Beef possession not a criminal offence, rules Bombay HC

Bengaluru, Feb 4: Karnataka High Court on Monday reserved order on plea, seeking cancellation of bail granted to Nithyananda for skipping the trial and fleeing the country.

After hearing the arguments, the court has reserved the matter for further orders which will be pronounced on February 5.

The plea, which was filed in the high court on January 23, was heard by Justice John Michael Cunha.

The counsel for the complainant Lenin put forth arguments that the self-styled godman Swami Nithyananda had fled the country to escape the trial. "Nityananda has been claiming to be in India in his exemption petitions filed before the trial court but during that time he sought asylum in Ecuador and is having a second passport," said Lenin.

The prosecutor informed the court that they do not need his presence for the trial at this time.

Nithyananda, accused of rape and child abuse, has been absconding since November 2018.

In December 2019, the Ministry of External Affairs said that the passport of Nithyananda was cancelled and a fresh application of the same was denied as he did not get the requisite clearance from police and several criminal cases have been lodged against him.

Police in Ahmedabad had arrested two woman administrators of the ashram, allegedly owned by Nithyananda, and freed two boys who were held captive there.

Two of his disciples, Pranpriya and Priyatattva, were arrested on the basis of a complaint filed by one Janardhan Sharma who alleged that his daughter was held captive in Nithyananda's ashram.

The police took the two women to Nithyananda's ashram in Hathiajan for an investigation and seized laptops, mobile phones among other things.

Mysuru, May 15: The Temple Town of Nanjangud was till now treated as one unit or a Cluster Containment Zone and was put under complete lock-down as per the containment protocol listed under COVID-19 regulations and Disaster Management Act, 2005.

However on Friday, some of the restrictions have been lifted by Mysuru Deputy Commissioner Abhiram G Sankar who permitted certain activities as no fresh positive cases were reported from the cluster area. The Cluster Containment Zone was declared on March 29 following one employee of Nanjangud-based Jubilant Generics tested positive for the killer Coronavirus. As there were chances of the positive person spreading the disease to other employees of the factory, the cluster rules were enforced. Moreover, there were over 1,000 employees in the Pharma Company and a majority of them lived in and around Nanjangud.

The declaration of Cluster Containment Zone with complete lock-down and quarantining of all the Pharma Company employees proved a success to the District Administration as whoever tested positive – over 73 were later tested positive — had already been quarantined and the dangerous community spread phase was successfully prevented. To a major extent, the Corona virus curve has been flattened. As such, restrictions have been relaxed a bit on Friday.

In the wake of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) UN High Commissioner, Michele Bachelet, has filed an intervention in the Supreme Court petition challenging the constitutionality of the Citizenship Amendment Act, as she is critical of CAA. Responding to her, India’s Foreign Minister S. Jai Shanker strongly rebutted her criticism, saying that the body (UNHCR) has been wrong and is blind to the problem of cross border terrorism. The issue on hand is the possibility of scores of people, mainly Muslims, being declared as stateless. The problem at hand is the massive exercise of going through the responses/documents from over 120 crore of Indian population and screening documents, which as seen in Assam, yield result which are far from truthful or necessary.

The issue of CAA has been extensively debated and despite heavy critique of the same by large number of groups and despite the biggest mass opposition ever to any move in Independent India, the Government is determined on going ahead with an exercise which is reminiscent of the dreaded regimes which are sectarian and heartless to its citizens, which have indulged in extinction of large mass of people on grounds of citizenship, race etc. The Foreign minister’s assertion is that it is a matter internal to India, where India’s sovereignty is all that matters! As far as sovereignty is concerned we should be clear that in current times any sovereign power has to consider the need to uphold the citizenship as per the principle of non-discrimination which is stipulated in Art.26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political (ICCPR) rights.

Can such policies, which affect large number of people and are likely to affect their citizenship be purely regarded as ‘internal’? With the World turning into a global village, some global norms have been formulated during last few decades. The norms relate to Human rights and migrations have been codified. India is also signatory to many such covenants in including ICCPR, which deals with the norms for dealing with refugees from other countries. One is not talking of Chicago speech of Swami Vivekanand, which said that India’s greatness has been in giving shelter to people from different parts of the World; one is also not talking of the Tattariaya Upanishad’s ‘Atithi Devovhav’ or ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam’ from Mahaupanishad today.

What are being talked about are the values and opinions of organizations which want to ensure to preserve of Human rights of all people Worldwide. In this matter India is calling United Nations body as ‘foreign party’; having no locus standi in the case as it pertains to India’s sovereignty. The truth is that since various countries are signatories to UN covenants, UN bodies have been monitoring the moves of different states and intervening at legal level as Amicus (Friend of the Court) to the courts in different countries and different global bodies. Just to mention some of these, UN and High Commissioner for Human Rights has often submitted amicus briefs in different judicial platforms. Some examples are their intervention in US Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights, International Criminal Court, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. These are meant to help the Courts in areas where UN bodies have expertise.

 Expertise on this has been jointly formulated by various nations. These interventions also remind the nations as to what global norms have been evolved and what are the obligations of individual states to the values which have evolved over a period of time. Arvind Narrain draws our attention to the fact that, “commission has intervened in the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving Spain and Italy to underscore the principle of non-refoulement, which bars compulsory expulsion of illegal migrants… Similarly, the UN has intervened in the International Criminal Court in a case against the Central African Republic to explicate on the international jurisprudence on rape as a war crime.”

From time to time organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been monitoring the status of Human rights of different countries. This puts those countries in uncomfortable situation and is not welcome by those establishments. How should this contradiction between ‘internal matter’, ‘sovereignty’ and the norms for Human rights be resolved? This is a tough question at the time when the freedom indices and democratic ethos are sliding downwards all over the world. In India too has slid down on the scale of these norms.

In India we can look at the intervention of UN body from the angle of equality and non discrimination. Democratic spirit should encourage us to have a rethink on the matters which have been decided by the state. In the face of the greatest mass movement of Shaheen bagh, the state does need to look inwards and give a thought to international morality, the spirit of global family to state the least.

The popular perception is that when Christians were being persecuted in Kandhmal the global Christian community’s voice was not strong enough. Currently in the face of Delhi carnage many a Muslim majority countries have spoken. While Mr. Modi claims that his good relations with Muslim countries are a matter of heartburn to the parties like Congress, he needs to relook at his self gloating. Currently Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia and many Muslim majority countries have spoken against what Modi regime is unleashing in India. Bangladesh, our neighbor, has also seen various protests against the plight of Muslims in India. More than the ‘internal matter’ etc. what needs to be thought out is the moral aspect of the whole issue. We pride ourselves in treading the path of morality. What does that say in present context when while large section of local media is servile to the state, section of global media has strongly brought forward what is happening to minorities in India.   

The hope is that Indian Government wakes up to its International obligations, to the worsening of India’s image in the World due to CAA and the horrific violence witnessed in Delhi.