You want to demoralise security forces? SC refuses to hear PIL over Pahalgam attack
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to examine a PIL seeking a judicial probe into the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 people were killed.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh castigated the petitioners for seeking a retired judge to monitor probe into the Pahalgam attack and said retired judges were not experts.
"In this crucial time, each and every citizen of the country has joined hands to fight terror. Do you want to demoralise the security forces by filing this kind of PIL. Don’t bring this kind of issue in judicial domain," the bench said.
Petitioners Fathesh Kumar Saahu and others were consequently asked to withdraw the PIL.
The top court asked the petitioners to realise the sensitivity of the issue and not make any prayer in court which demoralised the forces.
"You are asking retired Supreme Court judge to investigate. They are not experts in investigation but can only adjudicate and decide an issue. Don't ask us to pass an order. Go wherever you want to go. Better you withdraw," the bench told one of the petitioners.
The PIL sought a direction to the Centre and J-K administration to ensure the safety of tourists.
Terrorists on April 22 opened fire in Baisaran, a popular tourist spot in the upper reaches of Pahalgam in Anantnag district, killing 26 people, mostly holidayers from other states -- an incident that has spiked India-Pakistan tensions, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi asserting that the killers would be pursued "to the ends of the earth."
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.
