Castrate Child Rapists, Delhi ASJ Kamini Lau Suggests

Source : Times of India

In an observation that is bound to spark a debate, a trial court on Saturday advocated the use of "chemical castration" as an alternative to a jail term for rapists. 

Additional sessions judge Kamini Lau said, "The Indian legislatures are yet to... address the issue (of rape) with all seriousness by exploring the possibility of permitting imposition of alternative sentences of surgical castration or chemical castration, particularly in cases involving rape of minors, serial offenders and child molesters or as a condition for probation, or as an alternative sentence in case of plea bargaining." 

Delhi additional sessions judge Kamini Lau suggested castration as an alternative punishment for rapists while hearing the case against a man who had raped his 15-year-old step-daughter for over four years. Though the court sentenced him to 10 year of rigorous imprisonment, it said that such crimes were required to be addressed differently. "A full public debate, with regard to imposition of castration (both surgical and chemical) as an alternative punishment for the offence of rape and molestation, is the need of the hour," ASJ Lau said. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on convict Dinesh Yadav, 35, a labourer by profession. 

It directed that a copy of the order be sent to the secretary of ministry of law and justice, Government of India and national commission for women. 

The Indian Penal Code provides only a jail term for sexual offenders. Countries like USA, UK, Germany, etc, have started using chemical castration as an alternative. Chemical castration is administration of medication designed to reduce libido and sexual activity, usually in the hope of preventing rapists, child molesters and other sex offenders from repeating their crimes. In surgical castration, the testes or ovaries are removed through an incision in the body. Medical experts, however, are divided on the efficacy of the method. 

The judge observed that though the method is "not the perfect solution to inhibit child molestation", it certainly discourages sexual assault better than incarceration. 

The court expressed its apprehension that the idea may get panned by activists. "I am not oblivious of the fact that arguments are bound to be raised against the above by some activists, but in my view, it would be sheer hypocrisy given the damage the rapist and sexual predators do to their victims,'' the judge added.

Delhi High Court Stays Imposition of Service Tax on Lawyers

Source: The Statesman

In a relief to advocates across the country, the Delhi High Court today stayed a Central government notification levying service tax on practising lawyers. 

“The notification is stayed,” a Bench comprising Chief Justice Mr Dipak Misra and Mr Sanjiv Khanna said, on a petition by Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) challenging the Centre's notification. 

The Bench also issued notice to the Union government on DHCBA's plea and asked it to file its response within two weeks. The next hearing has been fixed for 23 May. The government had on 25 April notified the Legal Practitioners Bill, 2010 for imposing 10 per cent tax on the fee charged by lawyers for their legal services. The Bill was to be implemented from 1 May. 

Lawyers in the Delhi High Court and all the six Delhi districts courts had observed a day-long strike on 24 March, when the Bill was passed in the Parliament, to protest the finance Bill proposing levy of 10 per cent tax on the fee charged by them for rendering legal services to their clients. 

Delhi Bar Association president Mr Rajiv Khosla had said lawyers are against imposition of service tax on their profession and on services rendered by them to the firms and companies, besides the services given by legal firms to individuals. “Instead of imposing 10 per cent service tax on lawyers, the Centre should make efforts to stop corruption,” Mr Khosla had said.

Relief for Dinakaran as Supreme Court Stays Impeachment Proceedings

Source : Indlaw

In a major relief to Sikkim High Court Chief Justice P D Dinakaran, who is facing allegations of corruption, land grabbing and judicial misconduct, the Supreme Court today stayed the impeachment proceedings pending against him.

A bench comprising Justices H S Bedi and C K Prasad also issued notices to Vice-President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari and senior advocate P P Rao, a member of the three-member inquiry committee asking them to explain why the notification appointing a three-member panel headed by sitting Supreme Court Judge Aftab Alam, should not be quashed. 

The apex court granted them two weeks time to respond to the allegation made in the petition filed by Justice Dinakaran.

The Supreme Court collegium, headed by the Chief Justice had recalled its earlier recommendation of elevation of Justice Dinakaran to the Supreme Court, following the media reports exposing corruption and land grabbing allegedly indulged in by him during his tenure as Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. He was later shifted to Sikkim High Court. 

Senior Counsel Amarander Saran, appearing for Justice Dinakaran, contended before the court that Mr P P Rao was biased against him being a member of the lawyers' delegation that met the then Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan against his elevation to the Supreme Court. Therefore, a free and fair inquiry was not possible till the removal of Mr Rao from the panel. 

The third member of the panel is Karnataka High Court Chief Justice J S Khehar. 

A bench comprising Justices D K Jain and H L Dattu had yesterday recused from hearing the case.

Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict on Ex-BCCI President’s Plea

Source : Indlaw

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court today delivered a split verdict on a petition filed by former BCCI President AC Muthiah challenging the amendment made in BCCI Rules to enable N. Srinivasan to contest election for the post of BCCI secretary. 

Justice JM Panchal dismissed the petition while Justice Gyan Sudha Misra allowed the petition filed by Mr. Muthiah and declared the amendment made in BCCI Rules to favour Mr N. Srinivasan as null and void and discriminatory. 

Mr. Srinivasan has stakes in Chennai Super Kings, one of the teams participating in IPL tournaments and the BCCI Rules did not permit a person having stakes in any other tournament affiliated to BCCI to contest the election. The rule was amended just to favour Mr. Srinivasan so that he may contest for the post of BCCI secretary, the petitioner contended. 

Petitioner has also contended that the amendment was arbitrary and illegal and therefore it should be quashed. 

The case shall now be heard afresh by a larger bench which may also have a relook at the earlier Supreme Court judgment which had declared that BCCI is not a state under Article 12 of the Constitution. 

The two-judge bench directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate bench.

Find the copy of the Judgment in A.C. Muthaih v Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr.