House panel backs move not to treat marital rape as sexual offence

March 2, 2013

sexual_offence

New Delhi, Mar 2: A parliamentary committee has endorsed the government's decision not to treat "marital rape" as a sexual offence in the recently-promulgated anti-rape ordinance, agreeing that it could destroy the institution of marriage. However, the panel was silent on rape in live-in relationships, with many members of the view that treating it differently from other sexual offences was not possible in the absence of a law recognizing live-in arrangements.

Justifying the panel's recommendation to keep "marital rape" out of the purview of anti-rape laws, chairman of the standing committee on home affairs M Venkaiah Naidu said that leaving scope for the wife to accuse her husband of rape "has the potential of destroying the institution of marriage".

"In India, for ages, the family system has evolved ... Family is able to resolve the (marital) problems and there is also a provision under the law for cruelty against women, It was, therefore, felt that if marital rape is brought under the law, the entire family system will be under great stress and the committee may perhaps be doing more injustice," the parliamentary panel examining the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2012, said in its report tabled on Friday.

Though some members of the panel like Raja (CPI) and Prasanta Chatterjee (CPI(M)), both of whom put in a dissent note, besides Kanimozhi (DMK) had insisted on some room for the wife to take up the issue of marital rape, arguing that consent in marriage was not "forever", the majority view was that if a wife was aggrieved, there were other means for her to move court. The reference was apparently to laws against cruelty to women. There were some suggestions that the wife's age mentioned in Section 375 be raised from 16 to 18 years, but Union home secretary RK Singh, while appearing before the panel, warned that this would outlaw marriages in many states in one stroke.

Even though the Supreme Court has, in several judgments since 2010, ruled long-term live-in relationships as legal and on par with marriage, the government is yet to enact a law recognizing live-ins and outlining the rights of live-in partners. The home secretary had conceded before the panel that dealing with rape charges brought against a man by his live-in partner, especially where the relationship failed to culminate into marriage, was a tricky issue as sexual consent was presumably based on the promise of marriage. The standing panel steered clear of taking a stand on the suggestion it had received against considering live-in relations as rape.

The panel received as many as 90 suggestions from individuals, women's bodies and states/UTs. Incidentally, only five states and UTs — Gujarat, Mizoram, Lakshadweep, Puducherry and Dadra & Nagar Haveli — gave in their views.

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
March 3,2020

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.

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.
Agencies
January 12,2020

New Delhi, Jan 12: A fact-finding committee of the Congress on the JNU violence on Sunday said the January 5 attack inside the university campus was "state-sponsored" and recommended Vice Chancellor M Jagadesh Kumar be dismissed and criminal investigation initiated against him.

The Congress had appointed a four-member fact-finding committee to carry out a detailed inquiry into the violence at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).

Sushmita Dev, member of the committee, said the committee recommended that Kumar should be dismissed immediately and all the appointments in faculty should be probed and independent inquiry should take place.

"Criminal investigation must take place against the VC and faculty members and the security company," the Mahila Congress chief said.

"It is clear that the attack on JNU campus was state-sponsored," Dev said.

She also demanded a complete rollback of the JNU fee hike.

The other members of the fact-finding committee are Hibi Eden, MP and former NSUI president, Syed Naseer Hussain, MP and former president of JNU NSUI and Amrita Dhawan, a former NSUI president and ex-DUSU president.

On January 5 night, masked people armed with rods and sticks stormed the JNU campus and assaulted students and faculty members, and vandalised property, leaving several people injured.

Leftist outfits and the RSS-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) blamed each other for the violence.

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 11,2020

London, May 11: Fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi's five-day extradition trial over the nearly USD2 billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud and money laundering case is set to begin in London's Westminster Magistrates' Court today.

The London High Court rejected Nirav Modi's bail plea in Punjab National Bank (PNB) bank fraud case for the fifth time in early March.

Modi, the prime accused in the PNB fraud case, is currently lodged at Wandsworth prison in south-west London and is wanted for his alleged role in the Rs 13,570 crore loss caused to the Punjab National Bank (PNB) along with his uncle, Mehul Choksi.

Modi, 48, was arrested in March last year by Scotland Yard in connection with the case.

Modi was remanded in custody till February 27, 2020, after he appeared before a UK court on Thursday via video link from his London prison.

The latest bail hearing followed further assurances by Modi, including an increase in the amount of security he had offered as a guarantee as well as stricter bail conditions.

On his last bail application, Modi offered USD 4 million as a security guarantee in return for bail, an offer that was rejected by judges who ruled that there was a real risk that Modi would flee the UK to a country which has no extradition treaty with India.

At the same hearing, the judge ruled that there was "strong evidence" that Modi had engaged in "witness intimidation" and destroying evidence.

Given the seriousness of such allegations, it was all but certain that the latest bail application would be rejected.

Modi's lawyers had contended that their client was being held in difficult conditions at Wandsworth prison and had also claimed that his mental health was deteriorating as a result of his incarceration.

However, ruling at the High Court today, Justice Ian Dove said there was a "clear need for this application to be refused in the present circumstances."

It comes just days after the second sale of assets belonging to Modi valued at millions of dollars.

The items include a luxury Rolls Royce car, a Patek Philippe watch and a painting by the renowned Indian artist Amrita Sher-Gil valued at USD 2.5 million but expected to fetch considerably more.

Meanwhile, Nirav's brother Neeshal Modi, who is also one of the co-conspirators in the PNB scam, has written to Enforcement Directorate, distancing himself from his brother's actions and said that he had no knowledge of it.

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.