You are visitor number....

My Latest Look

My Latest Look
Look Hair

About Me

part eccentric ... part fun .... stubborn .. but not stuck up ... very open to different views, ideas and possibilities ... varied interests ... engineer ... mba ... trying-to-be-a-good-entrepreneur ... ex-software ... ex-quality ... ex-tobacco ... ex-alcohol ... trying-to-be-ex-cancer
View my complete profile

Friday, August 10, 2007

I told you so

About a year back I wrote a protest post on this blog.
It was called Live-in, Wives, Legislation and Jail

At that time I thought that the "Domestic Violence Act" was unfair (I still do) . It (apart from its many other shortcomings) assumed that men were guilty and therefore must be punished by (pre-conviction) prison sentences imposed by their wives.

My argument, that the DV law is flawed, has been backed by this news article (to see the video click on "watch video"). The article says that the DV law is being misused- even Supreme Court thinks that the law was badly drafted.

A basic question ... Does a law become good just because it has been passed by an elected parliament ??? ... looking at the biased domestic violence law the answer seems to be - NO ... then comes the more important point ... when all laws are not good then shouldn't we stop following the "not good" ones ? (this may look like sedition to a lot of people - but it is an honest question)

You see - an impartial judiciary can ensure implementation of any law (by punishing the violators) ... India can boast of a slow, but largely impartial judiciary ... If judiciary has to implement "bad laws", it would effectively be spreading injustice (even if it has the best intentions ... because the fault lies with the law not the judiciary) ... Any law not based on time-tested and important principles like equality and assumed-innocence runs a big chance of being a "bad law"... By dishonouring the principles of equality, assumed-innocence etc, the parliament is actually exposing the common man (note the pun) to possible travesty of justice.

The onus is on the parliament - By passing good laws, they can prevent the courts from meeting out a travesty of justice ... more importantly they can prevent people (like me) from thinking "... should I even be following any of these biased rules? ..."

Greater good of people demands that the rules and laws be based upon equitable and universally accepted principles ... I think some "equitable" principals are laid out in our constitution (I know the constitution provides an exception from "equality" by saying that special rules can be made for women- making a women specific law for tackling a problem faced by both genders is plain idiotic) ... Whether these principles are "universally accepted" remains an open question (The fact is - An individual has practically no choice over his country's constitution just like she/he has no choice over her/his parents, her/his looks , religion, etc ... most people are usually happy with what they have ... the ones who are not become - whiners ... deserters ... misfits ... rebels ... revolutionaries ... pioneers ... inventors ... prophets etc)

Finally, the two things that can reduce the justifications (actually there are some good ones) for partial and biased laws are
1) A more swift, effective and impartial investigative force (can it be police?)
2) Faster justice from the courts


Sambaran said...

We may feel some laws of the society are bad. The way to protest against such a law is to defy the law and accept the punishment which society has assigned for it. Go on repeating the cycle of law-defying and accepting-punishment as long as it is possible. Eventually society will take notice and if the protest has inherent strength, law will change.

Its not my idea. I read it in a book by Amlan Dutta, who claims that it is Gandhi's idea.

jinlin said...

Authentic Nike Shox Cheap Nike Shox Mens Nike Shox