Hooligans liable to compensate the victims of violence: SC
Issuing guidelines including video-recording of vandalism and hooliganism, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that whoever causes damage to public or private property will be made liable to compensate the victims of violence.
 
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Dr D.Y. Chandrachud said the authorities must ensure that arrests of miscreants found on the spot are done in right earnest.
 
It was the last judgement delivered by the current Chief Justice Dipak Misra in which he has directed the state governments to set up rapid response teams preferably district-wise and specially train them to deal with mob violence and deploy these teams around vulnerable cultural establishments.
 
The order came on a public interest litigation filed by Kodungallur Film Society, which had sought framing of guidelines to deter acts of vandalism.
 
"This Court has time and again underscored the supremacy of law and that one must not forget that administration of law can only be done by law-enforcing agencies recognised by law," the court said.
 
"Nobody has the right to become a self-appointed guardian of law and forcibly administer his or her own interpretation of the law on others, especially with violent means. Mob violence runs against the very core of our established legal principles since it signals chaos and lawlessness. The state has a duty to protect its citizens against illegal and reprehensible acts of such groups," the court said.
 
Observing loss to property during such incident, the court directed authorities to video-record the events and, if required, hire private video operators to record the events or request the media for information on the incident.
 
Claims arising out of such acts of violence should be dealt with in the manner prescribed under the destruction of public and private properties, the court said, directing police officers to file first information reports and complete investigation as far as possible within the statutory period.
 
"Any failure to file FIRs and conduct investigations within the statutory period without sufficient cause should be considered as dereliction of duty on behalf of the officer concerned and can be proceeded against by way of departmental action in right earnest," the court said.
 
As liability of person causing violence, the court ordered agencies to take appropriate action against such persons and the leader of the organisations involved in such acts under provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
 
The court also directed the governments to set up special helplines, create and maintain a cyber information portal on its website and on its internet-based applications for reporting instances of mob violence and destruction of public and private properties.
 
It also ordered that the authorities may consider taking appropriate steps as per law including to impose reasonable restrictions on the social media and internet-based communication services or mobile applications.
 
The court directed that authorities to take coordinated efforts and issue messages across various audio-visual mediums including local TV channels, radio stations, social media like Twitter to restore peace and to control rumours.
 
The court directed nodal officers to coordinate with local emergency services, including police stations, fire brigades, hospital, medical services and disaster management authorities during incidents of mob violence in order to have a comprehensive and consolidated response to the situation.
 
The authorities must consider the use of non-lethal crowd-control devices, like water cannons and tear gas, which cause minimum injury to people but at the same time, act as an effective deterrent against mob force, the court said.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

V Ramesh

2 months ago

Good in theory.

SC decriminalises homosexuality, victory for gay rights
In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday decriminalised homosexuality between consenting adults by declaring Section 377, the penal provision which criminalised gay sex, as "manifestly arbitrary".
 
In separate but unanimous verdicts, a five-judge Constitution Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra partially struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as unconstitutional.
 
The bench said it is no longer an offence for LGBTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, intersex and queer/questioning) community to engage in consensual sex between two adults in private.
 
Reading out the judgment, Chief Justice Misra said attitudes and mentality have to change to accept others' identity and accept what they are, and not what they should be. 
 
"It is the constitutional and not social morality which will prevail," said the court. 
 
The verdict sparked celebrations in the LGBTIQ community across India even as the judgment was being read out. Many of the community members who had assembled outside the apex court jumped in joy and distributed sweets. 
 
Chief Justice Misra said consensual sex between adults in a private space, which is not harmful to women or children, cannot be denied as it is a matter of individual choice. 
 
Section 377 will not apply to consensual same-sex acts between homosexuals, heterosexuals, lesbians, the court said, clarifying that sexual act without consent and bestiality will continue to be an offence under section 377.
 
"An individual has full liberty over his or her body and his or her sexual orientation is a matter of one's choice," said the Chief Justice.
 
"Time to bid adieu to prejudicial perceptions deeply ingrained in social mindset. Time to empower LGBTIQ community against discrimination. They should be allowed to make their choices," he added.
 
In a concurring judgement, Justice Nariman said homosexuality is "not a mental disorder or disease".
 
He said the LGBTIQ community has an equal right to live with dignity and are entitled to equal protection of law. He directed the Centre to give wide publicity to this judgment to remove the stigma attached to homosexuality.
 
Justice Chandrachud said to deny the LGBTIQ community their right to sexual orientation is a denial of their citizenship and a violation of their privacy.
 
"They cannot be pushed into obscurity by an oppressive colonial legislation... Sexual minorities in India have lived in fear, hiding as second class citizens," said Justice Chandrachud, adding "the state has no business to intrude on such matters".
 
Justice Indu Malhotra said that history owes an apology to the LGBTIQ community for all that they have suffered on account of the ignorance of the majority about homosexuality. 
 
"LGBTIQ people have a right to live unshackled from the shadow," she said.
 
The Supreme Court verdict, which overruled its own earlier judgment, assumes significance as in the earlier round of litigation in 2013, the top court had reversed a Delhi High Court ruling decriminalising homosexuality.
 
The Delhi High Court bench, headed by then Chief Justice A.P. Shah, had in July 2009 legalised homosexual acts between consenting adults by overturning the 149-year-old law -- finding it unconstitutional and a hurdle in the fight against HIV/AIDS. 
 
In December 2013, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya in the Suresh Kumar Koushal and another vs Naz Foundation and others case, had set aside the high court's judgment and said that it was for the legislature to look into desirability of deleting section 377 of IPC. 
 
The matter was subsequently resurrected in July 2016, when a fresh petition was filed by members of the LGBTIQ community -- dancer N.S. Johar, journalist Sunil Mehra, chef Ritu Dalmia, hotelier Aman Nath and business executive Ayesha Kapur -- which was then marked to the Constitution Bench by a Division Bench.
 
The reference was made on the basis of submission that it was the first time that individuals directly affected by the provision were approaching the court. 
 
Among the petitioners are a batch of current and former students of Indian Institutes of Technology. Claiming to represent more than 350 LGBTIQ alumni, students, staff and faculty from the IITs, the petitioners said that the existence of Section 377 had caused them "mental trauma and illnesses, such as clinical depression and anxiety and relegated some of them to second-class citizenship".
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

 

Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

'Most Indian parents posting their kids' photos online despite threats'
Although Indian parents are aware that images of their children posted online could end up in the wrong hands, most of them are still sharing their kids' images online often without any consent from them, a survey by global cyber security firm McAfee revealed on Tuesday.
 
The survey, titled "The Age of Consent," found 40.5 per cent of parents in India (with Mumbai being the most active) post a photo or video of their child at least once a day on their social media accounts, with 36 per cent posting a picture of their child once a week.
 
Most parents identified the following concerns associated with sharing images online including paedophilia (16.5 per cent), stalking (32 per cent), kidnapping (43 per cent) and cyberbullying (23 per cent), but many (62 per cent) don't even consider if their child would consent to their image being posted online.
 
"What's even more alarming is that a whopping 76 per cent of parents say they are aware that the images of their children posted online could end up in the wrong hands," the survey noted.
 
Mumbai (66.5 per cent) was followed by Delhi (61 per cent) and Bengaluru (55 per cent) where majority of parents believed they have the right to share images of their child online without consulting them first.
 
"The survey reveals parents are not giving enough consideration to what they post online and how it could harm their children. Posting kids' information may compromise their personal information," said Venkat Krishnapur, Vice-President of Engineering and Managing Director - McAfee.
 
Responsibility lies with parents to understand the implications of their social media habits/actions and the repercussions the child may face, he added.
 
The survey found parents from Mumbai to be most active with 48 per cent posting a picture of their child on social media at least once per day in comparison to other metros like Delhi (38.5 per cent) and Bengaluru (31 per cent).
 
More than half of the parents surveyed (67 per cent) admit that they have or would share a photo of their child in their school uniform despite the risk of giving away personal information thus paving the way for stalkers to get added details on their child's whereabouts.
 
While 55 per cent of parents only share images of their child on private social media accounts, 42 per cent are still sharing images on public social media accounts.
 
"Parents from Bengaluru (59 per cent) exercise highest caution and post pictures of their children only from private social media accounts, closely followed by Mumbai (57 per cent) and Delhi (48.5 per cent)," the findings showed.
 
While it's clear that parents are worried about physical risks to their children's safety, results indicate less concern about the emotional risks.
 
Interestingly, it appears mothers consider the embarrassing side effect more than fathers, with 47 per cent mothers admitting that they would never post images their children would be embarrassed by, in comparison to 38 per cent of dads.
 
To reach this conclusion, McAfee commissioned market research firm OnePoll to conduct a survey of 1,000 parents of children aged 1 month to 16 years old across Mumbai, Delhi and Bengaluru.
 
"Many social networks will tag a user's location when a photo is uploaded. Parents should ensure this feature is turned off to avoid disclosing their location. This is especially important when posting photos away from home," said McAfee.
 
Parents should only share photos and other social media posts with their intended audience, it added.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

Ramesh Poapt

4 months ago

Great!

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

online financial advisory
Pathbreakers
Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
online financia advisory
The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Online Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
financial magazines online
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
financial magazines in india
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)