Kasab vs. Shoiab

Another interesting twist in Indo-Pak relations.

Pakistani Cricketer Shoiab Malik is greeted to India with a case under Section 498A of the India Penal Code.

See news link here.

Some interesting facts about the case:

1. The case is filed after 8 years of the alleged marriage – which Shoiab has been continuously denying!

2. The case is filed only when Shoiab’s potential marriage with Sania makes news!

3. Moreover, in her admissions so far, never has Ayesha talked about dowry harassment, but a case is filed!

Indian Govt. is dubiously famous for Section 498A. Even the highest Court, the Supreme Court has termed filing of Section 498A as “Legal Terrorism”.

On one hand, Kasab – accused of terrorism against India – is getting pampered by the Indian Govt. at the expense of the public exchequer and on the other hand, a reputed Pakistani Cricketer is pressed with a criminal case at the behest of a “Legal Terrorist”

Looks like the Indian Govt. is well trained to dance at the tunes, whims and fancies of terrorists of all categories.


7 thoughts on “Kasab vs. Shoiab


    Monday, June 14, 1999
    Legal eagles upset over Indira Jaisingh remark

    NEW DELHI, JUNE 13: Eminent lawyer Indira Jaisingh’s remark against the Indian police machinery in a London court during the extradition proceedings of Bollywood music director Nadeem has sparked of a controversy, with the legal fraternity here condemning it.
    “Torture and police brutality are endemic in India,” Jaisingh is reported to have said in the London court while defending Nadeem, prime accused in the Gulshan Kumar murder case. The statement prompted the London court to call a retired judge of the Mumbai High Court to explain the remark.Experts maintain Jaisingh has crossed her brief by making a “sweeping statement”.
    When contacted, Indira Jaisingh refused to comment. “It is a matter of my profession and I do not want to justify my professional statement.” On being informed about the criticism, invoked by her statement, she said:“I do not want to say anything related to my profession.” Director General (Investigation) of the National Human Rights Commission, D.R. Karthikeyan hit out at Jaisingh’s assertion. “If one believes her, then custodial deaths should be reported daily. If it becomes `endemic’ who will approach the police stations to report offences,” he retorted.
    According to Karthikeyan, such a statement, without having solid facts to support it, was highly prejudiced. “Even among complaints on police brutality that the NHRC receives, a majority turn out to be baseless. The criminals are known to resort to filing complaints on trifle issues just to avoid sustained investigations,” he said.
    Former Additional Solicitor General, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, holds that though Singh is entitled to be an expert witness in any proceeding, her conclusions are untenable. “I do not dispute her right as a witness,” he says. “But contending that police brutality is endemic in India is wrong.” Lawyer P.N. Lekhi echoes his views, saying it was not right on the court’s part to ask for a certificate on India’s judicial system or its law enforcement agencies.
    “Such sweeping remarks hurt emotionally, apart from unfairly projecting our country in a bad light. Her remarks came as a big shock,” he said. In his opinion, while defending an accused, a lawyer should base his arguments on solid facts alone.
    The experts have also taken exception to the way the retired judge, Justice Pendse, promptly complied to the London court’s directions to explain Jaisingh’s “nasty” statement. The judge, in his explanation, reportedly said: “Though there are sporadic cases of police excesses in India, just as anywhere else in the world, it is not the case in the present context.”
    Lekhi holds it was wrong on the judge’s part to make oneself available to the London court. “ Should a person, who has functioned at a high constitutional position like him, appear as a witness in a foreign court?” he asks.
    Lekhi, in fact, says the Indian judicial system here is tolerating. Quoting from the autobiography of Justice M.C. Jhakla, he says: “When your facts are strong, a lawyer bangs at the facts. If the law is strong, the lawyer bangs at the law and if both are weak, he bangs at the system.” Which is precisely what Indira Jaisingh has done, the lawyers say. According to lawyer Ashish Bhagat: “In the interest of his client, an Indian lawyer can do anything. Apparently the lawyer in this case wants to internationalise the issue and avail asylum protection for her client.”
    Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

    http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/…/ige14110.html – Yemen

  2. http://www.lawyerscollective.org/cri/afzal/article1
    A Travesty Of Justice – Indira Jaising
    In an otherwise verbose Constitution, one of the simplest – yet the one of the most important provisions – is the one relating to the Right to Life: Article 21. “No person shall be deprived of life or liberty, except by procedure established by law.” For anyone alive, this is the most important guarantee there is in the Constitution. No doubt the more privileged among us rely not only on the law for our protection, but also on our class background, our connections with those in power and so on. But the poor have only the law to depend on – and that is where the guarantee of the procedure prescribed by law comes in.
    Many among us detest the death penalty. Legal processes are fallible, but execution cannot be revoked to restore justice. Be that as it may, at least the process by which the penalty is imposed needs to be fair. The seminal requirement of this fairness is that the person facing a death penalty be represented by a lawyer. How would we like it if we entered a court room, when arraigned as an accused, without a lawyer? Journalists facing defamation, newspapers facing contempt, business tycoons locked in legal battles are all represented by very senior lawyers. What if a person facing the death penalty were to be unrepresented by a lawyer?
    In order to avoid such an eventuality, the Constitution was amended in 1976 to introduce the Right to Legal Aid for indigent people as a directive principle of state policy. The Supreme Court has held the Right to Legal Aid for an accused facing a trial which could lead to deprivation of life or liberty. The government enacted the Legal Services Authority Act 1986, to ensure that legal aid is available to indigent people.
    And yet, Afzal went to trial for a capital crime without adequate representation. From his arrest till he made a so-called confession, he was not represented by a lawyer. He gave a list of four lawyers who he would have liked to have represented him. Judge Dhingra, who finally found him guilty of conspiracy to wage war against the country, records that two of the named lawyers refused to represent him. There is no record of the other two being asked. When produced in court, he was told that a lawyer, who he had never met, who had not visited him in jail to get a first-hand account of what happened, would represent him. He is then said to have admitted documents identifying the five dead persons and the post mortem reports. It seems that the die was cast then: if he admitted to knowing the five who were dead, he must have been be part of the conspiracy.
    Sometime early in the trial, the lawyer withdrew her appearance and represented another accused. Afzal was told that her junior would represent him. During the trial, he noticed, that the young lawyer was denying facts he had admitted, at which point he said that he did not want the lawyer in question.
    From then on, the record indicates that he was cross-examining witnesses against him himself and that too without being given copies of the depositions. The court, in the meantime, appointed the very same lawyer in whom Afzal had expressed no confidence as an amicus curiae. Amicus curiae means “a friend of the court”!
    Now that Afzal’s curative petition has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, there will be far-reaching consequences for thousands of people in this country. To send a man to his death without legal representation is not only unconstitutional but also barbaric. Why go through an elaborate trial if the accused is not represented by a lawyer? One might as well be judge, prosecutor, and counsel for the accused anyway and pronounce judgment.
    The tragedy is that Afzal is not the only one in these circumstances; there are hundreds like him, deprived of liberty without adequate legal services. The legal profession is privatised, regulating its own fees. The legal aid on offer provides no more than Rs 3,000 to the counsel representing an indigent accused for the entire trial. Can one really hope to get adequate representation for that fee? It is pointless to argue that lawyers should appear free of charge in an otherwise unregulated profession.
    A well-funded Legal Services Authority should pay its legal aid lawyers better to attract talent to legal aid. There are many young lawyers committed to providing legal services to the poor, who need to be backed by a proper legal aid system. There is no lack of finances with the authority; the question is how the money is spent. On conferences and airfares, or on providing legal services to the poor?
    I am aware that these questions have been raised in the appeal and the review petition. But review petitions are rejected without reasons and without a hearing. The law laid down by the Supreme Court visualises the filing of a curative petition to cure a miscarriage of justice.
    That was done by Afzal – to no avail. Now, only the President of India can have the last word.
    We can only give opinions that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice.

  3. India’s answer to Pakistan’s ISI.. 498A. This is the biggest missile, bomb India could fire at Pakistan. A WMD coming out of the arsenal of WCD. Perhaps India should sack the Generals and Defense minister and get the Femanazis of India to export legal terrorism to Pak.

  4. Issues like this are termed as legal terrorism by even the Supreme Court of India, there are not only affecting men but entire families, which includes women(around 28 percent of the total arrested in IPC 498a is women themselves, that too without any investigation or evidence!), minor children and senior citizens. For example during 2004-2008 1,60,000 women where arrested under IPC 498a without any logic, investigation or evidence(source National Crime Research
    Bureau- ncrb.nic.in)

    If you want to research more(1000s) real life case histories of such victimised families you can read http://victims-of-law.blogspot.com and also read WHO, US and Canadian Government warnings to their citizens against the misuse of these so-called women-protection laws here(which implicate/arrest more women than other IPC crimes. Average
    percentage of women arrested in other IPC crimes is around 6%, whereas in 498a it is around 28%… the inference would be either that in India there are 4 times more criminal women inside our families!, or the inference rightly would be that 498a is a weapon widely misused by legal terrorists which includes unscrupulous women-wives): http://at498a.blogspot.com/2008/04/information-which-one-could-send-media.html

  5. 498A is a ready made hand grenade in the hands of the wife / administration. Whether or not it is applicable in a certain situation, the administration MINDLESSLY applies it to all and sundry forms of matrimonial differences / disputes, to show to the public that they have done their duty most efficiently.

    When Ms. Siddique has not spoken one word about Dowry harrassment, then on what ground did the Police book Shoib under 498A? The Police should be hounded for callousness, lack of application of mind and mental & emotional torture…

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s