Myths behind creating gender biased laws in India

First Published – here

In India gender biased laws are created for empowering women. But most of the reasons given for creation of biased laws seem to be unjustified.

#1 – Patriarchy shows male dominance and women oppression – Male dominance was not enforced on the society, rather it was part of evolution and natural choice for survival of mankind. Even today, mostly men die to save common human beings from all natural disasters.

#2 – Patriarchy imposes restrictions on women’s movement – Patriarchy exists for survival of mankind. Restriction of women’s movement (in some cases) is mainly for saving them from danger rather than oppressing them. Women today can take up any responsibility they wish and reservation for them in various fields actually restricts deserving male candidates.

#3 – Women are more unsafe today, than they were before independence – The creation of a special section called “Crime Against Women” itself denies men safety from those crimes committed against them. Simply because these crimes are committed against women doesn’t mean they are not committed against men. Absence of any recording mechanism denies the right to safety and equal treatment to men.

#4 – Most women are subjected to domestic violence – Study also shows most senior citizens are abused by their daughter-in-laws. Men suffering from domestic violence from women too but can’t even report. Women granted maintenance irrespective of their behavior in a marriage.

Patriarchy is never construed as bad when it provides free lunch to women or incriminates men just for being ‘MEN’.

#5 – Women are murdered in womb, as infants – We understand this is most successfully created feminist myth when we see that – NCW wanted to raise legal age of abortion of a foetus, feminists demand killing of baby by the mother upto one year of child’s age as women’s right or how SatyaMevJayate team tries to tell lies about stories on foeticide.

#6 – Anyone who oppose women friendly laws is misogynist, insecure – This is being said about the men who are branded as criminals on marriage and many of whom are highly educated. These men spend money from their pocket to help victims in need, give them free legal consultation or take leave from work to stand by the innocent families jailed under false 498a.

These people shed tear with victims or stand by the woman who is raped by another woman but can’t get justice under feminist rules. (remember Pinki Pramanik case, the victim never got justice because the rapist was a woman. Women’s groups in this case fought for the rapist and not for the victim).

#7 – Men are physically stronger, don’t need legal empowerment – These two are different aspects of life and can’t be mixed. Can we live a good life simply by eating good food and not sleeping well? It is time to realize this. Using force against women is anyways a crime.

#8 – Even with women friendly laws, women are unsafe, gender neutral laws will endanger them – Crime is not gender dependent. To instill public confidence in our legal system, we need legal and police reforms, else criminal women like Rohtak Sisters will continue to take bravery award for being cruel to other women or men.

#9 – Stricter laws ensure that no one commits the crime – If it was the case, then murders that invites death penalty, would have been stopped. Today an ordinary Indians like the Nagaland guy is lynched on false complaint but Tarun Tejpal still not punished for committing the same crime.

In India there are many reasons given for creation of gender biased laws. Looks like these are only myths and are set to destroy our society later.

***

Related –

1. Indian families to disappear soon – citizens to act fast

2. Patriarchy or Feminism – Choice is yours

3. Cruel Feminism – Now mothers want to kill their babies as a right

4. Satyamev Jayate Lies exposed in INK Live 2014

5. Rohtak Sisters – Bravehearts or habitual offenders

6. Almost every Indian husbands suffer domestic violence

Advertisements

18 comments

  1. Dear PM/BJP,
    We have seen in a recent case where based on mere allegation of a certain intern a Supreme Court Judge has been forced to resign because ‘ The Congress Party’ threatened him to impeach him with president.To avoid innocent and good judges facing the brunt of such malicious allegations , the government need to keep checks before acting.For example if any woman intern complains of any such sexual misconduct let the matter be taken up by SC panel on priority basis and let an investigation be done by this panel.If and only if he is found guilty, let there be any impeachment on the part of government.And if the woman registers a police complaint, let there be impeachment only after the sexual offence is proved.It is not a good sign that even the judges are forced to forgo their livelihood based on mere allegations.

    Like

  2. So before impeaching a preliminary report after investigation must be submitted to the president /government.The system should be moulded in such a way that only if the report confirms the allegations , the president should be allowed.

    Like

  3. As per the present constitution, the president can initiate the impeachment process in the parliament.And if the houses of the parliament vote in the favor of the impeachment the judge is removed.Think of a scenario where the president is politically motivated as he is but elected by some political party which is forming the government at the centre.And based on the government’s arm twisting he may be inclined to set the impeachment notion.And imagine a situation where the ruling party is in majority in both the houses.And the voting has happened in favor of the impeachment.Considering the current integrity of the politicians and the corruption pervading the circles, the MPs may be bribed to vote in support of the move.Then the supreme court judge has no other option but to step down.The constitution clearly defined that the impeachment can be done only in the case of PROVED misbehaviour.But considering the recent incident where the government even bullied the judge into resignation, this shows that the impeachment can happen even without PROVED wrongdoing. This gives a chance for the innocent to lose job.So SC Panel must intervene and submit it’s report after the investigation into the wrong doing.And if it is confirmed only then the president must be allowed to impeach.And Generally it is the president who elects the CJI.But we know that the president can be any person even a politician who can be a wrong doer but still gets elected to the office.Or he might himself commit wrong after he took hold of the office.But as the president can only be prosecuted after he steps down on his own, there is a chance of bias because of his own political inclinations.So even a wrong doing president can impeach a completely innocent CJI.This does not seem right.

    Like

  4. As per my limited knowledge,
    The president of India elects the senior most judge as the CJI.But Mrs Indira Gandhi violated the norms and started tampering with the due process.She instead of the president elected the CJI and she put aside THREE senior most judges prefering a junior because he is inclined to her.This is nothing but undermining the autonomy of the judiciary.So in order to maintain the purity of the judiciary, the ruling (political) party must be disallowed to violate the normal due process.Only the president must choose.But as we know the president can also be a wrong doer , he may also have been given the power to skip the senior most judge based on the Intelligence Bureau report.And he may elect somebody who is inclined to his inclinations.So to avoid this the SC panel comprising of the three senior most retired judges must also act as NJAC and the IB must submit its report to the Panel.And as it is also true that the senior most serving judge mau be politically motivated or politically inclined to some party either ruling or opposition, in order to lessen the chance for such judges to get elected, a voting among the three most senior judges must go on among the panel members.In case of a draw, the person elected by the senior most retired judge of the SC panel/NJAC should be made CJI.

    Like

  5. My argument for a panel of retired judges to remain at the helm of the affairs of appointment and investigation of wrong doings within the department is that as these judges are already retired and they do not have much to gain by pandering to anyone.Neither they have any need of pandering to anyone because they have already completed their service.(like asscociating with some politicians for relatively easy promotions etc etc).So they may be less biased eventhough they may not be totally unbiased.

    Like

  6. And the tenure of each serving retired judge must be 5 years unless any offence is proved.And if there is any case registered on any of the judges of these panel, again the SIT must be constituted and that wrong doing judge must be removed.And once the tenure is over the retired judge must act as National Human Rights Comission chairman.

    Like

  7. The code of conduct constituted for this SC panel must be the same code that which is established for the judiciary.So if the code of conduct is violated amongst the judges of the panel the CJI must look into the matter and the wrong doing judge must be demoted and his junior must be made the senior.

    Like

  8. Or otherwise a simple but rigid rule that “The president elects the senior most judge” as the CJI would be enough.And the president must be disallowed to bypass the senior most judge. This would suffice to filter the outside interference completely.

    Like

  9. The practice of ełecting prominent lawyers as judges of the apex court must be shunned.How can somebody having zero experience as a judge be elected as a judge of the Top court!!!!…..?.

    Like

  10. In summation the autonomy of the judiciary should be intact .For that,
    1.Implement the rigid but inviolable rule of electing the senior most judge as the CJI.
    2.The retiring judges must constitute a SC panel which will function as internal scavengers of the department.
    3.In case of wrong doing on the part of the SC panel let the SIT take up the case and see whether there is any offence/misbehaviour.
    a) In case of misbehaviour of any judge let there be a demotion.
    b) In case of any PROVED offence(civil) let there be termination.
    c)in case of any PROVED offence (criminal), let there be punishment along with termination.
    Similarly let there be similar panels for high courts and let the wrong doers be nipped in the bud.
    With regards to SC panel let the senior most judge after his retirement after 5 years be made NHRC chairman.Similarly let the senior most retired judge of the High Court Panel be made respective SHRC’s (State Human Rights Commission) chairman.
    And inorder to check the misbehaviour/offence (civil or criminal) on the part of the High Court Panel (HC Panel.// to SC panel) let the chief justice of the respective high court constitute a team similar to SIT to investigate the wrong doing within the panel. (:).

    Like

  11. In short let the SC panel act as a buffer for the wrong doings within the Supreme Court and let the SIT appointed by CJI act as a buffer for the wrong doings within the SC panel.
    Similar is the case with the High courts.This will allow the people/the government (ruling party) and also the opposition to have greater faith in the judiciary as the transparency increases within the judiciary.

    Like

  12. And all the high court panels must be kept under the Supreme Court panel(retired).And the SC panel must look into the investigation of wrong doings/offences within the serving Supreme Court judges and also within the high court panels.

    Like

  13. And as SC panel is supervising the HC panel the high courts need not constitute teams similar to SIT to probe into the wrongdoings within the high court panels .The SC panel would suffice.

    Like

    • But as a high court judge would not become a supreme court judge unless he is innocent and good performing, I think there is no need of separate high court panels.A single panel of SC retired judges would be enough presiding over the serving CJI and his colleagues and the judges of high courts.

      Like

  14. As we all know a woman welfare officer is allowed to suspend a police officer who refused to take action when the case is apparently false,the police officer must be compensated for the loss of salary.For this the woman welfare officer should be fined an equivalent amount once the allegations against the man are turned out to be false.

    Like

  15. If the woman welfare officer is unable to pay, she must be suspended for a number of days.And that number must be determined according to the amount she needs to pay.Her salary per day must be calculated , and the amount she needs to compensate must be calculated , and it must be seen how many days’ s salary combined would amount to the amount she need to pay.That many days she must be suspended.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s