Staring at a woman for over 14 seconds can land you in jail: Kerala official

August 16, 2016

Kochi, Aug 16: A top Kerala official's comments that staring "annoyingly" at a woman for 14 seconds can land a man in jail as per certain sections of law has gone viral on social media with a state minister terming them "irritating".

kerofficer"There are sections in law to jail a man for annoyingly staring at a woman for 14 seconds. Please use it (the provisions in the law), if it is the case," State Excise Commissioner Rishiraj Singh said.

He made the comments at an event organised by a charitable trust here two days ago.

Urging women to fight the hooligans disturbing them, Singh had also asked them to carry knives and chili spray in their bags to protect themselves from such elements.

"Are you carrying a knife in your bag? Are you carrying chilly spray? Time is over for taking such precautions" he had said.

While Singh's words drew varied reactions on social media, Kerala Sports Minister E P Jayarajan termed them as "irritating".

"The remarks are irritating. If a bureaucrat makes remarks which are not in law, certainly the minister concerned will examine it and necessary steps will be taken," he told reporters.

Singh's comments drew humorous reactions on social media, with jokes such as -- how a man who went to see a woman at her home following a marriage proposal ended up in jail for staring at her for more than 14 seconds.

Some also expressed doubts over the points made by Singh.

They asked, "What will happen if a man blinks while staring at her continuously for 14 seconds?... what about a man who stares at a woman wearing a sunglass?".

Rishiraj Singh had courted controversy in July last year for not saluting the then Kerala Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala at a passing out parade in Thrissur.

Supreme Court lawyer KV Dhananjaya who spoke to media persons brought some perspective to the statement made by Singh. "This is an unbelievably mindless statement to make. There is no such provision in any law of this country and there cannot be such a mindless provision of law in any other country of the world. The offence of outraging the modesty of a woman is a very serious issue and it is a matter of concern that such a high ranking public servant is publicly saying an evidently false and mindless thing about it."

Comments

Morality
 - 
Wednesday, 17 Aug 2016

Manku Thimma udupi,

Please try with your house hold members with an outsiders and SEE HOW It feels and wats your reaction??????????????????????.

Satyameva jayate
 - 
Tuesday, 16 Aug 2016

If a person stares at a girl more than 10 seconds....she feels irritated and move away....what does this mean.....will anyone love to see someone staring at his wife or daughter continuously for sometime....will you not react.....this guy is somewhere right....trying to protect women...at least someone trying to do something....if modi said it....

MN DSouza
 - 
Tuesday, 16 Aug 2016

The one who gave this statement is wearing sun glasses. I think he wants to stare for more than 14 seconds and not get arrested.

Manku Thimma
 - 
Tuesday, 16 Aug 2016

Ok boss. Next time I will carry a timer with me and stare only 13 seconds.. Hope its not an offence ???

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 29,2020

Bengaluru, Jul 29: The Karnataka High Court’s division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice H P Sandesh today rejected an application that wanted Amulya Leona’s case to be transferred from Karnataka Police to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

The bench, while observing that extraordinary jurisdiction can’t be exercised for transferring the case to the NIA, asked “What is so special that investigation should be transferred to NIA?”

The court, in its previous hearing, had questioned the maintainability of the petition seeking transfer of the sedition case against Leona to the NIA.

According to the petitioner, advocate Pavana Chandra Shetty, the case is a serious matter against national integration and unity and has not been investigated properly by the police. The state police also failed to file the chargesheet within 90 days, he said, and also asked for cancellation of her bail.

The bench asked the petitioner as to how a bail, already granted to a person, can be cancelled. “Is it not the indefeasible right of the accused to be released on bail if chargesheet is not filed within stipulated time? How can you make a prayer for cancellation of bail?”  the Court asked.

The counsel for the petitioner also stated that in cases of a cognizable offence, when the chargesheet is purposely not filed within the stipulated time, the matter will have to transferred to the appropriate authority.

The court responded to his contention by asking him how could the court override law and cancel the bail. “Where is the question of cancellation of bail? Can we override the law and say that bail should be cancelled?” said the bench.

Advocate Vishal Raghu had filed the petition for transfer of Leona’s case, who was accused of raising pro-Pakistan slogans at an anti-CAA rally on February 20 at Freedom Park. The advocate had blamed the probe team for not filing a chargesheet on time and has asked the state government to approach the higher court against bail granted to Leona.

Bengaluru student Amulya Leona was charged with sedition for her actions in the presence of All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi. She was arrested by the Bengaluru police for allegedly shouting ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ slogans at an anti- CAA Protest in Bengaluru in February this year. On June 11, she was granted conditional bail by the Bengaluru civil court.

Her bail plea was earlier rejected by a Bengaluru court, after she had spent a three-month period in jail, stating that she may abscond if she is released. The sessions judge Vidhyadhar Shirahatti had also stated that if the petitioner is granted bail, she may abscond and may involve in similar offence which affects peace at large and hence her petition is liable to be rejected. The court had also noted that Amulya Leona is an influential person who may threaten and influence the witness and hamper the case in case of the prosecution and will abscond if released on bail.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 9,2020

Dubai, Jun 9: A young NRI engineer in Dubai, who supported his pregnant spouse to file a plea in the Supreme Court of India for early repatriation from the UAE amid the coronavirus lockdown passed away in his sleep of suspected cardiac arrest.

The deceased identified as Nithin Chandran (28) and his wife Athira Geetha Sreedharan (27) had hit headlines in the past after the latter filed a writ petition seeking assistance to be repatriated to India, following the suspension of flights to the country, as she was due for the delivery of their first baby in the first week of July.

Chandran, a mechanical engineer was working at a construction firm in Dubai. According to the reports, he had stayed back in UAE after sending his wife home on the first day of repatriation from Dubai on May 7 under the Vande Bharat Mission.

The deceased was receiving the treatment for high blood pressure and a heart condition and is suspected to have died of a heart attack while asleep, his friend said. However, the exact cause of his death is yet to be known.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 21,2020

Mangaluru, May 21: The Supreme Court has awarded Rs 7.64 crore compensation to the next of kin of a man who was killed in a crash-landing of Air India Express Flight 812 from Dubai in Mangalore on May 22, 2010. The accident killed 158 out of 166 passengers on board.

The family of the 45-year-old Mahendra Kodkany, which include his wife, daughter and son, were earlier granted Rs 7.35 crore as compensation by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This compensation will now get enhanced after adding 9 per cent interest per annum (on the amount yet to be paid), to be paid by Air India.

Kodkany was the regional director for the Middle East for a UAE-based company. The aircraft overshot the runway and went down a hillside and burst into flames.

A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi said: "The total amount payable on account of the aforesaid heads works out to Rs 7,64,29,437. Interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum shall be paid on the same basis as has been awarded by the NCDRC. The balance, if any, that remains due and payable to the complainants, after giving due credit for the amount which has already been paid, shall be paid within a period of two months."

The apex court noted that in a claim for compensation arising out of the death of an employee, the income has to be assessed on the basis of the entitlement of the employee. The top court said: "We are unable to accept the reasons which weighed with the NCDRC in making a deduction of AED (UAE currency) 30,000 from the total CTC. Similarly, and for the same reason, we are unable to accept the submission of Air India that the transport allowance should be excluded. The bifurcation of the salary into diverse heads may be made by the employer for a variety of reasons."

The top court observed that the deceased was evidently, a confirmed employee of his employer. "We have come to the conclusion that thirty per cent should be allowed on account of future prospects", added the court.

The top court noted that if the amount which has been paid by Air India is in excess of the payable under the present judgement, "we direct under Article 142 of the Constitution (discretionary powers) that the excess shall not be recoverable from the claimants," said the court.

Comments

A.Rahman
 - 
Friday, 22 May 2020

First of all  A Salute To Lawyer One Who Handled This Case Against Carriers Mismanagement Wrong Action.

 

Sure this is the second victory for the lawyer against arriers mismanagement.

 

Over all it is the sign  of a profesional ; qualified  eligble  lawyers efforts and right decision from a capable knowlegable judge. Suit case operating lawyers cannot handle such specilized cases.

They lawyer may handled rest of the vicitms cases or he not. But for his siincere efforts for the past ten years delcares whatn he  is. Am personally met him and  witnessed his court appearance  hope and wish him all the best and success .

 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.