Latest news with #AravindKumar
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Punish incestuous assault severely: SC
Incestuous sexual violence by a parent tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence, the Supreme Court held on Wednesday, dismissing a petition filed by a man convicted of repeatedly raping his minor daughter Punish incestuous assault severely: SC 'The home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma, and the courts must send a clear signal that such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial response,' said a bench of justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta. To entertain a plea for leniency in a case of this nature, the court stressed, would not merely be misplaced, but constitute a betrayal of the court's own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable. 'When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. There can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the very notion of family as a space of security,' said the bench, affirming the life sentence for the convict. Rejecting outright, the plea to consider his bail in the 2013 crime, the court added that any leniency in such cases would amount to 'a judicial insult to the sanctity of womanhood' and 'a betrayal of the constitutional promise made to every child of this country.' 'When a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child's bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal but institutional. The law does not, and cannot, condone such acts under the guise of rehabilitation or reform,' it said. Upholding the Himachal Pradesh High Court's July 2024 judgment that affirmed the man's life sentence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the court said the case reflected a horrifying abuse of trust, where the father became the 'source of the most severe violation of a child's bodily integrity and dignity.' The court noted that the victim was around 10 years old when the assaults began, which were not isolated but sustained violations inside the home – 'a place where every child expects protection.' Referring to the father's repeated acts of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, the bench said the crime 'assumes a demonic character' when committed by a parent, and warrants the 'severest condemnation in both language and sentence.' 'No daughter, however aggrieved, would fabricate charges of this magnitude against her own father merely to escape household discipline,' observed the bench, rejecting the convict's claim that he was falsely implicated due to strained domestic relationships. It acknowledged that 'incestuous sexual violence constitutes a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust', holding that such offences deserve nothing but the severest condemnation and deterrent punishment. 'To pardon such depravity under any guise would be a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the child protection mandate embedded in our constitutional and statutory framework,' maintained the bench, underlining the court's zero-tolerance approach. Reiterating that justice must not be limited to conviction, the court also emphasised the importance of restitution and rehabilitation, especially for child survivors. Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the bench directed the state of Himachal Pradesh to pay a compensation of ₹10.5 lakh to the now-major survivor, exceeding the maximum prescribed under the NALSA Compensation Scheme by 50% due to the gravity of the offence and age of the victim. Of this amount, ₹7 lakh is to be fixed in a nationalised bank for five years in the survivor's name, with quarterly interest accessible to her. The remaining ₹3.5 lakh is to be transferred directly to her account. The process will be monitored by the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. 'In awarding this compensation, we reaffirm the constitutional commitment to protect the rights and dignity of child survivors, and to ensure that the justice delivered is substantive, compassionate and complete,' held the court.
NDTV
a day ago
- NDTV
"Sexual Violence By Parent Tears Through Foundational Fabric Of Familial Trust": Top Court
New Delhi: Observing incestuous sexual violence by a parent "tears through" the foundational fabric of familial trust, the Supreme Court has upheld a man's punishment for raping his minor daughter. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Kumar called the dignity of women "non-negotiable" while asking the legal system not to permit repeated intrusion into that dignity under the "guise of misplaced sympathy" or purported "procedural fairness". Justice, the August 4 order said, must not be limited to conviction and must include restitution. The top court further directed Rs 10.50 lakh to be paid to the survivor as compensation under the state of Himachal Pradesh. "Incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence. The home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma, and the courts must send a clear signal that such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial response," the order read. The apex court said entertaining a plea for leniency in a case of this nature would not merely be misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal of the court's own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable. "When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. There can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the very notion of family as a space of security," the bench said. The top court was acting on the appeal of the man against a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision upholding his conviction and sentence under Section 6 (sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC. The court said such offences deserve severest condemnation and deterrent punishment. To pardon such depravity under any guise would be a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the child protection mandate embedded in our constitutional and statutory framework, the verdict added. The bench went on to quote Manusmriti, as saying, 'Yatra nāryastu pūjyante ramante tatra devatā, yatraitaastu na pūjyante sarvāstatra aphalā kriyā (where women are honoured, divinity flourishes and where they are dishonoured, all acts become fruitless)." The top court said this verse reflects not merely a cultural principle but a constitutional vision. The court rejected the man's prayer for interim bail saying, "Our judicial conscience does not permit casual indulgence in a prayer for interim relief of bail where the conviction has been rendered." The bench said entertaining petition would mean betrayal of the constitutional promise made to every child in the country. "It would be a judicial insult to the sanctity of womanhood and a blow to every mother who teaches her child to believe in justice." The order continued, "When a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child's bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal but institutional. The law does not, and cannot, condone such acts under the guise of rehabilitation or reform." PTI PKS PKS AMK AMK
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Business Standard
SC upholds rape conviction, says parental abuse shatters family trust
Observing incestuous sexual violence by a parent "tears through" the foundational fabric of familial trust, the Supreme Court has upheld a man's punishment for raping his minor daughter. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Kumar called the dignity of women "non-negotiable" while asking the legal system not to permit repeated intrusion into that dignity under the "guise of misplaced sympathy" or purported "procedural fairness". Justice, the August 4 order said, must not be limited to conviction and must include restitution. The top court further directed Rs 10.50 lakh to be paid to the survivor as compensation under the state of Himachal Pradesh. "Incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence. The home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma, and the courts must send a clear signal that such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial response," the order read. The apex court said entertaining a plea for leniency in a case of this nature would not merely be misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal of the court's own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable. "When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. There can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the very notion of family as a space of security," the bench said. The top court was acting on the appeal of the man against a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision upholding his conviction and sentence under Section 6 (sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC. The court said such offences deserve severest condemnation and deterrent punishment. To pardon such depravity under any guise would be a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the child protection mandate embedded in our constitutional and statutory framework, the verdict added. The bench went on to quote Manusmriti, as saying, Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra devata, yatraitaastu na pujyante sarvastatra aphala kriya (where women are honoured, divinity flourishes and where they are dishonoured, all acts become fruitless)." The top court said this verse reflects not merely a cultural principle but a constitutional vision. The court rejected the man's prayer for interim bail saying, "Our judicial conscience does not permit casual indulgence in a prayer for interim relief of bail where the conviction has been rendered." The bench said entertaining petition would mean betrayal of the constitutional promise made to every child in the country. "It would be a judicial insult to the sanctity of womanhood and a blow to every mother who teaches her child to believe in justice." The order continued, "When a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child's bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal but institutional. The law does not, and cannot, condone such acts under the guise of rehabilitation or reform.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Sexual violence by parent tears through foundational fabric of familial trust: SC
New Delhi, Observing incestuous sexual violence by a parent "tears through" the foundational fabric of familial trust, the Supreme Court has upheld a man's punishment for raping his minor daughter. Sexual violence by parent tears through foundational fabric of familial trust: SC A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Kumar called the dignity of women "non-negotiable" while asking the legal system not to permit repeated intrusion into that dignity under the "guise of misplaced sympathy" or purported "procedural fairness". Justice, the August 4 order said, must not be limited to conviction and must include restitution. The top court further directed ₹10.50 lakh to be paid to the survivor as compensation under the state of Himachal Pradesh. "Incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence. The home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma, and the courts must send a clear signal that such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial response," the order read. The apex court said entertaining a plea for leniency in a case of this nature would not merely be misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal of the court's own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable. "When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. There can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the very notion of family as a space of security," the bench said. The top court was acting on the appeal of the man against a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision upholding his conviction and sentence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 of IPC. The court said such offences deserve severest condemnation and deterrent punishment. To pardon such depravity under any guise would be a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the child protection mandate embedded in our constitutional and statutory framework, the verdict added. The bench went on to quote Manusmriti, as saying, 'Yatra nāryastu pūjyante ramante tatra devatā, yatraitaastu na pūjyante sarvāstatra aphalā kriyā ." The top court said this verse reflects not merely a cultural principle but a constitutional vision. The court rejected the man's prayer for interim bail saying, "Our judicial conscience does not permit casual indulgence in a prayer for interim relief of bail where the conviction has been rendered." The bench said entertaining petition would mean betrayal of the constitutional promise made to every child in the country. "It would be a judicial insult to the sanctity of womanhood and a blow to every mother who teaches her child to believe in justice." The order continued, "When a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child's bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal but institutional. The law does not, and cannot, condone such acts under the guise of rehabilitation or reform." This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Disability no licence to fire govt employees: SC
The employer's discretion ends where the employee's dignity begins, the Supreme Court held while ruling that public sector employers cannot mechanically retire employees who acquire disabilities during service without first exploring meaningful alternatives for their redeployment. Disability no licence to fire govt employees: SC 'While judicial restraint guards against overreach, it must not become an excuse for disengagement from injustice. When an employee is removed from service for a condition he did not choose, and where viable alternatives are ignored, the Court is not crossing a line by intervening, it is upholding one drawn by the Constitution itself,' said a bench of justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, in a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional right to dignity and equality in employment. The August 1 judgment came as the bench directed the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) to reinstate a driver who was compulsorily retired in 2016 after being diagnosed with colour blindness. Coming down hard on TSRTC for its failure to consider alternative roles for the driver, who had expressed willingness to be reassigned to a non-driving post, the court held that this omission was not just an administrative lapse, but a violation of both statutory obligations and constitutional principles. The judgment drew upon the principle that public employers are duty-bound to provide 'reasonable accommodation' to employees who acquire disabilities during service. Retirement on medical grounds, the court said, must be a measure of last resort, only after all viable options for redeployment have been exhausted. 'The obligation to reasonably accommodate such employees is not just a matter of administrative grace, but a constitutional and statutory imperative, rooted in the principles of non-discrimination, dignity and equal treatment,' noted the bench. The judgment further drew strength from a consistent line of rulings to reaffirm that beneficial legislation must be interpreted purposively to protect the rights of disabled employees. 'Employment security is central not only to individual dignity but also to familial survival,' said the court, emphasising that livelihood cannot be severed 'by the stroke of a medical certificate' without first exhausting all avenues for reassignment. The court cited the example of the driver seeking reassignment to the post of Shramik (helper) , a job that did not require normal colour vision. However, the Corporation did not even attempt to assess his suitability for such a role. According to the bench, the burden lies on the employer, not the employee, to prove that no suitable post exists or can be reasonably created. The court also referenced the pertinent provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and a binding memorandum of settlement signed by TSRTC in 1979, which explicitly mandated alternate employment for colour-blind drivers with pay protection and continuity of service. The court ruled that TSRTC failed to comply with this binding obligation, adding that internal circulars cited by the Corporation in denying alternate employment, were merely administrative instructions and could not override statutory service conditions created by an industrial settlement. The bench further made it clear that even in the absence of such a settlement, constitutional and statutory principles demand the accommodation of employees who develop disabilities. 'This obligation is not rooted in compassion, but in constitutional discipline and statutory expectation,' it stated. The bench thus ordered the Corporation to appoint the driver to a suitable post consistent with his condition, at the same pay grade he held in 2016, within eight weeks. It also directed payment of 25% of arrears from the date of retirement until reinstatement and held that the intervening period must be treated as continuous service. 'In doing so, we not only vindicate the appellant's rights but also reaffirm our constitutional commitment to a just and humane employer-employee relationship,' the bench concluded.
