IRAN PLANS DEATH BY STONING FOR ADULTERY

Britain urged Iran to halt the execution of a woman who a rights group says faces death by stoning for adultery.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague commented on the case of 43-year-old Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani, saying it would"disgust and appal" the rest of the world.

"Stoning is a medieval punishment that has no place in the modern world and the continued use of such a punishment in Iran demonstrates in our view a blatant disregard for human rights commitments which it has previously entered into," Hague told a news conference.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said, "We’re trying to work and consult on all these issues with our neighbour Iran, of course we have to see the file."

The case was also raised in Britain’s House of Commons, prompting speaker John Bercow to describe it as "a horrific, truly horrific matter".

"We in this house, I hope, are in favour of human rights, not of their grotesque abuse," he added. Human rights group Amnesty International said last week it feared that Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, who has two children, could be "at imminent risk" of execution by stoning at any time for adultery.

It said she was convicted in 2006 of having had an "illicit relationship" with two men and received 99 lashes as her sentence.

The rights group said that, despite this, Mohammadi Ashtiani was subsequently convicted of "adultery while being married", which it said she denied, and was sentenced to death by stoning. Hague called on Iran to put an immediate stay on the execution and review the process by which Mohammadi Ashtiani was tried.

LIFE JACKETS MUST FOR ECONOMY FLYERS TOO: DGCA

It’s been a kind of ’apartheid’ that has till now been practised by airlines in India: while economy class passengers are told to hold on to their seat cushions in case the aircraft crashes into the sea, business and first class passengers are asked to take out the life jackets placed below each premium class seat. But now, the directorate general of civil aviation has sought to end this difference by making it mandatory for Indian carriers to have life jackets for every passenger — irrespective of the class he or she flies in.

The new rule is mandatory for Indian aircraft flying on overseas international routes and even domestic ones where a minimum of 50 nautical miles (90km) have to be flown over sea. This would include routes like Chennai-Kolkata and all flights to Port Blair from the mainland.

The ending of this ’apartheid’ was among the several steps listed by aviation authorities here in response to the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) team’s observations. The team is in Delhi currently to review whether the promises India made to upgrade aviation standards are actually being fulfilled or not. On Thursday, the civil aviation ministry said in a statement that DGCA would continue to remain in Category 1 of FAA’s International Aviation Safety Assessment Programme (IASA).

The concern had arisen after international authorities found about two years ago that though Indian aviation was growing by leaps and bounds, no steps had been taken to accordingly strengthen the regulatory mechanism to ensure safe flights. Things got so bad that FAA had threatened that it may downgrade India to lower categories of safety.

In fact, FAA complimented the steps that director general of civil aviation Nasim Zaidi and his team are taking to strengthen the regulatory mechanism now. "The FAA team stated that DGCA... has demonstrated amazing improvement in continuing to enhance and improve safety oversight system beyond expectations. The FAA concluded that India not only continues to meet FAA’s IASA Category-1 status but also... plays a leadership role for other nations in the Asia region in civil aviation sector," the ministry statement said.

2-WHEELERS MAKERS MUST GIVE HELMETS

The Supreme Court has made it mandatory for two-wheeler manufacturers to supply helmets that conform to the Bureau of India Standards while selling scooters and motorbikes to customers. The helmets will be sold through the dealers. A bench headed by Justice G S Singhvi on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) that had sought reversal of a Delhi High Court judgment giving the direction.

The bench said helmets were for the safety of customers and declined to entertain the plea that the order would force customers to have a collection of helmets.

“The high court judgment obliges a customer to purchase a helmet whenever he buys a new two-wheeler. This is despite the fact whether he possesses one or not,” contended senior advocate P.S. Patwalia, appearing for SIAM. He added the direction amounted to legislation.

To this, the bench said in a lighter vein: “There is no harm in having more than one helmet. It comes handy in situations such as taking part in protests, dharnas or even defending oneself during a fight with wife.”

The court added it was improper for it to interfere in an order that was meant for a public cause.

The Delhi High Court had on July 30, 2009, directed two-wheeler manufacturers to start selling helmets along with the vehicles. The direction came on a public interest litigation that asked the court to give directions to the companies to comply with one of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act that mandates supply of helmets.

DUMP EGO WHEN HC MOVES PROBE TO CBI: SC TO STATES

The Supreme Court said the loud protests heard from states when a high court shifts probe of a case from the police to CBI had more to do with hurt ego than the alibi that it affected the morale of police force.

"Once the HC gives a view that the matter be investigated by the CBI in exercise of its constitutional powers, all objections of the state must come to an end," said a Bench comprising Justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha while dismissing the Kerala government’s plea against the HC’s September 11, 2008 order asking CBI to probe a murder case. The state had challenged the HC order on the ground that it adversely affected the morale of the state police.

Least amused by the argument, the Bench said: "There are not one but dozen reports on what adversely affects the morale of the police. You will not find any of them mentioning HC orders as being an adverse factor. The morale of the police is adversely affected by actions of other kind which we do not want to say here."

Clearly, the Bench was hinting at the political interference in the affairs of the police noted in all the reports of committees appointed since the 1970s to suggest ways and means for reforms in the police force.

Having beaten the state’s argument hollow, the Bench dug in further saying: "If investigation is to be handed over to CBI, we don’t understand why should it be taken as an ego clash. Ultimately your interest is also to catch the culprit."

But, Kerala counsel and senior advocate L N Rao said it had become a trend with the HC to transfer cases to CBI from the state police as 30 cases were ordered to be investigated by the central agency in last year itself.

The Bench did not agree. "The courts do not order CBI probe as a matter of habit. This is not a routine power exercised by the HCs. Even statistically we find that several persons come to HCs with this request, but in hardly 1% or 2% cases did the HCs oblige," the Bench added.

Rao contended that in a recent judgment, the SC had held that the HCs could not routinely transfer cases to CBI. The case in hand related to the murder of one Mohammad Fazal by activists of CPM, the ruling party in the state. Rao argued that the probe could not be termed unfair or partial.

But the Bench said that the Kerala HC pointed out several lapses in theinvestigation justifying its decision to ask CBI to take up the probe. "Once the court exercises its constitutional power, the buck must stop there," the Bench said.

UIDAI WORKING TOWARDS DATABASE SECURITY CONCERNS

With the UPA government keen to roll out its ambitious plan of giving unique identity numbers to nearly a billion people, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is ready with a draft legislation to ensure data security and confidentiality of information. It has also proposed strict punishment for impersonation and breach of privacy, with fines ranging upto Rs 1 crore.

The draft bill proposes to make UIDAI a statutory body and provides for strict penalty for offences like disclosing identity information, impersonation, giving wrong biometrics and unauthorized access to data.

The draft law says that if any person "intentionally discloses, transmits, copies or otherwise disseminates any identity information collected in the course of enrolment or authentication to any person not authorised", he will be punished by imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to Rs 10,000.

In the case of a company, the fine may extend to Rs 1 lakh. Any person not authorised by UIDAI caught accessing Central Identities Data Repository (central databank) will be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and will be liable to a fine which shall not be less than Rs 1 crore.

SOON, LAW TO TACKLE CHILD SEX ABUSE

India will soon have its first law to deal exclusively with child sexual abuse cases. The provisional draft of the bill, titled ‘Sexual Offences Against Children Bill, 2010’, seeks to substitute the word ‘rape’ with technical terms and cover several forms of abuse of both boys and girls, which now remain grey areas in the absence of a specific legislation. The proposed legislation calls for setting up of special courts, special public prosecutors and child-friendly proceedings.

"We have prepared a provisional draft in consultation with NGOs and experts, which will be forwarded to the ministry of woman and child development for inputs. We have not set a deadline to present the Bill in Parliament but we want to do it at the earliest, given the increasing number of child sexual abuse cases in the country," told Union law minister Veerappa Moily.

Calling for special courts and special prosecutors in every district to try such cases, the draft proposes that evidence from the child be recorded within a month of the court taking cognizance and the trial be completed within a year.

At present, cases of sexual offences against children are being tried under the Indian Penal Code, which does not always take into consideration the age of the victim. With such offences attracting only such sections that deal with rape, unnatural offences and outraging the modesty of a woman, many sexual offences against children, especially those against boys, were not getting a focussed trial, it was felt.

The draft proposes to prosecute child sex offenders mainly under five heads —penetrative sexual assault, aggravated penetrative sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault and sexual harassment.

While penetrative sexual assault covers all kinds of penetration using body parts or objects, the other acts come under sexual assault. Sexual harassment covers abuse of a child using gestures and spoken words.

The term ‘aggravated’ is prefixed to offences when the perpetrator is a person who wields power by virtue of being in a position of authority or trust or when the victim has a mental or physical disability. It recommends punishments ranging from three years in jail for ‘sexual harassment’ to life imprisonment for ‘aggravated sexual assault.’

The proposed special courts for offences against children would also hear cases pertaining to child abuse as defined under the Information Technology Act, which includes abuse through the internet and child pornography. "The bill proposes to also cover IT-aided crime against children. It will be a comprehensive law to protect children against all forms of sexual abuse," the law minister said.

While the proposed bill defines a person below the age of 18 as a child, it permits sex between people above the age of 16 years if it meets 14 conditions that define consent.

A NEW PLAY "LAW" SET FOR BHOPAL GAS LEAK VICTIMS AS AUDIENCE

Contrary to the claim made by former Union Carbide counsel Fali Nariman, the government’s move to hold a retrial in the Bhopal gas case, on the higher charge of manslaughter punishable with a 10-year term, will not violate the right to double jeopardy protection.

For, Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) — ironically, the very provision cited by Nariman in his media interviews — bars anybody from being tried again on the same facts “while such conviction or acquittal remains in force”. The ultimate objective of the curative petition due to be filed by the government before the Supreme Court is to set aside the June 7 trial court verdict, sentencing the Bhopal accused to two years on the mild charge of death caused by a rash or negligent act.
The conviction by the trial court will automatically cease to be in force once the Supreme Court allows the curative petition challenging the 1996 decision of the bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India A MAhmadi. For, the trial court verdict was determined by the 14-year-old apex court verdict, which had rather controversially reduced the liability of Bhopal gas accused from the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (manslaughter) under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to that of death caused by a rash or negligent act under Section 304A IPC.

Since the 1996 verdict left little scope for the trial court to convict the Bhopal accused for manslaughter, the group of ministers headed by P Chidambaram rightlyconcluded that a regular appeal against the June 7 judgment before the Madhya Pradesh high court would not suffice. The Cabinet agreed with the GOM’s recommendation that the penalty for the world’s largest industrial disaster cannot go beyond the two years imposed by the June 7 verdict without first removing the shackles placed by the 1996 Supreme Court judgment.

If the curative petition works, it will override the 1996 Supreme Court verdict and that in turn will result in, as a natural corollary, the setting aside of the June 7 convictions under the lesser offence of rash or negligent death. So, when a fresh trial is held in such an eventuality on the more serious charge of manslaughter, it will in no way violate the double jeopardy rule recognized around the world.

Nariman’s attack on the government’s attempt to reprosecute Keshub Mahindra and other Bhopal accused has raised eyebrows not only because of its misleading logic about double jeopardy but also because of its sheer impropriety. For, Nariman himself had contributed to the 1996 judgment, in his capacity as counsel for Union Carbide India Limited’s managing director V P Gokhale.

The 1996 verdict quotes Nariman and other counsel arguing that there was no question of the accused having done any act “with the knowledge that they were likely by such act to cause death”. This was the basis on which the Ahmadi bench had then rejected the CBI’s allegation that the Bhopal gas accused knew about the faulty design of the plant and the deficiencies in its operation.

NLP GETS TOUGH ON PILs AGAINST PROJECTS

Petitioners contemplating PILs against ongoing projects on environment grounds might want to do a rethink. The government’s new litigation policy calls for petitioners to be slapped with costs for stoppage of projects that are in public interest.

This approach is a prominent part of the National Litigation Policy (NLP) announced recently by law minister Veerappa Moily and is a response to PILs that lack merit. Though a majority of PILs challenging projects are ultimately dismissed, they succeed in delaying work.

The NLP drafted by attorney-general G E Vahanvati says, "PILs challenging public contract must be seriously defended. If interim orders are passed stopping such projects, then appropriate condition must be insisted upon for petitioners to pay compensation if the PIL is ultimately rejected."

The policy, the government argues, is meant for those petitioners who rush to courts with PILs to merely get publicity immediately after a controversy over a social, political or legislative issue. Critics, however, are likely to argue that the policy will curb public spirited actions.

"It must be recognized that several PILs are filed for collateral reasons, including publicity, and at the instance of third parties. Such litigation must be exposed as being not bonafide," the NLP stressed.

However, NLP does not envisage all PILs as ill-intentioned or bad in law and talks about the need for government to adopt a balanced approach. "On the one hand, PILs should not be taken as a matter of convenience to let the courts do what government finds inconvenient," it said.

A good example of the government turning to the courts to bail it out was the reference on the Ayodhya issue sent by the President to the Supreme Court, immediately after the December 6, 1992 demolition of the disputed shrine. The reference sought an opinion on whether a Ram temple pre-existed the Babri mosque.
The SC had returned the reference without offering an opinion.

The NLP recognizes that an increase in the number of PILs in high courts and the Supreme Court stemmed from a perception that the government was not doing what it was supposed to do or due to a lethargic bureaucracy. "This perception must be changed," it says. The proposal to link costs with dismissal of PILs is, however, bound to be controversial.

US SUPREME COURT LIMITS GUN CONTROL BY STATES

The US Supreme Court struck down a Chicago handgun ban in a far-reaching ruling that makes it unconstitutional for states and local governments to restrict the right of Americans to own guns.

In a major victory for gun rights activists, but a bitter blow for those seeking to maintain gun controls in the United States, Justice Samuel Alito said the constitution was clear on the right to bear arms for self-defense.

The 5-4 majority ruling extended to all cities and states the Supreme Court’s 2008 landmark affirmation that Americans have the constitutional right -- as enshrined in the Second Amendment -- to own weapons, including handguns.

The National Rifle Association hailed Monday’s ruling, saying it "marks a great moment in American history."

Gun control advocates however immediately slammed the ruling, pointing to statistics that show on average 30,000 deaths -- including some 12,000 murders -- by shooting each year in the United States, where according to some estimates roughly 200 million guns are in circulation.

The Washington-based Violence Policy Center (VPC) stated, matter-of-fact: "People will die because of this decision."

In announcing the court’s majority opinion, however, Alito noted that since the Chicago handgun ban was enacted 28 years ago, the city’s murder rate by handguns actually increased.

Since the 2008 ruling -- a case originating out of the nation’s capital, called District of Columbia v. Heller -- cities with strict gun laws such as Chicago had resisted the decision.

They argued it had not made clear that the Second Amendment principle applied to local laws and states.

But in its decision on the case McDonald v. Chicago, the top court upheld the appeal that gun rights activists lodged against Chicago’s handgun ban, overturning restrictions and other gun registration elements they said impeded gun ownership.

In the majority opinion, the court maintained "self-defense is a basic right" and recalled how its 2008 ruling found "individual self-defense is ’the central component’ of the Second Amendment right."

The court acknowledged that the Bill of Rights -- the Constitution’s first 10 amendments -- originally applied only to the federal government.

But it ruled the 14th Amendment’s "due process" clause -- enacted after the US Civil War -- holds that the Bill of Rights protections such as the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms must be also applied to the states.

The court, however, also employed a key caveat against the possibility of a total restriction of gun controls, which was used in the 2008 decision -- recognizing "the right to keep and bear arms is not ’a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’"

The court also said its ruling in Heller and applied for Monday’s decision "did not cast doubt" on longstanding gun regulations, like the prohibition on felons and the mentally ill owning weapons, and laws forbidding firearms in "sensitive places" like schools and government buildings.