal involving Karsan and NFL executives, as well as relatives of high-level government officials. Charges are brought in December 1998, but motions by the accused and other procedural snags draw the case out over many years. As of early 2006, nine defendants are facing trial, including B. Sanjiva Rao, a relative of former Prime Minister Rao, and Prakash Chandra Yadav, son of former Union Minister Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav.

May 1996 — After two key governors of India’s ruling Congress Party are linked to the hawala scandal, the Congress Party is defeated in elections. In the ensuing political chaos, first Atal Behari Vajpayee of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), then H. D. Deve Gowda of the newly created United Front Party, become prime minister.

August 1996 — Federal police discover 60 million rupees (US$1.3 million) in cash and a stash of jewelry during raids on two homes owned by Sukh Ram, former Telecommunications minister under Rao. Investigators discover Ram had undeclared assets worth 390 million rupees (US$8.5 million). Ram, who supervised 1.1 trillion rupees (US$25 billion) worth of tender offers for the privatization of the Indian telephone system, is accused of accepting bribes, but the charges are later dropped.

April 1997 — Prime Minister Gowda is overwhelmingly defeated in a no-confidence vote. Inder Kumar Gujral of the Janata Dal party becomes prime minister, pledging a “clean government.”

April 1997 — The CBI implicates 56 suspects in the so-called “fodder scam,” an alleged 20-year scheme that looted 1.9 billion rupees (US$280 million) from agricultural support programs in the state of Bihar. Among the suspects is Laloo Prasad Yadav, national president of Janata Dal and powerful ally of Prime Minister Gujral.

May 1997 — Former Prime Minister Rao is indicted on bribery charges for conspiring to buy votes in Parliament prior to a 1993 no-confidence vote.

July 1997 — Yadav splits the Janata Dal Party, taking 16 of its 45 members to found the new Rashtriya Janata Dal. He quits as chief minister of Bihar after the Supreme Court denies his appeal for protection from imprisonment and the CBI orders his arrest. Yadav arranges to install his wife Rabri Devi as the new chief minister, even though she has no political experience and is reportedly illiterate. Yadav surrenders to authorities a week after resigning, and is released on bail in December.

November 1997 — India’s fourth government in 18 months collapses. Prime Minister Gujral resigns after the Congress Party withdraws its support from the ruling coalition. Parliament is officially dissolved in December.

March 1998 — Atal Behari Vajpayee of the BJP becomes the fourth prime minister in two years. The Congress Party picks Sonia Gandhi, the widow of assassinated Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, as its new president.

April 1999 — Prime Minister Vajpayee resigns after his government loses a vote of no-confidence. Vajpayee agrees to stay on until a new government is formed.

October 1999 — The Bofors scandal resurfaces when corruption and conspiracy charges are filed against five people, including deceased ex-prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, who is accused of blocking an investigation into Bofors. Former Defense Minister D. K. Bhatnagar and arms dealer Win Chadha are also charged.

January 2000 — The Central Vigilance Commission, charged with attacking corruption, publishes the names of 74 senior bureaucrats and 20 police officers whom the agency believes should face corruption charges. Most are from elite branches of the civil service, and some are retired.

September 2000 — Former Prime Minister Rao is convicted of criminal conspiracy and corruption in the 1993 vote-buying scandal — the first Indian prime minister to be convicted in a criminal case. He is sentenced to three years in prison but is acquitted on appeal in March 2002.

March 2001 — An Indian news Web site, Tehelka.com, releases a secretly filmed documentary apparently showing 31 politicians, bureaucrats, and army officials receiving bribes from undercover journalists posing as arms dealers. The scandal leads to the resignation of Defense Minister Georges Fernandes, the leaders of the Samata Party and the ruling BJP, and the suspension of four Defense Ministry officials. However, Fernandes is later reinstated, and the CBI never files charges in the incident. Tehelka.com suspends its operations in October 2002 due to lack of funding — its chief investor, a brokerage firm named First Global, withdrew all of its Indian operations after being served with over 200 summonses by the government.

March 2002 — Parliament enacts the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), a controversial anti-terrorism measure that grants the government far-reaching powers, which are allegedly used to target religious minorities and political opponents. Much of POTA resembles the defunct Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), under which tens of thousands of human rights violations were committed against minorities, union activists, and political opponents in the 1980s and 1990s. After acknowledging these abuses, the government lets TADA lapse in 1995.

December 2002 — Parliament passes the Freedom of Information Bill, which gives citizens the right to access certain government information, and the Representation of the People Bill, which requires candidates for parliamentary or assembly elections to disclose any criminal records and declare assets and liabilities after being elected.

December 2002 — The New Delhi High Court stops the trial of the Hinduja brothers, who run a multibillion-dollar global business empire, and dismisses the case, arguing that the CBI did not follow proper procedures in filing charges of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and bribery related to the Bofors scandal. In July 2003, the Supreme Court reverses the lower court and orders resumption of the trial.

March 2003 — Investigators looking into an inter-state counterfeit stamp operation file charges against 39 people, including government clerk and alleged mastermind Abdul Karim Telgi. The detainees are accused of printing and selling fake stamps used for government notary purposes.

July 2003 — The Anti-Corruption Bureau reveals that as many as 2,642 government employees arrested on bribery charges over the past 10 years have not been prosecuted. The lack of progress is attributed to supervisors, since under Indian law investigators must obtain permission from the head of the department in which the accused employee works in order to proceed with charges.

November 2003 — Two congressmen and 11 senior police officers are detained pending an investigation related to the Telgi stamp scandal, now estimated to have cost the government 200 billion to 300 billion rupees (US$4.3 billion to US$6.5billion). About 60 people, including 13 police officers, have been arrested during the investigation.

November 2003 — Satyendra Dubey, the supervisor for a national highway project in Bihar, accuses road contractors of colluding with gangsters to steal from the 550 billion rupee (US$12 billion) project. Dubey is assassinated after his identity is revealed.

November 2003 — Dilip Singh Judeo, a junior environment minister and BJP leader, resigns after a video is broadcast showing him taking money from a businessman representing an Australian mining company. The “businessman” later tells the CBI he was a journalist running a sting operation.

February 2004 — The Delhi High Court posthumously clears Rajiv Gandhi, D. K. Bhatnagar and Win Chadha of corruption charges in the Bofors scandal. The Hinduja brothers are cleared of corruption charges, but not cheating and conspiracy charges.

May 2004 — The Congress Party scores a surprise victory in general elections. Manmohan Singh becomes prime minister.

April 2005 — Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee suspends all transactions with South African weapons manufacturer Denel after a South African newspaper reports that Denel had improperly obtained confidential information relating to Indian arms purchases. Denel secured a 220 million rupee (US$4.8 million) contract in 2003 to supply rifles to India.

September 2005 — Railway Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav is charged with misappropriating state funds in the long-running “fodder scam.” Both Yadav and Bihar Chief Minister Jagannath Mishra are charged with embezzling over 1.8 billion rupees (US$40 million) in state funds intended for the purchase of animal fodder and with illegally withdrawing an additional 9.2 million rupees (US$200,000) from the treasury in the state of Jharkhand. In all, a total of 170 people have been charged in connection with the scandal.

January 2006 — Prahlad Goala, a reporter with the newspaper Asomiya Khabar in the northeastern state of Assam, is murdered. Goala had recently written articles accusing local forestry service officials of having links to timber smuggling. The forest warden, who had made death threats against Goala soon after the articles were published, is arrested in connection with the killing.

March 2006 — The BJP alleges corruption in the military’s contract to buy six submarines from two French companies. The BJP claims the government overpaid for the submarines by approximately 5.2 billion rupees (US$113 million) and used the excess to pay commissions to middlemen who helped secure the deal. Commissions in defense deals are forbidden under the law.

December 2006 — A former cabinet minister, Shibu Soren, is given a life sentence for murdering his aide, Shashinath Jha, 12 years ago. He is found guilty on charges of abduction, murder and criminal conspiracy. Soren is the first Indian cabinet minister to be convicted of murder. Federal investigators claim Jha was murdered because he was aware of kickbacks paid to Soren’s party members.

In a landmark ruling pertaining to another case, the Supreme Court says prosecutors do not need prior permission to begin proceedings against politicians facing corruption charges. Until now assent was needed from the Parliament speaker or a state governor to charge an MP or a legislator. The judgment is announced while dismissing petitions filed by politicians arguing that the prosecution must have permission from competent authority prior to filing corruption charges against them.

July 2007 — Pratibha Patil is elected president of India, making her the first woman president of India.

August 2, 2007 — The Manipur state government issues a directive banning the publication of any statement made by unlawful organizations. This order pertains to books, newspapers and any document, whether printed or in electronic form. If any of these printed materials contain content that the state finds necessary to ban, the publication will be forfeited. The All Manipur Working Journalists Union urges the state government to withdraw the orders by Aug. 9.

August 14, 2007 — A group of men who identify themselves as members of Shiv Sena, A Hindu Nationalist Party, attack the office of an Indian weekly newspaper Outlook. The assailants are angered by the political journal’s depiction of Bal Thackeray, founder of the party, as a “villain” in the current issue of the magazine. Outlook magazine editor Vinod Mehta calls the incident a “clear and blatant attack on the freedom of press.”

April 2008 — It is reported that more than 24,000 corruption-related cases are pending in Indian trial courts. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh advocates creating special courts to expedite the process.

January 2008 — The World Bank exposes serious fraud in Indian health care programs jointly funded by donors, India and the World Bank. The World Bank found lapses in auditing, malpractice and corruption in five healthcare programs launched between 1997 and 2003. The projects dealt with health issues such as tuberculosis, malaria and HIV/AIDS control.

June 2008 — The Transparency International India-Centre for Management Studies Corruption Study 2007 reports that corruption in India involving citizens including below poverty line (BPL) households is all pervasive across the states and public services. The survey covered 108 districts across all the 31 states of the country and reported that no state or service was anywhere near “zero corruption” level. Seven states are reported to have an “alarming” level of corruption, while in Delhi the level is “high”.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) reports that initiatives like Right to Information (RTI) and e-governance, computerization of judicial records for clearing massive backlog of legal cases in courts, and the provision of social audit in the implementation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) have been instrumental in curbing corruption in the country to a large extent.

July 2008 — A nuclear cooperation deal between India and the United States draws heavy criticism by India’s left-wing parties, who demand a vote of confidence take place in the Congress. The governing coalition survives the vote but those opposed to the deal still form a new oppositional alliance in protest. The left-wing opposition claims the government has been tainted by corruption.

The little-known group Indian Mujahideen claims responsibility to a series of explosions that kill 49 in Ahmedabad in Gujarat state.

Five people are arrested for allegedly running an inter-state betting racket on the results of the Indian Premier League matches. The betting ring is reported to have links to London.

===============================

Was Former CJI KG Balakrishna Corrupt?

Please decide for yourself after reading this article:

 

K G Balakrishnan, whose tenure as Chief Justice of India ended last week, was the first Dalit to hold the post. But his time in office was marked by a near-Brahminical resistance to the transparency triggered by the Right to Information Act. High court judges across the country, however, displayed great spunk in standing up to Balakrishnan in a break from the judiciary’s notoriously servile culture.
The unintended consequence of Balakrishnan’s style of leadership was that HC judges had an impact at the national level like never before. This was not just on issues of accountability but also in the way they upheld the letter and spirit of the law in the course of their work.
Remember the challenge thrown to Balakrishnan by Justice Shylendra Kumar of the Karnataka HC and Justice K Kannan of the Punjab and Haryana high court when they publicly dissented with his line that disclosure of assets belonging to judges would compromise the independence of the judiciary? The novelty value was enhanced by the medium of their revolt: blogs!
The lead taken by Kannan and Kumar, along with Justice K Chandru of the Madras HC, had a salutary effect. It put pressure on their seniors in the Supreme Court to disclose their assets. Even as Balakrishnan accused him of being “publicity-crazy” allegedly for speaking out of turn, Kumar hit back by calling him “a serpent without fangs”. This was in
the context of the bungled move to elevate P D Dinakaran, chief justice of the Karnataka high court, to the Supreme Court. Kumar evidently felt justified in such irreverence as the stalemate over Dinakaran had paralyzed his high court.
Balakrishnan’s reluctance to drop Dinakaran’s candidature despite serious charges of corruption and the Supreme Court collegium’s decision to deny promotion to A P Shah, the Delhi HC chief justice who had made history by decriminalizing homosexuality, exposed the rot in the system of appointments.
As if that were not bad enough for Balakrishnan, Justice Ravindra Bhat of the Delhi HC, and then a division bench, comprising Justice Shah and Justice S Muralidhar, dismissed the Supreme Court’s appeals against the RTI order passed in the assets case by the Central Information Commission.
Another conscience keeper who ended up damaging Balakrishnan’s reputation, however inadvertently, was Justice R Reghupati of the Madras HC as he complained in writing about an attempt made by a Union minister to interfere in a case pending before him.
Rather than ordering an inquiry, Balakrishnan hushed up the affair on the technicality that Reghupati had not actually spoken to the minister during the mobile call made from his chamber by a lawyer trying to fix the case.
Balakrishnan was equally evasive when it came to following up on the categorical recommendation made by an in-house committee of three senior HC judges that Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Punjab and Haryana HC was unfit to remain in office for her alleged complicity in the cash-for-judge scam. This time he took refuge in the technicality that the then attorney general had opined that no corruption case had been made out by CBI against Yadav. Balakrishnan however remained tightlipped on what had stopped him from taking any administrative action against Yadav, including the kind of recommendation for impeachment proceedings he had made to the government against Justice Sowmitra Sen of the Calcutta high court.
In another mystifying rollback of accountability, Balakrishnan recommended to the President to bring back the Allahabad HC judges who had been transferred out in the wake of the Ghaziabad provident fund scam. All that is known to have changed though since their transfer is that the main accused in the case, a court employee, died mysteriously in judicial custody.
Balakrishnan’s tenure was redeemed to an extent by a slew of path-breaking verdicts, not just by Supreme Court judges but also by their HC counterparts. Just before his retirement, he struck a blow for human rights by outlawing the practice of forcing out the “truth” from suspects through narco analysis. Such progressive decisions were a silver lining to the dark cloud of falling standards in judicial probity.

================================

India Judiciary: The Rot Within

Came across this article.  Click on the excerpt below for the full article:

The Indian judiciary is one of the most powerful judiciaries of the world. The conduct of the judiciary has a direct impact upon the life of the ordinary people of the country. It is imperative in these circumstances that a state institution of such high powers must be transparent and accountable for its actions. The courts in India have however consistently avoided calls for accountability despite there being many instances of serious allegations of misconduct and misdemeanour. At one time Justice S. P. Bharucha, former Chief Justice of India, admitted that about 20 percent of the higher judiciary in India is corrupt. According to Justice Michael Saldahna of the Karnataka High Court it is 33 per cent. Despite there being such admissions, no enquiry has ever been initiated against any judge for past 15 years.

Local copy if the original disappears. All rights and credit to the authors and institutions:

The Indian judiciary’s contempt for accountability and scrutiny

============================================

 

Law panel wants 498A toned down

logoimg
iconimg Tuesday, October 02, 2012
 
Nagendar Sharma, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, October 02, 2012
 
 
First Published: 22:45 IST(2/10/2012)
Last Updated: 22:47 IST(2/10/2012)
Law panel wants anti-dowry law toned down
 

The government’s expert panel on legal issues has recommended a change in the criminal law to prevent the immediate arrest of husbands and their family members against whom police complaints are filed by their wives under the anti-dowry law.
The Law Commission of India, in its latest report, has asked the government to water the anti-dowry law down to allow a woman to withdraw her complaint if a compromise with her husband and his family is possible. The panel also wants to make it a compoundable offence but with a court’s permission.

The Supreme court had asked the law commission to give its findings on whether section 498A of the IPC and enabling laws, which deal with physical and mental cruelty by husbands and their relatives against wives over dowry, require amendments following reports of their misuse.

It has sought an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in a bid to introduce a 30-day “reconciliation” period before police can arrest an accused under the anti-dowry law.

“The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest in the context of cases under section 498A the IPC has been emphasised by courts and parliamentary committees time and again,” states the report.

“We, therefore, suggest that a new clause may be added to the CrPC section 41 to make clear that whenever a complaint of physical and mental cruelty is filed by a married woman, a police officer shall set in motion a process of reconciliation between the two parties before he or she resorts to the power of arrest,” the commission recommended.       

This 30-day period, however, will not apply if an investigating officer feels that “facts disclose an aggravated form of cruelty” and the arrest of an accused is necessary, it points out.

It has rejected the demands for either recommending a complete repeal of the anti-dowry law or making it a bailable offence. “Misuse by itself cannot be a ground to take away its teeth … We can’t close our eyes to a large number of cases which go unprosecuted,” the commission stated.

 
 
© Copyright © 2012 HT Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.
====================================

The Aims and Values of Criminal Justice

Found this article here:

http://www.oup.comhttp://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199541317/sanders4e_ch01.pdf

Local copy

——————————————————————–

RTI Request to Get A Copy of DCP’s Order Authorizing A 498A Arrest in Hyderabad

The MV Krishna Rao order was issued a decade ago, yet Hyderabad’s police officers arrested thousands of people accused in 498A cases since 2002. The cases of those who were arrested are still crawling to conclusions through the sluggish Indian court system. For those who still have the stomach and the stamina to fight back, it is worth the effort to file an RTI to get a copy of the DCP’s order permitting an arrest. If the order does not exist, then it is weakens the case and makes it easy to file a quash petition, as well as bring the malfeasance of the investigation officer to the attention of the DGP of AP.

If you are curious, please click on the link below for the AP Police’s procedures for investigating 498A cases:

As a final note, please do enclose a copy of your FIR along with the RTI request.

Click below for the template to file an RTI to Get a Copy of DCP’s Order Authorizing a 498A Arrest in Hyderabad:

All the best !

========================================

WCD Ministry Wants to Revive the Jail and Bail Industry

Here is the link to the article from Bhaskar News:

Image

__________________________________________________

On Leadership

The essential elements of successful leadership are authenticity and truthfulness, an unwavering set of core values, strong personal ethics, a passion for a larger purpose outside of yourself, the ability to communicate an inspiring vision, empathy and emotional intelligence, persistence, self-discipline and a boldness that sometimes borders on narcissism.

Unfortunately, these are the very attributes, except for narcissism, the current set of Indian leaders can’t call their own.

* I forgot to attribute the excerpt

====================================

The New RTI Rules – 2012: A Primer From The Indian Express

Here is a the article from the Indian Express.

Click on the text to reach the article.

How to file an RTI application

What are the new rules for?

They are called the RTI Rules 2012 and supersede the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules and the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, both 2005, and which have made information more accessible than ever. The new rules were notified on July 31 but have not yet been implemented; they are waiting to be tabled in Parliament. The Department of Personnel and Training had initiated the process 21 months ago and took the advice of many stakeholders. The notification, which contains 15 rules and is yet to be posted on the DoPT website, has been accessed by The Indian Express.

Word limit

As per rule 3, an application “shall ordinary not contain more than 500 words, excluding annexures, containing address of the CPIO and that of the applicant”. Though the words have been limited, 500 is still more than the 150-word limit set in Bihar (where any application must be on only one subject), Maharashtra, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh. Though the notification adds that “no application shall be rejected only on the ground that it contains more than 500 words”, Venkatesh Naik of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information fears that “the CPIOs may refuse applications and deny information on this ground”.

Govt publications

As per rules 3 and 4, the applicant has to pay postal charges when these exceed Rs 50. Other charges remain the same: Rs 10 for processing, Rs 5 per hour for inspection of documents with the first hour free. Under rule 4(e), an applicant will have to pay “price fixed for a publication or Rs 2 per page of photocopy for extracts from the publication.” Since information under RTI is free for people living below the poverty line, it means such publications will be accessible free to any applicant who submits a BPL certificate.

E-payment with rider

According to rule 6, the applicant, besides using the existing modes of payment, can also pay “by electronic means to the Account Officer of the public authority, if facility for receiving fees through electronic means is available with the public authority”. That means that if such a facility is not available with the authority, the applicant will still need to go through the cumbersome processes of non-electronic payment. Sources say that during consultation, many stakeholders had advised that it be made necessary that every public authority be able to receive fees electronically. It would have saved time for both sides.

2nd appeal, not 1st

Rule 8 comes with the heading “Appeal to the commission”. This is the second appeal, which is all that the set of rules deals with. No rules have been specified for the first appeal or the first appellate authority, FAA, who is approached before one applies to the Central Information Commission. FAAs belong to the departments concerned with the application and are senior to the CPIOs. Since there is no rule about them, the burden of work remains on the Information Commission. Says an official, “The workload of the Information Commission would have been reduced if the role of FAAs had been strengthened.”

Return of appeals

Rule 9 says that “an appeal may be returned to the appellant if it is not accompanied by the documents as specified in the rule.” A more appellant-friendly approach, say activists, would have been to ask the applicants to submit the documents needed without sending the appeal back. The rule means the applicant will have to file the request all over again.

Enter the 3rd party

Rule 11(V) says that commission, while deciding an appeal, may “hear the third party”. Practically all applications involve a third party, the department or officer on whom information is sought. So far, the commission itself has been making an assessment whether disclosing information on the third party is in the larger public interest. With the third party now given a hearing, activists fear the information may be delayed if not denied.

Applicant in person

Rule 12 complicates the disposal of second appeals. “The appellant may be present in person or through his duly authorised representative or through video conferencing, if the facility of video conferencing is available, at the time of hearing of the appeal by the commission,” it says. This was not necessary earlier. Says Lokesh Batra, retired commander and RTI activist, “Many NRIs or applicants who are away will now have to travel to attend the hearing. This rule may discourage them from filing appeals.”

Lawyers for info officers

Rule 13 introduces advocates for the commission: “The public authority may authorise any representative or any of its officers to present the case.” Says Subhash Chandra Aggarwal of Delhi, who uses the RTI frequently, “Now public authorities will engage advocates and all this will raise costs.” This will also dilute the CPIOs, accountability, activists say.

===================================


Visitors Since Mar/14/07

  • 3,326,012

Cluster Map

Live Traffic

Archives

Top Rated Posts

Some Interesting Stats On Arrests Of Women

In 1930, the British govt arrested 17,000 women for their involvement in the Dandi Yatra (Salt March). During 1937 to 1947 (10 Years), they arrested 5,000 women involved in the freedom struggle. From 2004 to 2006, the govt of India arrested 90,000 women of all ages under 498A. On the average, 27,000 women per year are being arrested under this flawed law. These are stats from the NCRB.

Copyright Notice:

The content of this blog is copyrighted. You are required to obtain prior permission before locally hosting or reproducing online or in print, any or part of the content. You are welcome to directly link to the content from your site. Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape MyFreeCopyright.com Registered & Protected Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

Disclaimer:

The family of the writer was tortured by the Indian Police in an attempt to extort over a $100,000 by holding them in custody for over a week. The police, in cahoots with the magistrate and the PP, did this due to the ridiculous allegations made in a 498A case by his embittered ex-wife. She filed the case years after he and his family had last seen her. Thousands of 498A cases are filed each year in India by women seeking to wreak vengeance on their husbands and in-laws. Enormous sums are extorted from intimidated families implicated in these cases by corrupt Indian police officers and elements of the Indian judiciary. The author and his family haven't bribed any public official nor have they given in to the extortion. This blog aims to raise awareness of due process in India. The content of this blog constitutes, opinions, observations, and publicly available documents. The intent is not to slander or defame anyone or any institution and is the manifestation of the author's right to freedom of expression – with all the protections this right guarantees.

Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

You will need adobe acrobat to read most of the documents. Please download adobe acrobat reader. Get Adobe Acrobat For Your System
November 2020
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

%d bloggers like this: