Chief minister to launch internet radio for children
will launch an internet radio called Radio Nellikka for children on June 18. The radio is being launched as part of a campaign aimed at creating child-friendly environments and ensuring child rights literacy.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
It will be run by the state commission for protection of child rights.
The move comes because of an increase in issues faced by children such as mental conflicts, drug menace, cyberbullying, suicide and social media addiction. The radio also aims to raise awareness about child ethics, Pocso and the right to free and compulsory education, a press release stated.
The radio can be accessed 24/7 from anywhere in the world.
Initially, it will have four hours of programming from Monday to Friday, which will be repeated. The weekday programmes will also be repeated on Saturdays and Sundays.
The programmes include 'Right Turn' related to children's rights, a phone-in programme called 'Immini Balyakaryam', an interactive 'Akashadooth' programme to clear doubts and share experiences, and a chat programme 'Uncle Boss'. Memories, experiences, school life, joys and challenges can be shared with the 'Akashadooth' via email (radionellikka@gmail.com) or WhatsApp.
For 'Immini Balyakaryam' and 'Uncle Boss' programmes, contact 9993338602.
The Child Rights Commission aims to reach 2.5 million families in Kerala. The radio will also reach children through 15,397 schools, 29,202 Bala Sabhas under Kudumbashree, 33,120 Anganwadis under the department of women and child development and 464 child protection institutions in districts and through PTAs, NSS and school clubs.
Radio Nellikka can be downloaded from the Play Store on Android phones and the App Store on iOS. It can also be accessed via radionellikka.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
POCSO and age of consent debate in India: Debunking the misconceptions
The recent debates around the alleged reduction of the age of consent have gripped civil society and social media. Some concerns were raised in an article by Flavia Agnes and Audrey Dmello ('The faultlines of consent', IE, August 9). The purpose of this article is to clear some misconceptions and to clarify what has been argued before the Supreme Court (this writer is assisting Indira Jaising, the amicus curiae, before the SC on the matter). While propriety demands that the case be argued before the Court, and not in the court of public opinion, I feel it necessary to clarify some of the arguments so that sensationalism can be avoided. The case before the Supreme Court is about the age of consent. It has been pegged at 18 years by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual activity between children between the age of 16-18, since it is against the order of puberty at which point sexual awareness is attained. The case which has been pleaded here is not a blanket reduction of the age of consent, but to decriminalise consensual intercourse between children aged 16-18 by introducing a close-in-age exception. In recent times, there have been several cases of non-exploitative, non-abusive consensual relationships being criminalised. A significant proportion of cases being registered under the POCSO Act pertain to situations where girls leave their homes with their romantic partners, and cases of consensual sexual activity between teenagers. These cases — usually with a missing persons complaint or an FIR for rape — are usually initiated by the parents of these girls. After the teenage boy has been put through the rigmarole of the criminal process, branded as a criminal, the case usually falls on its face, with the girl turning hostile. The case is subsequently quashed, or the accused is released on bail. Such criminalisation is also much more common in cases of inter-caste and inter-faith relationships, where members of disadvantaged communities and religious minorities often find themselves at the wrong side of the law. Sometimes, while the Supreme Court has refused to quash the cases, they have stopped the execution of sentences by using its powers under Article 142. Under common law, minors are now understood to have evolving capacities to make decisions, including decisions about their life and death. In India, the age of majority is understood as outlined in the Abduction Acts of England. However, in England, this understanding has changed. Post R v D [1984] 2 All ER 449, the current law, even in England, for medical decisions, recognises that the minor has sufficient understanding and intelligence to make a decision and that is not to be determined by reference to any judicially fixed age limit. From 1940 to 2012, the age of consent was 16 years. It was raised to 18, post the December 2012 gangrape case. No reasons were provided for this change, either by the Verma Committee or on the floor of either House when POCSO was brought in or during the 2013 Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act. Agnes and D'mello argue that 16 is an arbitrary age. But so is 18. Sixteen years, as the age of consent, was the law for over eight decades, and it recognised that teenagers are sexually active. This criminalisation of consensual relationships, read along with the mandatory reporting provision, has also deterred teenagers from accessing sexual and reproductive health services and put their lives at risk. The National Health and Family Survey-5 noted that 45 per cent of teenage girls in the age group of 15-19 have had sexual intercourse. How can one protect the health interests of teenagers while also ensuring that abusive relationships are not decriminalised? The answer to this is simply allowing for a close-in-age exception to POCSO and IPC, in cases where relationships are non-abusive and non-exploitative. Agnes and Dmello seem to read this as a defense of abusive incestuous relationships, or relationships where the abuser is in a position of care or authority over the child. Such abuse is not defensible, and the arguments attack a fabricated imagination of the arguments advanced in Court. On a fundamental principle of criminal law, there cannot be mens rea when the relationship is non-exploitative and non-abusive, and thus, trying to criminalise such a relationship serves no legitimate purpose. This is a case of balancing competing interests. Different people may come to different conclusions as to how such interests can be balanced. It is equally true that child sexual abuse is a serious problem, and POCSO addresses the issue of child sexual abuse. I say this as someone who was sexually abused as a child. However, to be so rigid in the application of law, and to use the law in a manner so as to curtail the fundamental right to access to healthcare, and personal autonomy of children between the ages of 16 to 18, who are otherwise capable of giving consent and are involved in consensual sexual relationships, is a fool's errand. The writer is a bioethicist and a lawyer at the Supreme Court
India Today
2 days ago
- India Today
Age of consent for sex: Why a 160-year-old debate is still raging
The age of consent first saw a debate in 1860 when sexual intercourse with a girl under 10 was criminalised. It was raised to 12, 14 and then to 16 in 1940. After staying at 16 for over seven decades, it was raised to 18 in 2013. Since the first debate 165 years ago, the age of consent is in the eye of the storm over the "criminalisation of adolescent love". A fierce debate has erupted in the legislative corridors over whether to lower the age of Indian government has taken a strong stance against amicus curiae and Senior Advocate in the Supreme Court, Indira Jaising's demand to redefine the word 'child' in Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, per this law, any sexual activity with a person under 18 is criminalised, regardless of consent. The provision defines 'child' as any person below the age of 18 years, thereby putting a blanket age of consent and penalising any sexual activity, whether consensual or non-consensual, between individuals, where either one is legally a 'child'.Jaising has argued for the statutory age to be lowered to 16 years to exempt individuals aged between 16 and 18, engaging in consensual sexual activity evolving from voluntary relationships, from the stringent penalties in the Pocso ON DECRIMINALISING SEX BETWEEN CONSENTING ADOLESCENTSJaising has deemed the criminalisation of sexual activity between consenting adolescents, aged 16 to 18 years, as arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of written submission by Jaising is part of a 2012 petition by advocate Nipun Saxena to safeguard the privacy and dignity of the survivors of sexual offences by preventing the unauthorised release of their exemption from the Pocso Act, Section 375 of the IPC and its corresponding provision in section 63 of the BNS, which prescribes punishment for rape, Jaising invoked the "close-in-age-gap" exception which is also called the Romeo and Juliet said, "The only solution lies in declaring that sex between consenting adolescents between the age of 16, an almost universal age of sexual maturity, and 18 is not a form of 'abuse'.""Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature," Jaising AGE OF CONSENT MOVED UP FROM 10 TO 16The age of consent for marriage progressively increased from 10 years in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860 to 14 years and 16 years by amendments in 1925 and 1940, was in 1860 that the IPC criminalised sexual intercourse with a girl under 10, even if Age of Consent Act, 1891, amended the IPC provisions, and raised the age to 12 after the death of Phulmoni Dasi, an 11-year-old girl from Bengal due to marital social reform movements and pressure on the British rulers from nationalists in India, the age was upwardly revised to 14 through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1978, the age of consent for marriage was increased to 18 years for women and 21 years for men by an amendment to the Child Marriage Restraint age of consent was raised to 16 years through the IPC (Amendment) Act, 1940. It remained unchanged at 16 for around 70 years after Independence before it was changed in was the Pocso Act, 2012, which came after the brutal Delhi gang rape that defined anyone under 18 as a child. However, IPC Section 375 still held the age of consent at 16, thus creating a was resolved through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which harmonised IPC Section 375 with Pocso, raising the age of consent for sexual activity to 18. It came on the recommendations of the Justice Verma present case in the Supreme Court challenges the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013."The age of consent was static at 16 for 80 years. No rational reason has been indicated for the increase, nor is there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase," stated Jaising."Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty, as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness," she pleaded for the focus to be shifted to providing sex education rather than criminalising AND SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN TEENAGERSThe Centre took a stand against the argument and the lowering of the age of consent from 18. It highlighted how minors lack the legal and developmental capacity to give meaningful and informed consent in matters involving sexual government called the age of consent a robust and non-negotiable shield for per a study by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), arguments against lowering the age of consent are that it might result in younger children being more engaged in sexual activity, and take the chance away from children who do not wish to engage in sexual is also said that young people are not emotionally mature enough to engage in sexual activity, regardless of cognitive competence. This is complemented by neuroscientific evidence that says that the adolescent brain undergoes significant changes throughout the teens and in the same NIH study, the counter-arguments to these findings are studies on the median age of menarche in girls, which prove how a majority of girls aged 14 are physically mature to engage in sexual activity and that they are capable of analysing the risks and benefits as a emotional maturity, the parameter of impulsivity is shown to significantly decrease only by the ages of 22-25 and 26-30 years, so this would make consent by individuals aged up to at least 25 years the strongest arguments in favour of lowering the age limit is the decriminalisation of freely given sexual consent and access to safe sexual health services without the fear of being penalised for having engaged in an illegal CONFUSION AND TEENAGE DILEMMACourts across India are seemingly divided on cases involving consensual relationships with minors, often balancing the survivor's welfare against the strict provisions of the Pocso Act. While some rulings have exercised extraordinary powers to acquit, others have upheld prosecutions citing the law's intent to protect its judgment not a precedent and exercising powers granted by Article 142 of the Constitution to do 'complete justice', the Supreme Court acquitted a man aged 25 years old under Pocso from a 20-year-long jail sentence on May 23, survivor told the Calcutta High Court that she voluntarily entered into a relationship with the accused, married him and birthed a child, "out of her own volition" and the HC reversed the Trial Court's conviction for rape and kidnapping under the Pocso Act, with a rigorous imprisonment of 20 the three-member expert committee submitted its report, the apex court noted that it was not the alleged crime, but the legal proceedings that traumatised the survivor and put the family in emotional and financial the significant failures of the Pocso Act, the Supreme Court said, "The facts of the case indicate failure of the concept of welfare state".Similar judgments were delivered in the Karnataka High Court in 2022 and the Madras High Court in 2021, which prioritised the survivor's welfare and avoided the rigid application of the law under "extraordinary circumstances".However, last month the Bombay High Court refused an application to quash a proceeding under the Pocso Act, the IPC and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2009, involving the accused's relationship with the 17-year-old that it awaits clarification by the Centre, the court refused to entertain the application, which stated that there was a consensual relationship between the survivor and the Centre strongly opposes lowering the age Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati stated in the written submissions, "Introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law".The Centre cited a 2007 Ministry of Women and Child Development report which found that 53.22% of children reported facing one or more forms of sexual abuse, out of which 50% of the abusers were persons in positions of trust or authority."The report concluded that children are particularly vulnerable when the offender is a known figure, as the abuse is concealed, normalised, or silenced through emotional manipulation or fear", argued the WILL AND APPARENT LEGAL LACUNAResponding to Jaising's arguments, the Centre asserted that the definition of a "child" as a person below 18 years was a deliberate choice arising out of its constitutional duty to protect this stance "the legislative position embodying the collective will of Parliament", the Centre cited several legislations, such as the Indian Majority Act, 1875, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, submissions maintained the government's adherence to the constitutional provisions which guarantee special provisions for women and children and India's commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).This convention defines a minor as anyone under 18 years old, and regards sexual activity with such a person, regardless of consent, as in its previous submissions, the Centre allowed for judicial discretion to be exercised on a case-to-case basis in adolescent relationship ambiguity returns to a lacuna in the law that makes the outcomes of such cases dependent upon judicial decisions and inconsistent across jurisdictions.- Ends
The Hindu
3 days ago
- The Hindu
Fast-track courts in Delhi fail to fulfil promise of providing speedy justice
The Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs), meant to speed up trials in rape and child sexual abuse cases, are underperforming in Delhi, according to data recently presented in the Lok Sabha by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal. The national capital figures in a list of States and Union Territories with delayed trials in FTSCs. In a bid to curb crimes against women and children, the Central government had enacted the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, introducing stricter provisions. By March that year, 1,66,882 rape and POCSO cases were pending in courts across the country. Concerned by the backlog, in July 2019, the Supreme Court directed that any district with more than 100 pending POCSO cases must have an exclusive special court to handle them. Acting on this direction, the Central government, in August 2019, launched FTSCs exclusively for cases related to rape and child sexual abuse. Under the scheme, each FTSC is tasked with disposing of at least 165 cases annually. As of June 30 this year, 725 FTSCs, including 392 exclusive POCSO courts, are functional in 30 States and Union Territories. Delhi currently has 16 FTSCs, including 11 exclusively for POCSO matters. Since its inception, 6,278 cases have been institutedin these courts, but only 2,718 have been disposedof as of June 30. Toll on survivors Unnecessary delay in the legal process involving rape cases only serves to prolong the victim's suffering, according to jurists. 'The trauma experienced by survivors of sexual assault is profound and enduring, and each moment spent waiting for justice exacerbates their pain,' Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court had observed in a March 2024 ruling related to a rape case. 'This delay in the administration of justice not only interferes with their healing process but also prolongs their journey towards closure and recovery from such a traumatic experience,' Justice Sharma noted. 'Needless delays' Advocate Shilpi Jain, who secured a conviction in just 11 days in a high-profile German tourist rape case in Alwar, Rajasthan, in 2006, says the delays are 'avoidable'. 'Fast-track special courts are not fast at all. These cases rarely have many witnesses. They could conclude in two months if there's seriousness,' Ms. Jain stated. 'As far as rape cases are concerned, there is rarely any eyewitness. Cross-examination is never lengthy. So it should conclude in two months,' she said. 'The spirit behind setting up FTSCs was that these courts must finish the cases much before regular courts. But, they end up becoming the same,' she commented, attributing delays to a lack of seriousness, which has to come from the State. 'Political gimmick' Meanwhile, senior advocate Rebecca John questioned the very premise of FTSCs, calling them a 'political gimmick'. 'I have been a long-term opponent of FTSCs. How many cases can you fast-track? The docket is overflowing with cases. When you fast-track one case, it is at the cost of another case,' the senior advocate told The Hindu. 'It is nothing but a political gimmick which is employed from time to time to satisfy public outrage, but nothing comes out of it. There is no substitute for more infrastructure. You can't pull out the same judges from the same pool and give them a few cases, and say fast track it,' Ms. John underscored.
