Bahadur Aur Beghar: No help for the Patiala House Court Complex's Nepali staff after Earthquake

Kishan Bahadur was a jolly, carefree soul. He's the first one telling a vakeelji who's lost his files to chill; the first to smile as you enter Patiala House court complex’s tension-drenched filing room. But since April 25, this year, Kishan Bahadur has become a different person.

He’s from Pokhara Village in Nepal, where a 7.8 Ritcher scale earthquake that hit the country last month destroyed 90% of the buildings. Kishan’s house — where his wife and two small children reside — was demolished he tells me. With a sigh of relief, he adds, no one was home at the time.

“My wife was at the neighbors, and the kids were in school. It’s only by pure luck and gods’ grace that I still have a family,” he explains.

He adds, "they don’t have a house to live in anymore and are staying with the neighnours.” He shrugs, but one can tell his pride is hurt -- he's the sort of man who believes in taking from no one.

Having no home to go back to is not the end of Kishan’s woes. Due to the sudden force majure, he also has no money for the trip home, or to fix the broken down building once he gets to his destination.

Being a proud Bahadur and has not yet asked the district judge in charge Amar Nath for help as of yet. Truth told, he confesses, he did not know asking the DJ for help was an option.

In fact, Kishan and others like him are worried that their pay will be affected if they go to Nepal during court working days. At the moment, lower court staff is only given a certain number of leaves, and anyone exceeding those gets a pay-cut.

Those Nepalis who have already used their limited number of paid holidays are not getting any concession to visit their homeland post-Earthquake.  With the typical Bahadur sense of humour he adds, the only good thing is that this happened at the beginning of the year, so not many have taken holidays yet.

Strapped for cash themselves, Kishan’s colleagues in the filing room are collecting money on his behalf. So far, ten people have contributed, and they have Rs. 2000 to give towards rebuilding a house whose value in memories cannot be quantified.

“Not a lot of the staff is being generous as well. I’ve contributed, some others have. Some know Kishan needs the money but ignore us. I mean how much can one go door to door also na?” one Reader tells me under the condition of anonymity.

There are at least 20 Pokhara villagers working as junior staff or menial labour in various district courts in Delhi. The overall count of Nepali workers within the city’s judicial system exceeds 100.

Tis Hazari court, which has about 50 Nepalis working in it has the largest number, closely followed by Saket court that employs 20 and Patiala House Court that employs 18-20 persons.

I spoke to a number of them from various district courts, and their situation was found to be similar, if not exactly, like Kishan’s story.

(This reportage is entirely in my personal capacity, has nothing to do with my employer, and was done on my own time. Any liability stemming from the same should be placed on me, and no one else.)

Ps- If you want to help Kishan and others like him, please go to the Court Staff Secretaries at the various district courts, and donate what you comfortably can to their cause. 

The law doesn't blame Madhuri for Maggi... even if you want to!

It was reported on Tuesday that an independent advocate has filed a case against actors Amitabh Bachhan, Madhuri Dixit and Preity Zinta who endorsed the household product we all grew up with — Maggi. 

The ‘two-minute’ noodles have been in the eye of the storm since it was revealed that several batches of their products across India contained dangerous levels of lead, which can be fatal. And now, so are the celebrities whose shining faces on silver screens told the rest of us to “Love Maggi.”

It cannot be questioned that celebrities are people who exert a lot of influence over the general public, and should exercise this power in a responsible, not reckless manner. 

According to the Food Standards and Safety Authority of India (FSSAI) Act, anyone whomsoever is a party to a misleading advertisement or its publication can be fined up to Rs 10 lakh. 

In February, last year, the Central Consumer Protection Council (CCPC), the apex body for consumer protection in India, ruled that actors could be held liable for making “false claims” in advertisements and endorsing a product that they “know to be misleading.”

So, on the face of it, there seems a possibility that Bacchhan senior and the rest of Bollywood’s finest may be in a hot soup. But the CCPC was clear about one thing: these people can only be held accountable for endorsements or statements they made “recklessly” or if they had knowledge that the product was unsafe, or the advertisement claim false or misleading.

It all boils down to what lawyers call mens rea; and what we call intention. Did Amitabh know there was a high-lead percentage in Maggi noodles? Did Zinta? What about Madhuri? Did your local grocer know? Did the canteen-cook who gives you a plate during teatime every day? 

There is no belittling the role of celebrity endorsements in India —they account of half our country’s ads. Also, you don’t even need to be Indian to know the the influence a Bacchan exert on the country’s less educated population — which is, sadly, still in the majority. One can safely say, products can be moved on the basis of Madhuri’s smile alone. 

Yet, the law is clear — to be liable, they must have been reckless or had knowledge of their false claims. As of yet, there is no proof of either criteria applying to any of the stars.

If this were a case of deceptive advertising such as the infamous 2011 Reebook Easy Tone shoes controversy — where the company sold shoes based on claims that they would provide extra tone and strength to leg and buttock muscles — one may be tempted to hold the celebrities involved responsible. This is an easy fact-checkable claim; all the celebrity has to do is use the product for a few months. Voila! truth will reveal itself, the star could be said to have intention to deceive. 

Chillax,  Bipasha isn't going to be found liable either. She endorsed the product in 2009, and the company only started settling claims by 2011. (But, you -- who fell for that misassformation -- may get your money back.)

This is not even similar to the Home Trade scam of 2002 in which Sachin Tendulkar, Hrithik Roshan and Shah Rukh Khan endorsed a company that created no products and scammed 1000s of crores of investor money. 

This is an issue with a food product, which we’ve all been using years before any of the three stars complained against began endorsing it. It is an issue that was only recently discovered by the Food Safety & Drug Administration in Uttar Pradesh.

There’s no doubt that having lead levels which are seven-times the permissible level in food which is marketed and sold to children is a serious matter. And if Maggi, or the endorsers had knowledge of this danger, they’re liable criminally, ethically, and morally. 

But as the law goes, that knowledge is key; and ignorance — in this case — can be bliss of the Bollywood trio. 

(These views above are my personal opinions, and do not represent - in any manner - the opinion of my employer, or media organisations association with me.)

A "lion" of a Judge: brief profile of Justice Rohinton Nariman

The youngest senior advocate and Supreme Court judge, Justice Rohinton Nariman has always been a trail-blazer. On Tuesday, however, by striking down as unconstitutional the draconian Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, he cements his place in history.

The 56-year-old SC judge, once described as “wise and humane” by former-advocate-general Darius Khambata, is among only five senior advocates directly elevated to the bench.

His very first judgment said death penalty reviews must be heard in open court by a three-judge-bench. The order confirms what Kambatta says fondly -- the ‘F’ in Rohinton F Nariman stands not just for his father Fali, but also for “fair.”

The judgment went against years of SC practice, which allowed death penalty reviews to be heard by circulation and two judges. But Nariman is no stranger to standing up to authority.

The young man who joined the Bar in 1979 was a “lion of a lawyer.” His strong opinions and general impatience with briefing counsels are as legendary as his fantastic memory and command over jurisprudence.

In 1993, then SC Chief Justice Venkatachalaiah designated as SC senior advocate a 37 –year-old Nariman against the minimum age of 45.  

Since then, the judge – who is also an ordained Zoroastrian priest from Bandra Agiary Bombay – has taken on many initiatives for young and needy lawyers. Apart from donating Rs. 1 Crore for setting up the SC lawyers welfare club, Nariman has also instituted annual scholarships for young lawyers.

BTW: This is just him talking about Beethoven

He is also a scholar of history and western classical music. His famous Nariman-memory (both he and father Fali are renowned for their recall power) can identify a 1000 pieces of Opera music from just their opening notes. He is also an avid daily walker.

Speaking about Tuesday’s milestone judgment, which was authored by Nariman, SC lawyer Gopal Sankaranarayanan told HT, “It’s a particularly erudite, wide-ranging judgment which reflects the author’s command over literature, religion apart from his obvious liberal credentials​

A shorter version of this article appeared in Hindustan Times March 25, 2015 Delhi edition as "Trail blazer judge lives up to expectations."

Jung and Justice for Juveniles

Jung and Justice for Juveniles

 Our new lieutenant governor believes that the age of majority with regard to criminal actions should be lowered, he told the media this week. “These days, young people grow up much faster,” PTI quoted Mr. Najeeb Jung, who was appointed the Lt. Governor of Delhi a few months ago. Mr. Jung’s responsibilities include overseeing police and education.

Currently, under the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 (JJA), the age of majority is eighteen years, which was part of India’s obligations under the 1992 UN Convention of the Child’s Rights (CRC). This became a sensitive topic when it was found out that one of the men responsible for the Delhi gang-rape case was only months away from turning eighteen. This week he was found guilty and sentenced to the maximum penalty under the JJA, which is three years at a reform center. This decision has been met with protests, and criticism from many politicians and activists. Mr. Jung’s statement comes in the context of these facts.

He’s not alone in this belief. This year, the Supreme Court has dismissed several PILs asking for revision of the JJA. Mr. Subramanian Swamy, a leader of the BJP party, had filed a PIL in the Supreme Court asking for a reinterpretation of the law so it takes into account a person’s mental and intellectual capability, not their age, to determine whether he or she should be tried as an adult. According to its website, the Supreme Court has rejected this prayer but Mr. Swamy indicates that he is getting ready to appeal the decision. If he is successful and such a reinterpretation is recognized, India will be in violation of the CRC.

“People are saying the age limit should be brought down to 16. Even if the age of a juvenile were lowered to 14, there would be nothing wrong with that. There is need to review it,” PTI reports Mr. Jung as saying. The Justice Verma committee, formed last year to look into the issues surrounding violence against women and recommend legal steps to improve the current situation — a decidedly grim one — advised for several legal measures to be taken, but advised strongly against lowering the age of majority. Meanwhile activists and politicians have been unrelenting in their quest to do exactly that.

It is true that the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reports that juvenile crimes have gone up 40% between 2001 and 2010. In the same period, rapes by juveniles have gone up 50%, murder is up by a third and kidnappings of women and girls nearly five times. These figures are disturbing and seem to support the views of Mr. Swamy and Mr. Jung, but many of those working with juvenile delinquents don’t see it that way.

“The NCRB statistics actually prove that there is something wrong with the way juveniles are growing up in our country,” says Mr. Anand Grover, counsel for the Lawyers Collective and best known for his work in the re-interpretation of section 377 IPC. Mr. Grover works actively with juveniles in his practice.

Sociologists believe that the rise in juvenile crimes is due to a variety of factors that can’t be addressed by simply lowering the age of majority. These factors include the government’s inability to curb increase in poverty; failure of the educational system causing young people to abandon schools; increasing income disparity; domestic factors such as violence at home and failure of parental units.

Mr. Grover explains, “The law, insofar as it is concerned with child criminality, is interested in prevention first. The second thing is to see if reform is possible, then we can look at punishment. This idea that young people are growing up faster is misguided. They may have more information but that doesn’t mean they have the ability to process or understand this information.”

NCRB data also indicates that most juvenile delinquents are from low-income families and/or a marginalized stratum of society. Studies on juveniles including studies conducted by UNICEF also show that neglected children and juveniles are easy prey to criminality. “Look at the profiles of the Mumbai rapists: they’re completely out of social norms —they don’t have jobs, their parents don’t have jobs,” says Mr. Grover, “With our economy cracking up, these kids are in a position where they have no stake in society or even means to develop a stake. How can we apportion blame on children who have nothing to look forward to at all?”

Sociologists and lawyers alike are also in agreement that lowering the age of majority will have little effect on juvenile crime rates, and in fact may have little affect on India’s crime rates on a whole. In general, most juveniles are booked for petty crimes such as theft — the 2012 NCRB data shows that juveniles committed 4% of rapes in India.  “Individual incidences cannot be the reason to call for a change in the law,” says Mr. Grover.

There are also numerous studies that stand against clubbing juveniles with adult and often hardened offenders. Many worry that this approach, along with harsher sentencing and the increasing number of juveniles whose bail is rejected thus causing them to remain in pretrial detention, will backfire and result in increase in juvenile offenders instead.

Recent studies show that a welfare based approach, where the juvenile is brought back into the folds of society through reform, works better to reduce delinquency. Tripti Tandon, also with the Lawyers’ Collective, who works with juveniles says, “A young person’s involvement in crimes can be on account of many factors, and these factors may be turned around through a system of education, reform, support and encouragement. This is the philosophy behind the JJA and I think it continues to hold.” Ms. Tandon adds, “The views of our politicians is extremely hypocritical. On one hand they refuse to entertain lowering the age by which a person may be sexually active — here they say they want to protect the children— but when it comes to something so serious as crime and facing punishment in the criminal justice system, then they want fourteen year olds to be treated as adults. Then they don’t see the implications of making fourteen-year-olds face life imprisonment or capital punishment?”