What would you do if your illustrious and shining career comes not only to a halt but takes a huge blow because of a 498A case on you and there is an allegation of demanding Rs. 10,000 as dowry when you have millions to dispense?

What would you do when your hard-earned social reputation and fame goes for a toss owing to a bunch of false allegations on you with the premise you being “Guilty until Proven Innocent”?

What would you do when you are alienated from your own child and sent behind bars on a mere uninvestigated complaint, without trial or investigation?

What would you do if you are deemed as a criminal even before the case against you is proved?

What would you do when you see your dear childhood friend, serving a successful career as an overseas Govt. employee suddenly succumbing to a case under Section 498A of the IPC and committing suicide, being unable to bear the tormenting treatment and leaving behind a touching and sensitive suicide video?

Govt. of Maharashtra has proposed an upcoming bill for division of assets in marriage. Forwarding a bill for “Equal rights for women in husband’s assets” and terming it as a progressive step, the Govt. of Maharashtra seems to be in an uncanny hurry for passing this bill as it plans to pass it at any cost on the 22^nd of December 2011 at the Nagpur Assembly.

Let us see, what this bill means. Before that, let’s see what is the definition of dowry as per law.

“The word ‘dowry’ should be any property or valuable given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage.”

Full definition of dowry is available here

These questions were sent by the HRD Committee on the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill that had come up during the discussion and were left unaddressed due to lack of time. The reply that was sent from the men's rights organizations.

In continuation with - Objections to the HRD committee on Sexual Harassment Bill

Respected Sir/Madam,

Question 1:

The genesis of the proposed legislation is:

a.    Sexual Harassment results in violation of the fundamental rights of a woman to equality under Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution and her rights to life and to live with dignity under Article 21 and right to practice any profession/occupation/trade/business which includes a right to a safe environment free from sexual harassment.

b.    Guidelines providing protection to women against Sexual Harassment at workplace laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Vishakha & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [1997 (7) SC (323)]

c.    Article 11 of the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women to which India is a party requires state parties to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment

What are your views on the above facts? Is it not obligatory on the part of the Government to enact a suitable legislation based on the Supreme Court guidelines given in Vishakha case?

To, THE COUNCIL OF STATES (RAJYA SABHA) Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development

Sub: Views on the current draft of the proposed “Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010

Views and Reservations:

We have the following views about the Bill:-

1. No Locus Standi for the WCD ministry to draft the bill: The bill, at hand, has been drafted by the Honorable Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, henceforth referred to as the WCD ministry. However, the WCD ministry has no locus standiin drafting this bill.
   1. The WCD ministry cannot take refuge under the Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India and violate the essence of the main article i.e. Article 15 which prohibits any form of discrimination based on age, caste or gender. If that had been the case the Constitution of India would be rendered self-contradictory.
   2. When the WCD ministry had sought public opinion about the bill, the general reflection of the citizenry was that the bill must be gender neutral. However, for reasons best known to them, the WCD ministry chose to override the general public opinion and drafted a bill that is gender biased and against the general public opinion. The justification given by them, when asked in an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, was that, “Protection of men does not come under their mandate.” The justification in itself is valid; however, it does not give the WCD ministry, a right to draft a bill which may affect men adversely as well. If protecting men does not come under their mandate, nor does attacking men come under their mandate.
      Write comment (2 Comments)