Mangaluru: CFI holds protest rally against violation of students' rights

Bengaluru, July 23: The High Court of Karnataka has directed the state government to formulate Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for child protection, particularly for cases of child pornography and child missing.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice M Nagaprasanna passed a detailed order and asked the state government to submit compliance within three months.

The division bench passed the order on two PILs, including a suo motu litigation registered in 2018. The PILs were registered to ensure effective implementation of the directions of the Supreme Court on the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

The bench observed that in normal courses, courts do not issue writ of mandamus to the legislature on rule-making aspects. However, when the failure of the state is demonstrated under exceptional circumstances, courts can issue directions. The bench directed the state government to expedite the rule-making process to ensure proper implementation of the JJ Act.

The bench expressed displeasure on the insensitive police investigation in cases of child pornography. “The police machinery did not show the sensitivity expected from it while dealing with cases of alleged child pornography. Therefore, it will be appropriate if the state issues SOP or guidelines for dealing with cases of child pornography so that proper investigation is carried out in such cases. As we are directing the formation of SOP for dealing with child pornography cases, the state is also directed to formulate guidelines on child missing cases,” the bench said.

The bench had been issuing several directions since 2018 and has also been monitoring police investigations. The court observed that while the state government has incorporated several directions, some issues still remain unaddressed.

The bench directed the government to have dedicated staff for the Directorate of Integrated Child Protection Scheme considering the sensitive nature of work.

On working of Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB), the court asked the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court to issue directions to the principal magistrates of all the JJBs in the state to sit on all working days for a minimum of six hours a day. 

The high court directed the state to exercise the rule-making powers for obtaining an annual report from the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights.

Bengaluru, May 25: After facing flak from the opposition for skipping quarantine rules to contain COVID-19 spread, Union Minister Sadananda Gowda on Monday said there are certain exemption clauses for those who hold certain responsible posts, adding that he cannot go under quarantine as he has to ensure medical supply in every part of the country.

"Guidelines are applicable to all citizens, but there are certain exemption clauses, for those who hold certain responsible posts," Gowda told media on being asked about allegations by opposition parties that he did not go to required institutional quarantine after domestic air travel from Delhi to Bengaluru.

"I am a Minister and I am heading Pharmaceutical Ministry. If the supply of medicines and other things is not proper then what doctors can do for patients, is it not a failure of government? It' is my responsibility to ensure the supply of medicines to each corner of the country," he said.

Earlier in the day, the BJP MP, who arrived at Bengaluru airport from Delhi and straight away got into his car and drove to his residence. He skipped the institutional quarantine measures as set by the Central government.

Karnataka Director General of Police Praveen Sood said: "Incoming domestic flight passengers from Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Delhi, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh will undergo 7-day institutional Quarantine followed by home quarantine."

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.