&w=3840&q=100)
SC stresses need to create awareness on rights of people with disabilities
Justice Manmohan said the courts have and will deliver verdicts on issues concerning the rights of persons with disabilities, but the other organs of the State also have to rise to the occasion.
He was speaking at a conference held here on 'Judging and lawyering at the margins disability rights and beyond'. The conference was organised by Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation in collaboration with Qable.
"The need of the hour is to create sensitisation, to create awareness. And I think the more awareness is there about the Act, about the rights that are available, the more the society will understand, the more the courts will understand and it will ensure more compliance," said Justice Manmohan when asked about the issue concerning implementation of the judgements.
He also spoke on the issue regarding continuous monitoring by the court for compliance of its verdicts.
"First of all, the court dockets are absolutely full and really to say that court will pick up this issue and give it absolute priority is not feasible because every day the court is grappling with so many issues," he said.
Justice Manmohan said keeping in view the constraints, it has to be ensured that other organs of the State also rise to the occasion.
The judge said the legislature will have to be aware of the issue and will have to put in place some mechanism whereby the court orders are given effect to.
"Everything cannot be done at the pain of contempt. And if we start using the power of contempt repeatedly, it also loses its utility at some point of time," he added.
Justice Manmohan said it has to be ensured the executive machinery understands that this is an obligation on them and this is "not some charity being done".
"I think the basic problem that is arising is because everyone is believing that this is some sort of a charity which is being done. You think of any concept, whether it's gender justice, whether it is persons with disability, the mindset of the executive as well, to a large extent, the people who have been adjudicating these matters in the past have been that we will deal with it as if one is doing a bit of a charity," he said.
Justice Manmohan further said things will change once people will realise it is a rights-based approach and not charity.
"But yes, I agree with you. As a short-term measure, the court will have to monitor and will have to ensure that its judgments are implemented," he said.
Justice Manmohan also cautioned if people think the court is going to monitor a matter on a daily basis, it may be raising the hopes too high.
"We have to be realistic and we have to ensure that all organs of the State work towards it. Today, everything can't be left at the judiciary's doorstep. If you think that only judiciary is going to resolve the problem of this country, you are sadly mistaken," he said.
Justice Manmohan said until and unless all organs, including the society, works for it, there will be issue at hand.
"Just see, you need empathy in the society which is lacking," the judge said.
"So, the real issue is to sensitise the society to ensure all organs of the society work together and one should not expect that it will be solved only by the judiciary," he added.
Justice Manmohan said the judiciary may take the lead in the matter, but it will only get implemented at the ground level when everyone works together.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
‘Strong suspicion, no legal proof': Why all 7 accused in the 2008 Malegoan bomb blast case walked free
A Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court on Thursday (July 31, 2025) acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, including Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Pragya Singh Thakur and serving Army Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit. In a detailed 1,036-page judgment that was delivered on July 31 and made available on August 1 evening, Special Judge A.K. Lahoti observed that although the occurrence of the bomb blast was indisputable, the prosecution had failed to produce credible and admissible evidence establishing the accused's involvement in the crime. 'I am fully aware of the degree of agony, frustration, and trauma caused to society at large and, more particularly, to the families of the victims by the fact that a heinous crime of this nature has gone unpunished. However, the law does not permit courts to convict an accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion. No doubt, terrorism has no religion because no religion in the world preaches violence. The court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perceptions about the matter,' the Judge underscored. However, he directed the State Government to pay compensation of ₹2 lakh to the families of the deceased and ₹50,000 to those injured in the blast. Editorial | By evidence alone: on the 2008 Malegaon blast trial What was the Malegaon blast case? On September 29, 2008, during the holy month of Ramzan, a powerful bomb blast ripped through Malegaon, a communally sensitive town in Maharashtra. Around 9:35 p.m., an explosive device concealed in an LML Freedom motorcycle with a fake number plate (MH-15-P-4572) detonated near Shakeel Goods Transport Company, between Anjuman Chowk and Bhiku Chowk. The explosion killed six people, injured 95 others, and caused significant damage to surrounding property. An FIR was promptly registered, and the investigation was initially undertaken by the Nashik Rural Police and Mumbai's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), then headed by Hemant Karkare, who was later killed in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. In 2011, the case was transferred to the NIA as part of a wider probe into alleged Hindutva-linked terror cases. Of the 14 individuals arrested in connection with the blast, charges against seven were eventually dropped. The remaining seven, Pragya Singh Thakur, Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit, Ramesh Upadhyay, Sameer Kulkarni, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, and Sudhakar Chaturvedi, were put on trial. They were prosecuted for murder and criminal conspiracy under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. According to the ATS, conspiracy meetings had taken place across various locations allegedly under Ms. Thakur's leadership. The agency also claimed that the two absconding accused, Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, had assembled the explosive device and placed it in the boot of a motorcycle registered to Ms. Thakur. However, several witnesses, including serving Army officers, later retracted their statements in court, alleging that their earlier testimonies had been coerced. Many of the accused also claimed that their confessions were extracted under torture. The NIA appeared to accept parts of these allegations in its final chargesheet, which the defence used to bolster its case. The case also attracted widespread attention following the resignation of NIA special public prosecutor Rohini Salian, who alleged that she had been instructed to 'go soft' on the accused and that the agency was deliberately weakening the case against the so-called 'Hindu terror' network. After her departure, special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal took over and conducted the trial to its conclusion. Why were the accused acquitted by the court? Here are some of the key findings: Thakur was not in 'conscious possession' of motorcycle The court held that Ms. Thakur was not in 'conscious possession' of the LML Freedom motorcycle in which the explosive device was allegedly planted. Citing her renunciation of the material world at least two years before the blast, Judge Lahoti observed, 'Prosecution had not led any evidence on record to show that she was in conscious possession of the said motorcycle even after renouncement of the material world. Nobody has seen her with the said motorcycle, or it was with her at Jabalpur Aashram even after taking the Sanyas.' The Judge further observed that there was neither eyewitness testimony nor circumstantial evidence to suggest that Ms. Thakur had handed over the motorcycle to the co-accused or was involved in assembling the explosive device. Instead, he noted that the explosive could have been hung, placed, or kept near the motorcycle, rather than fitted inside it. 'Mere, blast on the site and damaged condition of the motorcycle are not conclusive proof of fitting explosives inside the dikki, i.e., beneath the seat of said motorcycle,' the Judge observed, adding that expert testimony did not rule out the possibility of the device being attached externally or placed nearby. As for allegations of torture by the ATS, the court noted that Ms. Thakur had not raised any such complaint when she was produced before a magistrate on October 24, 2008, following her arrest. Citing an earlier Supreme Court order, the Judge pointed out that she neither made any allegations of ill-treatment at the time nor challenged the magistrate's remand order. No official sanction for Purohit's association with Abhinav Bharat The ATS alleged that the explosive used in the blast was RDX, claiming it had been procured by Colonel Purohit during his posting in Jammu & Kashmir. However, the court found no evidence establishing the source of the explosive or how it was procured or transported. It also noted the absence of any proof regarding who had parked the motorcycle at the blast site or when, particularly since the area had been cordoned off for Ramzan. However, Judge Lahoti rejected Mr. Purohit's claim that his association with fringe organisations like Abhinav Bharat was part of his official duties as an intelligence officer. He noted that documentary evidence clearly established Mr. Purohit's role as a trustee of the Abhinav Bharat Trust. However, there was no material on record to suggest that his superiors had authorised him to join the trust or to collect and utilise its funds. 'As per the ethos of the Military Intelligence, the commanding officer or the Discipline & Vigilance Branch used to protect the interests of officers and sources. But after the arrest of A-9 (Mr. Purohit), no steps were taken to protect their officer. If he had really discharged the duty under the colour of his office, there would have been protection for him,' the Judge reasoned. Absence of forensic evidence Judge Lahoti observed that the forensic expert who examined the motorcycle, on which the explosive device was allegedly planted, had admitted that it was merely his 'guesswork' that led him to conclude the bomb was placed in the vehicle's boot. No scientific test had been conducted to verify the placement of the explosive. Accordingly, the Judge held that in the absence of any primary forensic analysis, the expert's testimony failed to inspire confidence. 'The present matter is [a] serious case of bomb-blast. In such a case, mere guess work is not enough. Neither it is expected from expert when he is specifically called on the spot to collect the articles, to assist and to guide the Investigating Agency by carrying out some scientific tests. In such situation, there must be some scientific test to be carried out by an expert on the spot to arrive at certain conclusion,' the Judge emphasised. Procedural lapses in the invocation of MCOCA and UAPA The ATS, which initially investigated the blast, based its case primarily on the accused having participated in conspiracy meetings related to the planning and execution of the attack. Its key evidence comprised confessional statements recorded under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999. However, these confessions were rendered inadmissible after MCOCA was dropped from the case in 2016, when the NIA took over the investigation and flagged procedural lapses in the Act's invocation. The court concurred, noting that the sanction to invoke MCOCA had been granted without 'application of judicial mind.' A similar procedural lapse was found in the invocation of the UAPA. Judge Lahoti noted that the then Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department, Mumbai, Chitkala Zutshi, had failed to consult the investigating officer before granting sanction under the UAPA. As a result, the statutory presumptions under the Act, such as the reverse burden of proof, could not be invoked against the accused, the court held. No merit in claim that ATS directed arrest of RSS chief The court rejected the claim made by former ATS officer Mehboob Mujawar that he had been instructed to arrest RSS chief Mr. Mohan Bhagwat in connection with the case. Judge Lahoti found no merit in the argument advanced by the lawyer for the accused, Mr. Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi, who had relied on Mr. Mujawar's statements before a Solapur court. Mr. Mujawar had alleged that senior ATS officers directed him to arrest Mr. Bhagwat to frame the case as one of 'saffron terror,' but said he refused, having found no evidence linking Mr. Bhagwat to the alleged crime. However, the Judge relied on the testimony of Mr. Mohan Kulkarni, the then chief investigating officer, who stated that Mr. Mujawar was only tasked with tracing the absconding accused, Mr. Ramji Kalsangra and Mr. Sandeep Dange, and was never instructed to arrest any RSS leader. The court also noted that Mr. Mujawar was neither listed nor examined as a witness by either side. Accordingly, it concluded that the statements submitted were part of Mr. Mujawar's defence in another case and held no evidentiary value in the present trial. What happens next? Advocate Shahid Nadeem, representing Nisar Ahmed Haji Sayyed Bilal, who lost his son in the blast, told the media that the case reflected 'significant failures' on the part of the NIA. He added that the victims' families intend to explore legal remedies by filing an independent appeal in the Bombay High Court after reviewing the full judgment. Meanwhile, political pressure is mounting on the Maharashtra Government to file its own appeal, as it did following the acquittals in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. Twelve Muslim men were acquitted after spending 19 years in prison, with the High Court issuing scathing observations on the use of torture during the investigation. The State had moved the Supreme Court the very next day, prompting the apex court to clarify that the High Court's observations could not serve as precedent in other similar cases. In the present case, however, Special Public Prosecutor Avinash Rasal, appearing for the NIA, said a decision on whether to file an appeal would be made only after a detailed study of the judgment.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
No farmer will be left out of Annadata Sukhibhava – PM Kisan: Collector
Tirupati: Tirupati District Collector Dr S Venkateswar has assured that every eligible farmer in the district will receive the benefits under the Annadata Sukhibhava–PM Kisan scheme. Speaking at the launch of the 2025–26 first phase of the programme held at the AP Seeds office in Srikalahasti on Saturday, he underlined the government's commitment to farmer welfare. The Collector, alongside local MLA B Sudhir Reddy, highlighted that the combined benefit of the Central PM-Kisan and State Annadata Sukhibhava schemes will provide Rs 20,000 annually to each farmer family in Andhra Pradesh. This amount will be disbursed in three instalments – Rs 7,000 in the current phase, another Rs 7,000 in October before the Rabi season, and the final Rs 6,000 during harvest time in January. While the Central government contributes Rs 6,000 under PM-Kisan, the remaining Rs 14,000 will come from the State government. In Tirupati district alone, Rs 105 crore has been credited on Saturday to the accounts of 1,54,908 farmers. The Collector announced the provision of 90 per cent subsidised urea and the setup of a dedicated grievance cell at the AP Seeds office to support farmers with information related to the scheme. MLA Sudhir Reddy noted that over 27,000 farmers in Srikalahasti constituency are availing the scheme. He criticised the previous government, saying farmers had suffered under YSRCP rule, and praised the present government for introducing initiatives such as farm mechanisation, subsidised drones, and storage godowns in every mandal to help farmers fetch better prices. District Agriculture Officer S Prasada Rao advised farmers to complete Aadhaar-bank linking for smooth benefit transfer and to visit nearby Rythu Seva Kendras if funds are not credited. Farmers can also get updates via WhatsApp on 9552300009. Later, a mega cheque was handed over to farmers by the Collector and MLA. AP Greenery and Beautification Corporation Chairperson M Sugunamma, several officials and farmer association representatives attended the event.
New Indian Express
4 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Kerala govt, Governor set to begin talks for consensus on VC appointments
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: With the Supreme Court directing both the state government and the chancellor (Governor) to kick-start the process to appoint permanent vice-chancellors (VCs) in universities at the earliest, both sides are set to begin discussions to arrive at a consensus on the matter. Higher Education Minister R Bindu and Law Minister P Rajeeve are scheduled to meet Governor Rajendra Arlekar on Sunday at the directions of CM Pinarayi Vijayan. 'The government will try its best to resolve the deadlock,' Bindu told TNIE. As per highly placed sources, the constitution of search committees for selection of permanent VCs in a few universities will be taken up as a preliminary step. Of the 14 state universities, the Acts of seven varsities lay down that the chancellor shall constitute the search committee. However, the Acts of seven other universities are silent on who is the authority to constitute the panel. 'The second category mostly includes varsities that are newly established or under departments such as agriculture, fisheries, veterinary and health,' said a top source. 'The chancellor will allow the government to form search panel in such varsities to start the process. However, the Raj Bhavan will insist that the search committee be constituted as per UGC regulations,' the source added. As per the UGC regulations, the three-member panel will have nominees of the UGC chairman, the chancellor and the university syndicate. 'If the government agrees to this proposal, it would be an admission that the University Amendment Bill, that aims to alter the composition of search committees in its favour, is now a closed chapter. But there is no other choice as the President has withheld assent to the Bill,' said a government source. The preliminary steps by both parties will serve as a chance for either sides to demonstrate their intent in appointing permanent VCs through consensus. Universities where chancellor is authority to constitute search panel Kerala University MG University Calicut University Kannur University CUSAT Sanskrit University Digital University Universities where Act is silent on who should constitute search panel Kerala Agricultural University Malayalam University APJ Abdul Kalam Tech University Kerala University of Health Sciences Kerala Veterinary & Animal Sciences University Fisheries University Sreenarayana Guru Open University
