Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Friday, January 18, 2013

Parents: Happy and Gay!

Same-sex couples are coming out for adoption…

One of the best gifts that one could give someone is ‘life’. You may not be God, but in the form of a parent, you could be his personification for a child. Like Sushmita Sen has shown, it’s not essential to be with someone to be a parent either. Being a parent may not be easy, but this call of eternal love and emotion comes from within. In the present day scenario, there has been a surge in the number of gay couples going through adoption agencies. Adoption sure is a tough decision, and so is the procedure. Even for a conventional couple, child adoption isn’t easy. After a formal application and an NOC from CARA (Central Adoption Resource Agency), the couple has to wait till the authorities find a child suitable to their expectations, and unlike the common belief, parents are not permitted to choose their baby. Adoption isn’t as difficult abroad as is it in India, but it’s nearly impossible to adopt here if you’re gay. Homosexuality has found legal acceptance and sex between gays is no longer a crime, but according to the Supreme Court ruling, there have been no comments as regards marriage rights between gay couples or their adoption rights.

It’ll be long before India opens up to the idea of gays getting married and thereafter adopting a child legally, but for those, for whom love knows no boundaries, such beautiful relationships already exist. “I just got my son married to a girl. I found him on the Bandra Station when he was 13-years old. I raised him and supported him to be able to earn his bread. No one taught me how to be a mother, but I knew it... it is a feeling which comes from within. My partner and I never feel that we are incompetent as parents,” says Mr. Girish Kumar a.k.a. ‘Nihsa’, who lives with his partner Mr. Praveen Sharma. Just like all parents, even gay couples assume roles within a family. One assumes the role of the father and the other, that of a mother. All these feelings come to them very naturally. A child strives for love, care, tenderness and optimum support and guidance. These aspects of one’s life are not subject to sex, and can be fulfilled by anyone who feels for it in the right manner.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPMMalay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
2012 : DNA National B-School Survey 2012
Ranked 1st in International Exposure (ahead of all the IIMs)
Ranked 6th Overall

Zee Business Best B-School Survey 2012
Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri’s Session at IMA Indore
IIPM IN FINANCIAL TIMES, UK. FEATURE OF THE WEEK
IIPM strong hold on Placement : 10000 Students Placed in last 5 year
IIPM’s Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri – A Man For The Society….
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
IIPM makes business education truly global
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman
IIPM B-School Facebook Page
IIPM Global Exposure
IIPM Best B School India
IIPM B-School Detail

IIPM Links
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face
IIPM – FLP (Flexi Learning Program)

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Fourth time unlucky. Fair, was that?

The refusal of bail to DMK leader Kanimozhi and others accused in the 2G scam by a CBI court has evoked reactions from legal eagles on whether the order violates the judicial norm of according bail to accused, once investigations are complete and trial is set to begin.

It was a welcome that was never meant to be. November 5, 2011, was expected to be a day of celebrations for the DMK in Chennai, as it was widely believed that the bail petition of M.K. Kanimozhi, daughter of DMK supremo M. Karunanidhi, would be approved, especially since the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the prosecuting agency, had not objected to pleas for bail by her and four others. Since May this year, Kanimozhi has been in judicial custody in Delhi’s Tihar Jail in connection with the infamous 2G scam. As it happened, the much anticipated relief from the court never came about. On November 4, Special Judge O.P. Saini, heading the CBI Special Court, struck down the bail applications of Kanimozhi and seven others at a packed trial courtroom at the Patiala House complex in Delhi. Kanimozhi – who was otherwise relaxed and calm before the court session began – broke down as her husband G. Aravindan, mother Rajathi Ammal and 11-year-old son tried to console her. This was the fourth time that Kanimozhi’s bail plea was rejected. It was first rejected by a special CBI court, then by the Delhi High Court and then the Supreme Court.

In dismissing Kanimozhi’s bail application along with that of seven others, Judge Saini cited “the very serious nature of the charges” against them, even though the prosecutor had not opposed the bail pleas of most of the accused. Rejecting the contention that the accused should be given bail as the offence was not one punishable with death or life imprisonment, the court’s response was uncharacteristically harsh. “Merely because the offence is not one punishable with death or life imprisonment, the accused is not entitled to bail as a matter of right. If the allegations so warrant, bail may properly be refused even in case of the non-bailable offence not punishable with death or life imprisonment,” stated the Special CBI court. Terming the case, as one of unprecedented nature, Justice Saini observed that, “The facts and circumstances of the case itself suggest that the witnesses would be under a lot of pressure, given the serious consequences of the case for the parties. This is further compounded by the fact that the witnesses are employees, relatives, family members, colleagues and subordinates of the accused persons.”

The court also refused to draw a distinction made by the CBI in not opposing bail to those who were included as accused (Kanimozhi and four others, Asif Balwa, Rajeev Aggarwal, Karim Morani and Sharad Kumar) in the supplementary charge sheet, as they had been charged with a lesser offence punishable with imprisonment for five years, and those cited as accused in the main charge sheet. The court noted that once the supplementary charge sheet was merged with the main charge sheet, there was only one charge sheet and no distinction could be made on the basis of separate charge sheets.