SUPREME COURT PANELS TO VET LATE ABORTION PETITIONS.

The Supreme Court said on Friday that permanent medical boards in states could evaluate requests for termination of problematic pregnancies beyond the legally permissible permissible twenty weeks, ensuring that crucial time was not lost in approaching courts. The Court suggested the Centre could discuss with all concerned and said in the absence of a legal framework to deal with abortion requests of an emergency nature, the Court of late was witnessing a spurt in petitions from women and rape survivors seeking permission to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar assured the Court that he would convey the suggestion to the Centre without delay. In some cases, the Supreme Court was unable to grant relief to women as by the time they approached the Court, it was too late and risky for them to undergo abortion. In May, 2017, the Court turned down the plea of a 35-year-old destitute HIV-positive rape survivor form Patna to abort her 26-week pregnancy as doctors felt the risks were unacceptable. The Supreme Court dealt with two cases on 28th July, 2017 (Friday), the other one being Mumbai where it gave the go-ahead for termination of pregnancy. In the last one year, the Court has been forced to deal with seven such requests from distressed women on grounds such as the foetus being terminally ill or deformed or in some cases, pregnancy was caused by sexual assault.

There remains a strong possibility that many are unable to seek legal redress and medical boards will provide improved options. Finding the solicitor general present in the courtroom, Justice Khehar said, "Such matters are coming to court often these days and we cannot be dealing with them using powers conferred on the Supreme Court under Articles. 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India. Time is of essence in these cases. The pregnant woman's health and foetus needs prompt medical examination".

Ten-year-old denied permission to abort: The Supreme Court reluctantly refused permission on 28th July, 2017 (Friday) to a ten-year-old rape survivor to abort after a medical board said termination of pregnancy would prove grave risk to her and the 32-week-old foetus. "The medical board opines that terminating the pregnancy posed grave risk to the life of the girl child and the seven and half month old foetus, which is well formed", said a Bench of Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud before rejecting a pro-bono petition by two advocates. The discomfiture of the Bench was palpable in being forced to reject the plea for termination of pregnancy that had been criminally thrust upon a child, at whose age others would be studying in Class. 4.

The Bench reluctantly preferred to protect  the core fundamental right - the right to life of the girl child and the well formed 32-week foetus - and ordered the Chandigarh administration to provide adequate medical care to the girl. If the medical opinion forced the hands of the Supreme Court in refusing permission to the 10-year-old girl to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and create a situation unprecedented in the annals of judicial history, TV journalist Anchal Anand summed up the courage to do what no journalist ever did in the Supreme Court - address the Court on the issue.

Given the sensitivity of the case, the Court did not question her locus standi. She voiced motherly concern for the girl child who would be going through labour pain at an age when her organs are not developed to endure child birth. She suggested constant supervision of her by a gynaecologist and, if required, a C-section for delivery to save the girl child from the labour pain which could "prove fatal".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

DEBATE WHETHER UNIVERSITY STUDENTS SHOULD ORGANISE BEEF FESTIVAL.

For: A big controversy has erupted as to whether a beef festival can be held on a university campus; will it not vitiate the academic climate, will it not send wrong signals to future employers, does it not create law and order problems. These questions were not raised when a similar event took place earlier. The change obviously is the change in the context. Today, social forces are more polarised than ever before. This raises a more fundamental question of freedom that the university community and the campus are entitled to. It is indeed surprising that similar questions were not raised when university campuses were deeply involved in the separate Telangana State movement. The political parties were too happy with the students' participation.

I recall the time when the district collectors in Andhra region were openly advising sometimes even coercing the students in the universities of that region to oppose the Telangana movement. The question one should debate is the degree of freedom of the campus, if we agree that campus is a democratic space where ideas and actions are put to constant test which in turn pushes the frontiers of societal freedoms to newer heights, then the community has the freedom to challenge the establishment and the status quo.

This argument for those who are status quoists sounds radical and disturbing the peace and peaceful pursuit of knowledge. It is always difficult to define the limits of freedom. J.S. Mill in his book On Liberty talks of unrestrained freedom as a hall mark of democracy. The present dilemma of rulers is their confusion of the notion of democracy itself. There is hardly a politician who is genuinely liberal not even of a Nehruvian kind. It is in the nature of power to prevent any challenge, it is genuinely liberals who see the forces of change and welcome them. 

The present controversy has to be located in this broad value frame-work. Who decides what people should eat or not to eat? Should not individuals decide for themselves? Assuming that culturally a dominant ideological believed or imposed certain food, a time always arrives in history when it would be challenged. After all, Buddha 2,600 years ago had the courage to say that God is a non-question. Freedom does mean not only freedom of religion but freedom from religion. In my very recent visit to China, several young boys and girls said that they have no religion.

It is not that China is in any anarchy. In fact, it looks as a better organised society. In India, we have had no serious renaissance, nor enlightenment which could have created better social relations rooted in equality and justice. It is such a hierarchical society that we have hierarchised even food. That one food is inferior to another food is nothing but reinforcing the superior subordinate relation. This is exactly the root of the present controversy. Osmania University is know for its long tradition of struggle. Even during my student days in the university there was a full blown confrontation with the then Chief Minister Brahmananda Reddy when he tampered with the university's freedom.

[Based on the arguments of Professor G. Hargopal, Visiting Professor, Bangalore National Law School, published in Deccan Chronicle dated 06th December, 2015 (Sunday)]  

Against: Festivals are meant to unite people. Let's celebrate festival of ideas...no beef or pork festival. As temples of education, Universities must act as forums for insightful academic debates on issues that lead to the advancement of intellectual scholarship and scholastic aptitude. It is unfortunate that Osmania University, which was the quintessential rallying force in the Telangana movement is in the news this time for the wrong reasons. One expects University students to celebrate festivals of ideas and provoke each other with new thoughts that seek to advance humanity but it is unfortunate that some students chose to waste their creative and critical abilities on contentious issues.

One certainly does not expect them to get mired in regressive debates over beef or pork 'festivals' or on 'Gomaatha Puja'. Food is an individual choice and every individual has the right to eat the choice of his/her food. This is a fundamental right of every Indian citizen and any view that challenges this is fundamentally illiberal. Article. 48 of the Indian Constitution specifically aims at prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle and in 1977, the legislators of a unified Andhra Pradesh drafted a law that prohibits the slaughter of cows, calves of cows of She-Buffaloes. However, neither the Constitution nor the law bans consumption of the meat of any such animal prohibited from slaughter. 

Similarly there is no ban on eating pork. Thus these 'festivals' are nothing but provocations to communities whose faith prohibits or frowns at the consumption of meat of certain animals. Food was never contentious in Hyderabad and the popularity that Haleem has during the Ramzan season among Hindus is evidence of this diversity. In fact, some restaurants prepare smaller quantities of Haleem on Saturdays during Ramzan. Most Telugu Hindus do not eat meat on Saturdays. Why then do we have such needless controversies? These 'festivals' are not symbolic expressions of protest but are attempts at provoking Hindus and Muslims and further polarise them for vested political interest. The University has clarified that no permission has been granted for any festival and they are justified in not giving permission to events that have a dubious agenda. 

A large number of students, who study in Osmania, irrespective of their ideological affinities, come from under-privileged sections. Their success will directly benefit the progress of their families and communities that they represent. If any community or an individual feels discriminated, the best way to protest is to build envious career for themselves and contribute to the emancipation of their communities.

University students should be protesting for better amenities to pursue quality higher education but certainly not waste their precious time in needless controversies. Finally, in India festivals are meant to bring people together in order to bridge cultural and social chasms and promote harmony amongst people. The proposed festivals in the university are antithetical to the traditional Indian notion of celebration of festivals.

[Based on the arguments of Professor G. Gopal Reddy, President, Indian Political Science Association and Professor of Political Science, Osmania University, published in Deccan Chronicle dated 06th December, 2015 (Sunday)]  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAN MOVES SUPREME COURT, SEEKS CUSTODY OF HINDU WIFE.

A Muslim youth, Shafin Jahan, has moved the Supreme Court seeking custody of his Hindu wife, converted to Islam, after the Kerala High Court nullified their marriage holding that the girl had been radicalised by persons with links to ISIS and other terrorist outfits. The 26-year-old Shafin Jahan sought production of his wife Akhila alias Hadiya, besides seeking stay of the High Court's impugned order of 24th May, 2017. He also sought restoration of his wife back to him on the ground that their marriage was valid and they were both major and consenting adults. A Bench of Chief Justices J.S. Khehar and D.Y. Chandrachud has agreed to take up the matter for hearing on 04th August, 2017, after advocate Haris Beeran appearing for Jahan sought early listing of the case.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMPLEMENT FOOD ACT, SUPREME COURT TO CENTRE, STATES.

[Based on a news item written by J. Venkatesan published in Deccan Chronicle dated 23rd July, 2017 (Sunday) Nation, p. 13].
The Supreme Court has pulled up both the Centre and the states for the tardy implementation of the National Food Security Act and said a law enacted by Parliament as a part of its social justice obligation must be given its due respect and must be implemented faithfully and sincerely and positively before the end of this year. A Bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and N.V. Ramana in a judgment on Friday in the petition filed by NGO Swaraj Abhayan said, "It is quiet clear that the NFS Act, a social justice and social welfare legislation, is not being implemented as it should be. That is the bane of our society".

In his concurring judgment Justice Ramana said the Act was made in furtherance of India's commitment to multilateral treaties and this Court's persistence to alleviate the condition of rampant malnutrition prevalent in the country. The Court said the unique feature of this Act is that the Center has de-centralised aspects within the Act by empowering the institutions at the bottom of the pyramid. 

"It is to be noted that our Constitutional set-up mandates that Centre is not powerless which is apparent from various Articles of the Constitution. Further, it is not proper on the part of the states to ignore the plight of the common man in enforcing such important legislations, more so when such legislation", the Bench said. The Bench pointed out that the record in this case from various states indicates that a combined effort, both by Centre and states, needs to be taken for effective implementation of the Act especially in the drought affected areas so as to save peoplefrom abject poverty and poor quality of life.

States should take up this matter with much more seriousness and implement the Act in its true letter and spirit. The Bench directed the secretary in the ministry of consumer affairs, food and public distribution of the Government of India to convene one or more meetings on or before 31st August, 2017 of the concerned secretaries of all the state governments and Union Territories to take stock of the implementation of the NFS Act and brainstorm over finding ways and means to effectively implement the provisions of the NFS Act in letter and spirit.

The Supreme Court Bench directed the Centre to ask the States to establish and make fully functional a state Food Commission under the provisions of the NFS Act before the end of the year. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

WHEN DOCTORS TAKE BRIBES.

When your doctor prescribes a medicine saying it's the best for you, are you sure it's in your best interest, or was he taken on a luxury cruise last summer by the pharmaceutical company which sells that medication? If he refers you to a particular hospital or diagnostic facility, is it your best interest he has in mind? Or is he getting a 'cut' or commission (euphemistically called 'facilitation fees') for it? Doctors might say they cannot be bought with expensive meals and holidays but there is strong evidence that even the smallest of gifts or favours can alter their prescribing practices. A study by Dr. Ashley Wazana, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), established that gifts, sponsored meals, conference travel, funding for conferences, all significantly alter the prescribing practices of doctors in favour of the sponsoring pharmaceutical or medical device industry.

A 2013 study by Marrisse King in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) found that students graduating from United States medical schools that had strong conflict of interest policies against gifts from industry, had a 55-75% reduced chance of prescribing more expensive medication compared to cheaper medication that was equally good. Similar studies may not have been done in India, but they prove the point (unless Indian doctors would like to claim they are more honest/honourable/ morally incorruptible than their counterparts in the rest of the world).

A conflict interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession, such as health of patients and integrity of research. Secondary interest includes not only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and the wish to do favours for family and friends. Gifts, travel grants, 'cut-practice' are absolutely illegal for doctors according to the Medical Council of India (MCI) rule book. MCI also states: "The personal financial interests of a physician should not conflict with the medical interests of patients".

There is a reason why the medical profession has always been held up to a higher ethical standards than any other. The 2009 Manual of Ethics of the World Medical Association states, "People come to physicians for help with their most pressing needs - relief from pain and suffering and restoration of health and well-being. They allow physicians to see, touch and manipulate every part of their bodies, even the most intimate. They do this because they trust their physicians to act in their best interests". A doctor has to have way more empathy and understanding than in any other profession. This expectation is neither recent, nor restricted to any particular country.

Unfortunately enforcement of MCI has been very poor, leading to entrenched corruption in health care delivery systems in India. Rather than strengthening controls on these corrupt practices, MCI amended its code of ethics to allow institutions and associations to be exempt from the rules on gifts, grants and funds from pharmaceutical and device industries. The law allows seven or more people to form a society or foundation. So, if you are not allowed to take what constitutes a pure and simple bribe from industry as an individual doctor, you shall be allowed to do so as a group of seven or more! We are already seeing a rapid rise in the number of 'societies', 'foundations' and 'associations' among doctors to make use of this loophole, as this amendment has been in the works since 2010. This will have disastrous consequences for an already corrupt healthcare system and you, as a patient, will pay for it.

The parliamentary standing committee on health observed that exempting professional associations of doctors from the ambit of ethics regulations is nothing short of legitimising such associations indulging in unethical and corrupt practices. It added, "It seems that the MCI has become captive to private commercial interests". Even today a majority of medical practitioners uphold true values and ethics. Unfortunately, their voices and ideas have been drowned by a more vociferous group who believe that success is determined by profit margins , or rather profiteering by health care delivery organisations, rather than by high quality ethical care. And yet, they puzzle over rising violence against doctors across the country. 

They don't seem to see that the violence is a direct fallout of the erosion of the trust that doctors take decisions in the patient's interest and of a sense of helplessness. The United States and India report the highest number of attacks on doctors by patients (physical violence in India and 'litigational violence' in the United States). It is no coincidence that both are countries where healthcare delivery is dominated by a profit-driven private sector. 

Doctors need to be aware of these facts and put public pressure to ensure that the government acts on the recommendations of the parliamentary committee to strengthen the code of ethics for doctors by bringing healthcare institutions, foundations, societies and associations under its ambit. MCI will also have to ensure better and stricter implementation so that justice is seen to be done in cases where the code is flouted. Else, Indians' health will suffer even more than at present.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL LOGJAM.

Chief Justice of India Tirath Singh Thakur's rare emotional outburst while appealing to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for much-needed improvement in judicial infrastructure reflects a glaring crisis in the justice system that affects us all. The speed of justice is reflective of the quality of our democracy. With over three crore cases pending nationwide, both judiciary and government must work together to find a solution.

India's judiciary must overcome several key challenges. First, India still has only 18,000 judges, almost three decades after the Law Commission recommended a total number of 40,000 judges. Even if judges worked at record speeds, current numbers still aren't enough. We need to increase numbers substantially. As another study by Law Commission in 2014 suggested, over an additional 1,000 judges are required to clear the backlog of pending cases in high courts alone.

Another big problem is the inability of our judiciary to benchmark limits for disposing of cases in the United States, where the benchmark is three years. According to National Judicial Data Grid, of the two crore cases pending in lower courts till last year 10.83% were pending for over 10 years while 18.1% cases have been pending for the last 5 to 10 years. The CJI's focus on disposing of an initial list of 81 lakh cases, more than 5 years old, is a good move. Third, the recommendations for Memorandum of Procedure for appointing judges after the NJAC controversy, are still pending with the CJI. Justice Thakur's announcement that he will clear them next week is welcome, and will clear doubts over transparency in appointing judges.

Fourth, the judiciary must introspect about continuing with the colonial practice of long court vacations despite all-round criticism. Judges must also refrain from accepting frivolous Public Interest Litigations (PILs). Fifth, the government remains the biggest litigant in courts. The Centre and States, till recently, accounted for nearly 70% of cases in courts. A policy to demarcate minor cases from the serious ones is essential. Sixth, this would be an opportune moment for government to push for time-bound reforms in our archaic land laws. According to a survey, almost two-thirds of civil cases in district courts are directly related to land or property matters. Reforms like the titling law in Rajasthan and simpler legislation on inheritance are much needed and only joint effort by the judiciary, executive and legislature can deliver.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHILDREN NEED GLOBAL HELP.

[Based on an article written by Kailash Satyarthi, 2014 Nobel Prize Laureate and founder of Kailash Satyarthi Children's Foundation, published in The Times of India dated 12th June, 2017 (Monday)].

As the global community gears up to commemorate 12th June, 2017 as World Day Against Child Labour, my memories go back nineteen years to those electrifying few months in 1998. That was when our movement for child rights won not just a tangible victory, but also a moral crusade. That was when like-minded people across the world forged a truly global partnership to organise the Global March Against Child Labour. When it culminated in Geneva, even we were pleasantly surprised by the reaction of the almost 2,000 delegates, including labour ministers from 150 countries, who had gathered there for the annual meeting of the International Labour Organisation. Not only did 600 odd children and activists who had marched across the world get a standing ovation, but ILO actually agreed to pass an international legislation on the worst forms of child labour.

Popularly known as ILO Convention 182 that effectively prohibited child labour, abuse and exploitation, it was unanimously adopted in 1999. At one stroke, the global community made a sincere and honest attempt to stop an abomination that haunted and still troubles the conscience of the world: the pernicious and unacceptable violation of child rights. By then, we had spent eighteen struggling but satisfying years fighting against child labour through our organisation, Bachpan Bachao Andolan, which was launched in 1980. The quick ILO decision to declare exploitative child labour as illegal made our struggle worth it. Subsequently, the decision in 2002 to mark 12th June every year as World Day Against Child Labour ensures that the global community remains engaged and focussed on abolishing child labour. 

Indeed the global community needs to retain unwavering focus. By 1990, the United Nations had announced that all children would get an education by the year 2000. But nothing of that sort was happening at the ground level. By 1996, it was estimated that about 250 million children were being exploited through child labour, millions of them as virtual slaves or bonded labour. Freedom, education and basic rights were a distant dream for these 250 million children. However, much to our satisfaction, the situation started improving at the ground level. There was a significant drop in the prevalence of child labour for a decade or so. But much to our dismay, that is no longer true.

The last four years (2014-17) have actually seen a stagnation, if not an increase in the prevalence of child labour. This time in 2016, the United Nations officially reported that 168 million children across the world were still being ruthlessly exploited despite stringent laws against child labour. To this dangerous ground level situation has been added the alarming increase in recent years of child refugees and trafficking. Children constitute one-third of the total population of the world but account for more than fifty percent of refugees. In the decade 2000-10, close to ten million children have been killed in conflict and more than six million have become physically disabled.

It is estimated that twenty-eight million children have become refugees without any hope for a future. Syria and Afghanistan alone accounted for more than fifty percent of child casualties and refugees in 2015. While accurate and reliable numbers are not available, there is a consensus that the refugee crisis has led to a big jump in child trafficking. Clearly, the global community needs to engage and focus all over again with a sense of urgency on the menace of child labour and trafficking. The menace must be tackled in a multi-dimensional manner.

We need to partner more effectively with spiritual leaders to raise awareness. No religion sanctions the exploitation of children; rather, all of them consider protection of children as a sacred duty. Apart from religion, we need to address this issue at a cultural level too. In virtually every society ranging from the so-called primitive to the most advanced, children are treasured and celebrated. We need to channelise these cultural legacies into a sustained movement, both at the local community level as well as global level. Religion and culture give us the moral foundation to build a better world for our children. Economics will provide the means and resources to do the same. It has been established that acute lack of livelihood opportunities often leads to child labour. Targeted welfare schemes like MGNREGA and midday meal scheme have not only led to a dramatic rise in enrolment of children in schools, but also a drop in child labour.

But this economic struggle is going to be long and arduous. Even today, it has been estimated that more than 600 million children suffer from extreme poverty. Our moral challenge is to ensure that the next generation doesn't suffer the same fate. I remain optimistic. March 1998 saw tens of thousands of ordinary citizens in cities like Dhaka, Oslo, Sao Polo, Paris, Bangkok, Capetown and Kabul among other actively participate and demand abolition of child labour. One of the most evocative slogans then was: From Exploitation to Education. The time has come to launch yet another major global effort. 

What moral argument against abolition of child labour can the world have when 210 million adults are jobless or unemployed who are mostly the parents of 168 million child labourers? It is also a proven fact that education is the most effective enabler, equaliser and empowering force that we know of, and child labour is the biggest impediment to education.

===============================================   

POLITICS SHOULD NOT UNDERMINE JUSTICE.

[Based on article written by A.G. Noorani published in Deccan Chronicle by arrangement with 'Dawn'  dated 28th June, 2017 (Sunday)].

A dishonest judge perverts the course of justice - a dishonest prosecutor ensures that the course of justice doesn't even begin. Recent events in the US, concerning the appointmentof Robert Mueller as special counsel for the Russia investigation, holds lessons for every country governed by the Rule of Law. The situation could not be murkier. Respected by both Republicans and Democrats, the former FBI director was recently appointed by deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein after President Donald Trump's dismissal of James Comey as FBI director had created a deep, nation-wide crisis of confidence. Attorney general Jefferson Sessions had to hand the investigation over to his deputy after it was revealed that he had kept suspiciously silent about his meetings Russian ambassador Dergey Kislyak.
Mr. Kislyak was also responsible for Michael Flynn's short stint as national security adviser being terminated by Mr. Trump after disclosures of secret conversations with the ambassador - which he lied about - were published by the press. In conversations with then director Comey, Trump sought pledges of loyalty and assurances that he himself was not under investigation, and capped it with a word of 'advice' on the investigation into Flynn's alleged misconduct. Comey's refusal brought about his dismissal.
There is a long and instructive tradition of the special counsel in the US. After Watergate came the Iran-Contra and Whitewater probes. President James Carter, secured the enactment of the Ethics of Government Act, 1978. It envisaged the appointment of a special counsel by the court to which he reported The act lapsed in 1999, but the Department of Justice issued internal regulations enabling the attorney general to appoint a special counsel. Robert Mueller has a wide remit and ample authority to fulfil his duties. He is specially authorised to investigate 'any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Trump'. He can press criminal charges.
Institutions and procedures may vary, but the fundamental principle remains unchanged - political considerations must not be allowed to interfere with the course of justice. India adopted a legal system based on Briish law. Rulings of its Supreme Court affirm the independence of the prosecuting agency from governmental and political influence or consideration. But the reality is its direct opposite.
Prof. D.H. Bayley, author of the definitive work 'The Police and Political Development in India', observed that "a dual system of criminal justice" emerged. "The one of law, the other of politics...the rule of law in modern India, the frame upon which justice hangs has been undermined by the rule of politics. Supervision in the name of democracy has eroded the foundations upon which impartiality depends in a 'Criminal Justice System'.
The pogrom of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 saw a near total collapse of the criminal justice system. Many a prosecutor turned defence counsel. After 2014, the National Investigation Agency under the Narendra Modi government has treated Hindus accused of terrorism with kid gloves. There is no danger of India having a Robert Mueller any time soon. In no case can one rely on executive restraint. Restraint must be imposed by law. If the Constitution can establish a comptroller and auditor general, why can it not establish the office of an independent director of public prosecutions?     
===============================================