Criminalisation of politics has to end
Politics has come a long way from the one that was practiced by Gandhi, Nehru and AKG. It has been at least three decades since money and muscle power has been dictating the terms of politics in the country. Our assemblies have become safe haven for criminals after globalisation, liberalization and privatization set in.
According to a report by the Association for Democratic Research one third of our politicians in both houses are facing serious criminal allegations against them.
About 35 % of the chief ministers are facing serious criminal cases. This news is very detrimental to India's democracy. In this context the Supreme Court has said the Parliament should draught a policy that would discourage people with criminal cases or background from contesting in the elections. General or Assembly Elections being Far Cry people are finding it difficult to even contest the local elections without the power of money and muscle in this background Supreme court's ruling is more than welcome.
Everybody Talks about decriminalising the politics. But nobody has the solution to achieve this goal. Which is why the Supreme Court has thrown this ball into the court of the Parliament.
People with backgrounds in real estate stone and sand mafias are easily winning elections. This is causing massive disturbance in the tectonic plates of democracy. This is the reason supreme court has to enter into the scene and protect the sanctity of a democratic process. Is criminalisation of politics has occupied Panchayat level elections to Parliament level elections as well. People spend crores to contest urban body elections such as panchayat or municipality. One cannot even imagine how much would the general and assembly election candidates spend on their campaigning and related expenses.
According to an estimate, on an average, each candidate could be spending more than Rs 30 crore on the least possible estimate. A liberal estimate would shock the sane people into distress.
The one who spend money like water will ensure they make at least 100 times more than what they were forced to spend to win elections once they assume power. Majority of them would most certainly have criminal backgrounds. It is not easy to get them on track. During the government that ruled Karnataka between 2008 and 2013, people with criminal background occupied vantage positions. The ones who ran Ballari republic had posed a serious threat to democratic mode of administration in the state. This mining mafia had used its office and power to cover its illegal activities. This is not restricted to Karnataka alone. Such mafias control the Democratic institutions across India and in some cases across the world too. Having tasted the heady power, this mafia tried to alter electoral process and win last elections. Even now they try to buy over elected representatives to upset the current government. This being the reality, cleaning up politics is not an easy task even when the Supreme Court says so.
When all houses and assemblies are filled with elected representatives with criminal background, it's not only difficult to control their existence but also the entry of more such persons into mainstream politics. Drafting a policy is just one part of the challenge. It is essential to bring integrated change in electoral politics. People or voters also have a duty of rejecting candidates with criminal backgrounds. Political parties should deny tickets for candidates with criminal background.
This is not just the question of politics but a larger issue of national interest as well. Today this country needs clean politics more than ever. The poorest of the poor, farmers, Dalits, and common people have strived hard to protect this country's democracy. People will have to take proactive approach towards cleaning up the politics of this country. This problem will never be remedied by elected representatives, if we leave it to them. People will have to ensure mining and sand mafia beneficiaries, real estate thugs and evil communal politicians do not enter the temples of democracy.
People have to be made aware of their responsibility in this regard.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
When a woman says no, it means no: HC upholds conviction of three men for gang rape
Mumbai (PTI): The Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction of three men for raping one of their partners, ruling that when a woman says no, it means no, and there can be no presumption of consent based on her past sexual activities.
“No means no”, the bench of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and M W Chandwani said in its May 6 judgment refusing to accept the attempt made by the convicts to question the morals of the survivor.
Sexual intercourse when done without the consent of a woman is an assault on her body, mind and privacy, said the court, terming rape the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in society.
“A woman who says ‘NO’ means ‘NO’. There exists no further ambiguity and there could be no presumption of consent based on a woman's so-called immoral activities,” HC said.
The court refused to quash the conviction of the three persons but reduced their sentence from life imprisonment to 20 years in jail.
In their appeal, the trio had claimed that the woman was initially involved with one of them but later got into a live-in relationship with another man.
In November 2014, the three barged into the survivor’s house, assaulted her live-in partner and forcibly took her to a nearby deserted spot where they raped her.
The bench in its judgment said that even if a woman was an estranged wife and lived with another man without getting divorced from her husband, a person cannot force the woman to have intercourse with him without her consent.
The bench said even though the survivor and one of the convicts were in a relationship in the past, any sexual act without her consent would amount to rape if she was not willing to have intercourse with him and the other accused.
“A woman who consents to sexual activities with a man at a particular instance does not ipso facto (by the fact itself) give consent to sexual activity with the same man at all other instances. A woman’s character or morals are not related to the number of sexual partners she has had,” the court said.
The court said sexual violence diminishes the law and unlawfully encroaches on the privacy of a woman.
“Rape cannot be treated only as a sexual crime but it should be viewed as a crime involving aggression. It is a violation of her right to privacy. Rape is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in society, as it is an assault on the body, mind and privacy of the victim,” HC said.
The court also upheld the trio’s conviction for the assault of the survivor’s live-in partner.
