Let the rule of law prevail, not the law of 'rulers'!

The laws are not made to suit the convenience of the rulers alone, but they are enacted to maintain peace, harmony and order in the society. Politicians often change their colours like a chameleon, while the people at large are only concerned about their bread and butter and above all, safety from the dangers within and out of the country.

Obviously, no government worth its salt can ever afford to tolerate the people whose agenda is to create division, chaos and unrest in the country either by themselves or with overt and covert support of forces operating from other countries. Seen in this context, in these columns, we have voiced our grave concern for the sovereignty and unity of the country, and time and again called for the strong action against such fringe elements, which pose a grave threat to the very existence of India as one nation.

Therefore, strict implementation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) without any mercy or let up is the need of the hour. The three-member gang of sleeper cell of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) connected with Darbhanga blast, which has recently been arrested from Hyderabad, speaks volumes for such a ruthless enforcement of the UAPA notwithstanding the chest-beating by the anti-national coterie masquerading as intellectuals from different spheres of activities. Subsequent to the gang's arrest, the hue and cry raised against the crackdown by the country's ace Intelligence agency, the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) is a vocal proof of the engagement and support by such pseudo-intellectuals in nation-breaking activities.

Now, let's look at this small local incident which occurs frequently in and around Telangana. Keeping in tune with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA), some committed groups like Gau Rakshak Samiti and others, have been agitating against the inhuman manner of transportation of animals, including cows and calves. Quite often their complaints to authorities are not attended immediately resulting into the commission of crimes under Section 11 of the PCA. This particular Section lists 15 types of crimes against animals. Recently, the Kerala High Court in a heartwarming gesture, directed the Registry to rename a writ petition as "In Re Bruno" in memory of a hapless dog that succumbed to the inhuman act of three youngsters. Now, if some animal-lovers or public-spirited persons come forward to prevent the crimes against animals, particularly when the police remains inactive, there is nothing wrong. Even the CrPC permits a private person to apprehend a person engaged in commission of a cognizable offence subject to the condition that such an apprehended person shall be handed over to the police at the earliest.

However, some elected representatives with an oblique motive on the vote-bank unduly interfere in the matter by addressing representations to the top brass in police and directing them to turn a deaf ear against the violators of law on animal protection. This is nothing but illegal interference in the official work of public servants which deserves to be condemned in the harshest words. The apex court too, has time and again, made it clear that a public servant need not obey the illegal commands of superiors, including the political bosses.

After all, the Constitution recognises the Rule of Law and can never be replaced by the law of the rulers.

High Courts told to speed up Execution Proceedings

In a bid to speed up the Execution Proceedings (EPs), the Supreme Court has recently issued a slew of directions to all High Courts. A division bench of the apex court in Rahul S Shah vs Jinendra Kumar Gandhi observed: "The Execution Proceedings which are supposed to be handmade of justice and sub-serve the cause of justice are, in effect, becoming tools which are being easily misused to obstruct justice." With a view to reduce delays in EPs and do complete justice, the court issued some 16 specific directions to the High Courts.

Plea against Union Minister falls flat

A plea seeking action against Union Minister General VK Singh, former Chief of the Army, fell flat when the apex court rubbished it. The plea was filed by one, Chandrasekaran Ramasamy claiming to be an activist. He had taken objection to Singh's comments made on February 7, 2021 during his visit to Tamil Nadu. He had said: " …none of you come to know how many times we have transgressed (LoC) as per our perception. We don't announce it. Chinese media does not cover it. Let me assure you, if China has transgressed 10 times, we must have done it at least 50 times as per our perception."

The petitioner contended that this statement of the Minister was in breach of his oath as a Minister, besides weakening India's position globally while giving an opportunity to China to justify its transgressions into Indian side of LoC.

However, the bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana was not convinced and refused to interfere.

Live-in couples dilemma

Confusion prevails over the plight of couples living in live-in-relationship. Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted protection to a live-in couple. But just about a week ago, two other benches of the same High Court had refused to grant any protection to such couples.

Live-in relationships are akin to marriages against parental wishes, where the couple often needs protection. The bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal observed:

"The individual also has the right to formalise the relationship with the partner through marriage or adopt the non-formal approach of a live-in relationship." According to Justice Mittal, live-in relationships are becoming more and more popular in India, even outside of big cities. He added: "Such relationships are not prohibited by law, and thus, persons who enter into such relationships are entitled to equal protection of laws."

Considering the glaring contradiction between the judgements of the same High Court, now there are only two legal possibilities to set at rest the ticklish issue. First, the larger bench decides the matter; and Second, the matter is taken to the Supreme Court for a final decision once and for all.