Advocates hold protest, seek HC Bench in city
They raised slogans in support of their demands, which include: sanctioning of house site pattas to advocates, a separate waiting hall for women in all courts and release of death benefits and a monthly stipend of ₹10,000 for junior advocates. Later, the advocates submitted a memorandum of their demands to the Collector.
The protests was led by Indian Association of Lawyers (IAL) National Secretary K.S. Suresh Kumar. National Executive members M.N.M Bhagavathi, District General Secretary G.J.R Ajay Kumar, city president D. Manjulatha and general secretary Jaha Aara participated in the protest.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
a day ago
- News18
Complainant's SC/ST Status Alone Cannot Trigger Atrocities Act, Says Supreme Court
The SC has reiterated that the offence must be committed specifically on grounds of the victim's caste or tribal identity for the Act to apply The Supreme Court (SC) recently held that the mere fact of a complainant belonging to a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) community is not sufficient to attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court has reiterated that the offence must be committed specifically on grounds of the victim's caste or tribal identity for the Act to apply. The judgment was delivered on July 22, by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta. The SC was hearing a petition challenging the initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, along with sections 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), arising from a domestic dispute between a man and his estranged wife. The appellant had approached the SC seeking quashing of the proceedings, arguing that there was no caste-based element to the dispute and that the SC/ST Act had been wrongly invoked. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had earlier declined to interfere with the criminal proceedings. Setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court clarified that for an offence to fall within the purview of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, there must be a specific intention to insult or intimidate a person belonging to the SC or ST communities, and such conduct must occur in a place within public view. More importantly, the insult or intimidation must be 'on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe". The bench observed that the statute cannot be invoked solely because the complainant is a member of a protected community. The underlying motivation behind the alleged act must be to target the individual due to their caste identity. In the absence of such intent, the invocation of the SC/ST Act would not be legally sustainable. In the present case, the Court found that the allegations arose out of a matrimonial discord and that there was no specific averment or material to show that the alleged abuse or insult was targeted at the complainant because of her caste. The complaint lacked any assertion that the alleged acts were committed with caste-based malice or occurred in public view with the intention of humiliating the complainant on account of her caste. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), where it had similarly held that disputes of a purely private nature, such as property or domestic issues, do not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act unless there is a clear indication of caste-based animus. In that case, the Court had cautioned against the misuse of the protective statute and emphasised that its application must be based on objective facts that demonstrate the commission of an offence specifically aimed at humiliating or oppressing a person due to their SC/ST status. Reiterating this position, the Court held that allowing the proceedings to continue under the SC/ST Act in the absence of necessary legal ingredients would be a misuse of process and would dilute the purpose of the statute. The judgment underscores the principle that special legislation enacted to protect marginalised communities must be applied with precision and not be extended to situations where its core requirements are not met. The Supreme Court proceeded to quash the proceedings under the SC/ST Act while leaving the charges under the Indian Penal Code to be decided on merits before the trial court. The decision reiterates the judiciary's approach to ensuring that while the rights of historically oppressed communities must be safeguarded, the criminal law must not be weaponised in situations where the essential statutory conditions are absent. This court has sifted cases where allegations under the SC/ST Act are made without establishing a direct link to caste-based motivation. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Delhi High Court upholds action against assistant professor at DU in sexual harassment case
The Delhi High Court has upheld the compulsory retirement of an assistant professor of political science in Delhi University's Bharati College over multiple allegations of sexual harassment by students. The Court described the accused's conduct as 'so profane' that it refrained from reproducing in its judgment the objectionable messages he sent to the complainants. In the July 17 judgment, Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that, 'Teachers shape the career of young aspiring students for a better future... The act of sexual harassment done by these very teachers, who are considered our guides and mentors, against young female students who have just attained majority, has a deleterious effect on the psyche of such students.' The accused had challenged the orders of compulsory retirement issued by the college's governing body in December 2020. Four complaints were filed against him — three by current students of Bharati College and one by a former student — alleging sexual innuendoes/advances through Facebook chats and WhatsApp messages. The complaints surfaced in February 2018, shortly after a video of students confronting the professor about his conduct became public. The video sparked student protests and demands for an inquiry. The matter was referred to the college's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), in line with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), and UGC regulations. The Court noted that the ICC's inquiry report of August 28, 2018, found all charges against the professor to be substantiated through both documentary and oral evidence. 'The testimony of each of the complainants remained unimpeached and resultantly, this Court finds no reason to question the veracity of the ICC's analysis of the evidence and statements,' the Court held. The Court rejected the professor's arguments of procedural impropriety, noting that it found no violation of rules in how the ICC was constituted or how the inquiry was conducted.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
Does being patriotic Indians mean we can't protest the horrors in Gaza?
When the Bombay High Court scolded petitioners seeking permission to hold a protest over the Gaza conflict this week, stating that they should 'look at their own country,' it did more than just deny a plea. To mourn for children in Gaza is not to betray India. To protest the unjust killing of innocents abroad is not to ignore injustice at home. It is to declare, as our freedom fighters once did, that truth has no borders and conscience no passport. At the heart of this matter lies Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. These are not minor provisions. They are foundational to the democratic life of the Republic. Protest, in this framework, is not a disruption of order — it is the music of democratic breathing. It is the only means by which ordinary citizens, powerless in the machinery of state, can voice their hope, grief, and resistance. To deny permission for a peaceful protest mourning deaths in Gaza — under the reasoning that it does not concern India — is to misunderstand the very idea of Indian constitutionalism. The Supreme Court, in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs Union of India (2018), has made it clear: 'Citizens have a fundamental right to assemble peacefully and protest against governmental action.' And in Amit Sahni vs Commissioner of Police (2020), while dealing with the Shaheen Bagh protests, the Court emphasised that protest must be balanced with public order — but it did not deny the right itself. That distinction matters. Courts are not to extinguish the flame of protest but to ensure that it does not burn others' homes. Even earlier, in the landmark Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978), the Court warned against arbitrary state action: 'Any restriction on fundamental rights must pass the test of reasonableness and fairness. Arbitrary denial erodes the very fabric of liberty.' What was the crime here? A candlelit gathering. A moment of collective grief. A people who could not remain indifferent. The Indian tradition does not shy away from this impulse — it sanctifies it. From the Mahā Upanishad's declaration of vasudhaiva kutumbakam — 'The world is one family' — to the Isha Upanishad's invocation: 'He who sees all beings in himself and himself in all beings… he never turns away from it,' Indian thought has always affirmed that compassion is a civic virtue. Even our national poet, Rabindranath Tagore, warned against the dangers of closed sympathies: 'Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high/ Where the world has not been broken up into fragments/ By narrow domestic walls.' The judge's remarks — to 'look at your own country' — seem to invoke a narrow nationalism that betrays this expansive inheritance. Indeed, Mahatma Gandhi himself said: 'My patriotism is not an exclusive thing. It is all-embracing… I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible.' In that spirit, a gathering for Gaza is not un-Indian. It is Indian in its deepest moral sense. Great civilisations not only permit dissent — they preserve it. And great poets, through centuries, have told us what silence costs. Kabir, the weaver-saint, wrote: 'Dard ke dāman se jo lipta, soī to insān hai/ Dusre ke dukh se jo dukh paaye, vahī Bhagwān hai.' (One who clings to the cloak of sorrow is truly human/One who grieves another's grief — that is God.) Sa'adi of Shiraz, whose words are etched into the walls of the United Nations building in New York, said: 'Human beings are limbs of one another/ Created from the same essence/ When one limb is afflicted with pain/The others cannot remain at peace.' And lest we forget the price of selective empathy, we must remember the warning of Pastor Martin Niemöller, who survived Nazi prisons: 'First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me —and there was no one left to speak for me.' This poem is not history, it is prophecy. And we forget it at our peril. By reprimanding citizens who seek to protest global injustice, we do not 'look at our own country'. We blindfold it. When we tell people to silence their grief for others, what we're really saying is: 'Let injustice grow, as long as it's not at your door.' But injustice, like fire, spreads unseen through silence. This is not a Gaza issue. It is not a Muslim issue. It is not even a foreign affairs issue. It is an Indian constitutional issue. For it is we, the people — not robes, not gavels — who breathe life into our Constitution. In the end, history will not ask whether we obeyed orders, but whether we saw clearly — and stood in solidarity with whoever in our universal family was suffering. For again, we are the people who emphasised at the G20 we hosted recently that India's abiding value is vasudhaiva kutumbakam. The writer is President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's Grain from Ukraine Ambassador for South Asia. He has worked at the United Nations on all five continents and is also a multilingual award-winning poet
