Child marriage crackdown creating 'havoc' in private life: High Court

News Network
February 15, 2023

child.jpg

Guwahati, Feb 15: Observing that arresting a large number of people in the crackdown against child marriage created "havoc in the private life of people", the Gauhati High Court has said there is no need for custodial interrogation of the accused in such cases.

The court also rapped the Assam government for slapping stringent laws like the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and rape charges on child marriage accused, and stated that these are "absolutely weird" allegations.

Hearing a batch of petitions by a group of accused for anticipatory bail and interim bail, Justice Suman Shyam allowed all the petitioners to be released on bail with immediate effect.

"These are not matters of custodial interrogation. You (state) proceed as per law, we have nothing to say. If you find somebody guilty, file a chargesheet. Let him or her face trial and if they are convicted, they are convicted,” the judge said.

These are not cases related to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS), smuggling or stolen property, he said.

"This (arrest) is causing havoc in the private life of people. There are children, there are family members, there are old people. This may not be a good idea to go for (arrests), obviously it is a bad idea," he observed on Tuesday.

Till February 14, altogether 3,031 people have been apprehended against registration of 4,225 child marriage cases. The crackdown had started on February 3 with 4,004 FIRs.

Justice Shyam told Additional Public Prosecutor D Das that the state government does not even have space in the jails and suggested that the administration come up with bigger prisons.

When the government advocate pointed out that cases were registered under non-bailable charges under POCSO Act and rape (IPC Section 376), Justice Shyam said, "What is the POCSO here? Merely because POCSO is added, does it mean the judges will not see what is there?"

The high court is not acquitting anybody and nobody is preventing the government from investigating the cases of child marriages, he added.

"Why Section 376 (of IPC)? Is there any allegation of rape here? These are all weird allegations, absolutely weird," Justice Shyam observed.

The judge then sought the opinion of senior advocate Angshuman Bora, a well-known criminal counsel present in the courtroom for the hearing of a separate case, on the largescale arrests of child marriage accused.

Bora said, "They are not dreaded criminals. At this stage, they (state) can file the chargesheet and subsequently when the matter comes up in the court, the matter will be decided as per the law.”

He also stressed that the message against child marriage can also otherwise be given by filing the chargesheet and sensitising the people, but "not by arresting everyone".

Justice Shyam further asked, "What do you get by custodial interrogation of these people? Either he has abetted or he has not. Either it's a case of child marriage or it is not. For that, is it necessary to have custodial interrogation? What is the idea behind this?"

In the case of Moulana Sajahan Ali who allegedly facilitated a child marriage, the public prosecutor said he was unaware of the police idea behind his arrest.

"The accused person was caught red-handed. Maybe he was performing the marriage and at that time he was arrested," Das said.

Ali's counsel H R A Choudhury pointed out that as per the FIR, the marriage took place in 2021, and asked how he was caught red-handed now.

Justice Shyam said, "What do you (Das) have to say? We will release him on bail. These are not matters for sitting. If marriage (is) taking place in violation of statutory provisions, law will take its own course. That we have nothing to say.

"The punishment is two years and these are matters which have been happening since times. We will only consider whether immediate custodial detention is required or not." 

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
November 11,2024

Mangaluru: Six youths including teenagers have been arrested by the Bantwal Rural Police in connection with a brutal assault on 21-year-old Aboobakar (name changed to hide identity), an incident that was widely shared on social media after footage revealed the victim tied to a pole and violently beaten.

The arrested individuals, all from Kanchinadkapadavu, Sajipanadu village in Ullal Taluk, have been identified as Mohammad Sapwan (25), Mohammad Rizwan (25), Irfan (27), Anis Ahmad (19), Nasir (27), and Shakeer (18). According to police reports, the assault took place on November 7 in Kanchinadkapadavu.

The sequence of events began when Aboobakar was reportedly called to a residence in Kanchinadkapadavu by a female relative. Upon his arrival, he was confronted by the accused, who questioned his presence, tied him to a pole with ropes, and attacked him while he was shirtless. 

Aboobakar managed to file a police complaint the following day, detailing the assault. As his injuries worsened, he was admitted to a private hospital in Mangaluru.

While in the hospital, Aboobakar alleged that his attackers intended to kill him during the assault. This statement led to additional charges of attempted murder being filed. 

Police officials stated that the suspects were subsequently apprehended, charged with group assault and attempted murder, and placed in judicial custody. The investigation is ongoing, and further details are awaited.

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
November 15,2024

amitshah.jpg

Union minister Amit Shah on Friday, November 15, said PM Narendra Modi will amend the Waqf Act despite opposition from leaders like Uddhav Thackeray and Sharad Pawar.

"Modi ji wants to change the Waqf Board law, but Uddhav ji, Sharad Pawar and Supriya Sule are opposing it," Shah said, addressing a rally at Umarkhed in Maharashtra's Yavatmal district.

"Uddhav ji, listen carefully, you all can protest as much as you want, but Modi ji will amend the Waqf Act," he said. Shah said there are two camps in the November 20 Maharashtra assembly polls, one of 'Pandavas' represented by the BJP-led Mahayuti and the other of 'Kauravas' represented by Maha Vikas Aghadi.

"Uddhav Thackeray claims that his Shiv Sena is the real one. Can the real Shiv Sena go against renaming Aurangabad to Sambhajinagar? Can the real Shiv Sena go against renaming Ahmednagar to Ahilyanagar? The real Shiv Sena stands with the BJP," Shah said.

"Rahul Baba used to say that his government would credit money in the accounts of the people instantly. You were unable to fulfil your promises in Himachal, Karnataka, and Telangana," he said.

Shah said the Mahayuti alliance has promised that women will get Rs 2,100 per month under the Ladki Bahin Yojana. "Kashmir is an integral part of India and no power in the world can snatch it away from us," Shah 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.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

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.