New Delhi, April 21: Human rights organisation Amnesty International India on Saturday termed a "knee-jerk reaction" the decision to introduce death penalty for those convicted of raping a child below the age of 12, calling on the government to improve implementation of existing laws to protect children from sexual abuse.
"The government's decision to introduce death penalty through an ordinance is a knee-jerk reaction that diverts attention from the poor implementation of laws on rape and child protection," said Amnesty International India Programme Director Asmita Basu.
"Studies have shown that most perpetrators are 'known' to child victims and introducing the death penalty in such circumstances will only silence and further endanger children. Both the Justice Verma Committee and India's Law Commission have questioned the deterrent value of death penalty in preventing crimes.
"Instead, the government must allocate adequate resources for the effective implementation of existing laws, improve conviction rates and ensure that justice is done in all cases of child abuse. The President (Ram Nath Kovind) must not approve this regressive ordinance, as it does little to promote the best interests of children," she added.
The Union Cabinet on Saturday approved an ordinance that provides for death penalty to those convicted of raping a child below the age of 12 and life term for raping a girl below age of 16.
The ordinance comes in response to nationwide protests against the alleged gang-rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl in Jammu and Kashmir's Kathua region.
According to media reports, the ordinance will amend the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Evidence Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to introduce a new provision to sentence convicts of such crimes to the punishment of death.
The National Crime Records Bureau's Crime in India Report, 2016, highlighted that only 28.2 per cent of the child sexual abuse cases brought to trial have resulted in convictions.
Despite the low conviction rates, recently four Indian states, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana and Arunachal Pradesh, have introduced the death penalty for the rape of girls below the age of 12.
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.
Young advocates urge Chief Justice of India to reconsider transfer of Karnataka High Court judges
Bengaluru: A group of over 200 young advocates practicing before the Karnataka High Court have submitted a formal representation to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, expressing concern over the proposed transfer of certain sitting judges of the High Court.
In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, the junior members of the Bar have appealed for a reconsideration of the transfers, describing the judges in question as respected figures known for their fairness, judicial discipline, and support for young lawyers. According to the advocates, these judges have consistently fostered courtroom environments that are patient, merit-focused, and encouraging for those in the early stages of their legal careers.
The signatories expressed particular concern about the absence of a stated rationale for the proposed transfers, especially given the integrity, impartiality, and judicial efficiency demonstrated by the judges in question. They emphasized that while judicial transfers are administrative decisions, they have a profound impact on the morale of the legal community, particularly on young practitioners.
While fully respecting the authority and wisdom of the Hon'ble Collegium, the advocates clarified that their representation is not a critique but a sincere appeal from those who have directly benefited from the conducive judicial atmosphere created by the concerned judges. They stressed the need for transparency in such decisions and urged that the perspective of the younger generation of lawyers be given due consideration.
The representation concludes with an appeal to safeguard the ideals of judicial independence, consistency, and public trust in the judiciary.
