observing World Environment Day, the Government announced the setting up of the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change. The high-level advisory body has been constituted to “coordinate National action plans for assessment, adaptation and mitigation of climate change”. The move comes at a crucial juncture after the Inter-Government Panel on Climate Change had submitted its Fourth Assessment Report in April, 2007; the G8 summit to be held later this month is also expected to deal extensively on the issue.
“Climate Change”, a term used in the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC), pre-supposes an involvement of the human element in contributing to, say, a specific instance like global warming. India, with its significant population count is no doubt a contributor, albeit lesser in degree, to greenhouse gas emissions, industrial and automobile fuel-pollutants and consequently, to global warming. Furthermore, it is extremely critical that the ideal of sustainable development be attained as the problem of rapidly vanishing forest belts (along with it, natural resources of water, minerals etc) in India cannot be ignored anymore.Ours being an agrarian economy, climate change is of all the more concern in that ever-rising temperatures and depleting irrigation sources can be fatal to the agro-sector.
The PM’s Council, therefore, has a significant role in shaping the future course of activities to tackle the problem of climate change. GreenhouseGases Online has annexed a very informative slideshow on Climate Change Mitigation and the Kyoto Protocol on their website. The Presentation may be viewed here: www.ghgonline.org/sacpress2003/mitigatekyoto/sld001.htm
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Contempt of Court: the Mid-day case
The Supreme Court has stayed the Contempt of Court sentences of the four mid-day journalists. This comes as good news to those who thought the Delhi High Court acted in a hasty manner in passing sentences on those who published allegations against former Chief Justice YK Sabharwal once he had retired from office, even still when they had proof of the same.
The Delhi High Court judgment is a fascinating read. It is evident of the extent to which our Courts can go to protect themselves from any allegations. The judgment may be seen here
I wonder what is going to happen to free speech in this Country with the Courts taking such a stand.
The Delhi High Court judgment is a fascinating read. It is evident of the extent to which our Courts can go to protect themselves from any allegations. The judgment may be seen here
I wonder what is going to happen to free speech in this Country with the Courts taking such a stand.
Reviewing the Shah Bano Legacy.
On June 5, the Supreme Court of India in a significant ruling, held that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 would not hinder a divorced Muslim woman’s right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Prior to delving into the importance of this judgment, it is imperative that the gamut of events, triggered with the Shah Bano verdict, be explained. In 1985, the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, upheld the maintenance claim of Shah Bano, a divorced Muslim woman of 60 years, under S.125 of the CrPC; the Section provides for relieft to a wife (among others), “unable to maintain herself”. However, this judgment created a huge outcry from the Islamic orthodoxy in India. The Rajiv Gandhi-led Government in power, passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, to appease the outraged sentiments. The Act, quite ironically, curtailed the rights of Muslim women rather than protecting them. It limited the Muslim husband’s responsibility to maintain his divorced wife to the period of iddat. Over the past decade, the Act has challenged over various grounds of Constitutional validity. The apex Court’s decision in Daniel Latifi v. Union of India was instrumental in clearing the fog of confusion. The Court in that instance, gave a liberal interpretation of the Act,(specifically S. 3(1)) in so far as the “fair and reasonable” provisions to the divorced Muslim woman shall include maintenance for her future extending beyond the iddat period.
Earlier this month, the two judge-bench comprising Justic Arijit Pasayat and D.K. Jain in the case of Iqbal Bano v. State of Uttar Pradesh overruled the Allahabd High Court’s order on the same matter; the H.C had held that the divorced wife is not entitled to maintenance under the CrPC in lieu of the existing Act of 1986. There were questions raised as to whether the divorce effected was proper; to which the Court answered in the negative. While the Act only deals with divorced women the CrPC, in the opinion of the Hon’ble Court, is of broader ambit. A relevant passage from the judgment is quoted below:
Prior to delving into the importance of this judgment, it is imperative that the gamut of events, triggered with the Shah Bano verdict, be explained. In 1985, the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, upheld the maintenance claim of Shah Bano, a divorced Muslim woman of 60 years, under S.125 of the CrPC; the Section provides for relieft to a wife (among others), “unable to maintain herself”. However, this judgment created a huge outcry from the Islamic orthodoxy in India. The Rajiv Gandhi-led Government in power, passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, to appease the outraged sentiments. The Act, quite ironically, curtailed the rights of Muslim women rather than protecting them. It limited the Muslim husband’s responsibility to maintain his divorced wife to the period of iddat. Over the past decade, the Act has challenged over various grounds of Constitutional validity. The apex Court’s decision in Daniel Latifi v. Union of India was instrumental in clearing the fog of confusion. The Court in that instance, gave a liberal interpretation of the Act,(specifically S. 3(1)) in so far as the “fair and reasonable” provisions to the divorced Muslim woman shall include maintenance for her future extending beyond the iddat period.
Earlier this month, the two judge-bench comprising Justic Arijit Pasayat and D.K. Jain in the case of Iqbal Bano v. State of Uttar Pradesh overruled the Allahabd High Court’s order on the same matter; the H.C had held that the divorced wife is not entitled to maintenance under the CrPC in lieu of the existing Act of 1986. There were questions raised as to whether the divorce effected was proper; to which the Court answered in the negative. While the Act only deals with divorced women the CrPC, in the opinion of the Hon’ble Court, is of broader ambit. A relevant passage from the judgment is quoted below:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)