Law should take its course in nun rape case: Bishops' body
Thiruvananthapuram, Sep 16: Denying that it wanted a Bishop accused in the rape of a nun to step down, the Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI) on Sunday said that law should take its course in the matter.
"(Our) silence should in no way be construed as siding with either of the two parties. We have learnt of certain statements attributed to our President, Cardinal Oswald Gracias, that (accused) Bishop Franco Mulakkal of Jalandhar diocese should step down," CBCI Secretary General Bishop Theodore Mascarenhas said in a statement here.
"We wish to clarify that he has made no such statement and wishes to disassociate himself from any such statement. Bombay Archdiocese spokesman's comments are in his personal capacity and have to be taken as such.
"We reiterate what we said earlier: The CBCI has no jurisdiction over individual Bishops. Besides, a police probe is on. One party has approached the Kerala High Court... Church authorities will take a decision once police file a definitive report after investigations," the statement added.
He said they were expressing their "distress" regarding developments regarding accusations against Mulakkal.
The CBCI statement comes after Kerala Police asked accused Bishop Mulakkal to appear before a probe team on September 19.
Mulakkal stepped down as Bishop of the Jalandhar Diocese on September 15, handing over temporary charge of the diocese to Father Mathew Kokkandam.
A Kerala nun had accused Mulakkal of repeatedly raping her between 2014 and 2016. Five other nuns of the congregation have supported her claim and along with a section of the laity are holding a protest at Kochi, which continued for the ninth day on Sunday.
An FIR was registered against the Bishop, with the nun and other convent inmates giving detailed statements running into 114 pages.
Mulakkal has denied wrongdoing and termed it a "conspiracy" against him.
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.
‘Pay worker before sweat dries’: Madras HC invokes prophet’s teaching to settle lawyer’s dues
Madurai: Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad to emphasise principles of fairness in labour jurisprudence, the Madras High Court has directed the Madurai City Municipal Corporation to settle the unpaid legal fees of a former standing counsel. Justice G.R. Swaminathan, in an order passed on Saturday, referred to the prophetic principle, “pay the worker before his sweat dries”, observing that this tenet is a facet of fairness eminently applicable to service and labour law.
The court was hearing a plea filed by P. Thirumalai, who served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for over 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. Thirumalai contended that the civic body had failed to pay outstanding dues amounting to Rs 13.05 lakh for his representation in approximately 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts. The current petition was filed after the Corporation rejected a substantial part of his claim following a previous court direction to consider his representation.
Addressing the practical difficulties faced by the petitioner, who stated he could not afford to engage a clerk to obtain certified copies of the 818 judgments to substantiate his work, Justice Swaminathan devised a pragmatic solution. The court permitted the former counsel to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) with a list of cases. The DLSA has been directed to procure the certified copies within two months, with the costs to be borne by the corporation and later deducted from the petitioner’s final settlement.
While the court acknowledged the Corporation's stance that fee bills must be in order, it ordered the civic body to settle the dues within two months of receiving the records from the DLSA.
However, citing the petitioner’s 18-year delay in challenging the non-payment, the court ruled that the settlement would be made without interest.
Beyond the specific relief granted to the petitioner, the single-judge bench made strong observations regarding the administration of legal fees and public funds. Justice Swaminathan termed the petitioner’s claim a "pittance" compared to the number of his appearances and expressed concern over the disparity in payments within the legal field. He noted that while "scandalously high amounts" are often paid to certain senior counsels and law officers by government and quasi-government bodies, others struggle to receive basic dues. The court observed that good governance requires public funds to be drawn on a measured basis and not distributed capriciously to a favoured few.
The Judge also flagged the "embarrassment" caused by the high number of Additional Advocate Generals (AAGs) in the state, noting that the appointment of nearly a dozen officers leads to work being allotted unnecessarily. He criticized the frequent practice of government counsel seeking adjournments on the pretext that an engaged AAG is appearing elsewhere. Justice Swaminathan expressed hope that such practices would cease in the Madurai Bench and that the Additional Advocate Generals would "turn a new leaf" from 2026.
