The law of life Imprisionment is uncertain from various aspects.
A criminal who is sentenced to life imprision is not certain about how many years he may have to spend in jail.
Higher the sentence, higher the chances of criminal absconding and not returning to jail. If life Imprisionment means jail up to his death, then he may not have reason to return to jail once he gets out on temporary leave. He may become a more dreaded criminal.
Until few years ago, the criminals had hopes that after 14 years, they may be released. Hence they continued to pass time in hope of rehabilitating themselves back in society after 14 years or sometime.
Now, at present, there is a little uncertainty in judicial pronouncements on this issue.
Haresh Raichura
28/4/2014
April 28, 2014
April 27, 2014
"Borrow, Steal or Loot, but pay maintenance to wife - When SupremeCourt will revisit this law in India?
The law does not recognise inability of husband to pay maintenance to his wife and children.
The popularly known rule is "Borrow, steal or loot, but pay maintenance to your wife and children.. Or go to jail"
This rule is inhuman.
Today a very poor husband came to my office.
I advised him
1) Do not expect from me that I will be able to make any changes in this law.
2) Apply to an Insolvency Court to declare yourself an insolvent.
3) Then be prepared to be jailed.
The facts of husband's case are very hard. But I prefer not to discuss it. The husband is in suicidal mode. Many husbands like him have already committed suicides. But reports have not reached where they ought to have reached.
Courts are unwilling to examine husband's poverty or his incapacity to pay.
Because the law of Sec.125 of Cr.PC. is an original Colonial Law enacted in those time to meet social conditions of those era. Thereafter, it is being followed but I do not find any citation where law can refuse maintainance on the ground that husband is living below poverty line or on the ground that he is living hand to mouth. Jail is his option if he is unable to pay.
Perhaps, the law here is supposed to be blind.
Haresh Raichura
The popularly known rule is "Borrow, steal or loot, but pay maintenance to your wife and children.. Or go to jail"
This rule is inhuman.
Today a very poor husband came to my office.
I advised him
1) Do not expect from me that I will be able to make any changes in this law.
2) Apply to an Insolvency Court to declare yourself an insolvent.
3) Then be prepared to be jailed.
The facts of husband's case are very hard. But I prefer not to discuss it. The husband is in suicidal mode. Many husbands like him have already committed suicides. But reports have not reached where they ought to have reached.
Courts are unwilling to examine husband's poverty or his incapacity to pay.
Because the law of Sec.125 of Cr.PC. is an original Colonial Law enacted in those time to meet social conditions of those era. Thereafter, it is being followed but I do not find any citation where law can refuse maintainance on the ground that husband is living below poverty line or on the ground that he is living hand to mouth. Jail is his option if he is unable to pay.
Perhaps, the law here is supposed to be blind.
Haresh Raichura
SC should hear at earliest, Freedom of Expression - FIRs & 66A are not signs of a strong democracy. Courts must protect freedom of expression
The spirit of freedom is " I may hate what you say. But I will stand up with you for your right to speak your mind and for your freedom of expression."
The recent trend in India of slapping FIR and 66A cases, for speeches made on public platforms and on social media, does not speak well about freedom of expression here.
It is sad that cases is filed for drawing caricature or cartoons of representatives of people. People have right to criticise them. Drawing cartoon and caricatures are also artistic ways of expression.
Petitions regarding validity of such cases are pending in Supreme Court. Such issue should be decided at earliest.
It is on shoulders of courts to protect freedom of expression.
Haresh Raichura
27/4/2014
The recent trend in India of slapping FIR and 66A cases, for speeches made on public platforms and on social media, does not speak well about freedom of expression here.
It is sad that cases is filed for drawing caricature or cartoons of representatives of people. People have right to criticise them. Drawing cartoon and caricatures are also artistic ways of expression.
Petitions regarding validity of such cases are pending in Supreme Court. Such issue should be decided at earliest.
It is on shoulders of courts to protect freedom of expression.
Haresh Raichura
27/4/2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)