On Vijayadasami Day, that
is 26 Oct, I went to the nearby temple dedicated to Lord Siva. The temple is
managed by the Malabar Devaswam Board. Though the temples under the Board open
quite early for the regular rituals, darsan is allowed only after 7 am.
Devotees are required to get their name and mobile number registered at the
counter set up at the entrance. The time was 06.59 am. On approaching the
counter I was told that entry would be permitted only at 7 am. And the next
minute the employee opened the register and started the registrations process.
Wow, what punctuality!
I normally do not go to
any government offices before 10.30 am or after 4 pm, though the working hours
begin at 10 am and end only at 5 pm. The only reason is that most of the
employees start trickling in only after 10 and many of them trickle out after
4.
Once I was at the Treasury
to encash a cheque. The time was 10.45. The cashier was still not available.
Around 11, I walked into the cabin of the Assistant Treasury Officer as
enquired about the cashier’s counter which was still not open. He responded
nonchalantly that the cashier had gone to the bank, next door, to collect cash.
Another 15 minutes passed and the crowd waiting for the cashier began to get
restive. I suggested that we meet the District Collector as a group and bring
the matter to his notice. There weren’t anybody willing to do that. So I went
back to the ATO and asked him, with due agitation, why the cashier was not at
his counter even after one and half hours of the scheduled time. Suddenly
another employee came up from behind and blocked the exit, simultaneously
shouting ‘call the police, this guy has manhandled our officer’. I just brushed
past him and made my way out. Commotion followed, and police came. Fortunately,
the crowd was with me and the police left after taking down my personal
details. By then the cashier had come and opened the counter. My formal
complaints did not elicit any positive response from the concerned authorities.
And there was this Personal
Assistant to the Secretary of the Municipality who would go early on Fridays
(practically after noon off) and come late on Mondays (by 11.30). This was
because her home was away in a different district and she could not commute
daily. So, the long weekends were enjoyed almost as a right with the tacit
approval of her boss. I am sure this PA was not the only such case.
Once there was a siege of
the Collectorate. It started well before working hours so that no employee
could get into the complex. It lasted till 3 pm or so. An application under the
RTI Act for inspecting the attendance registers revealed that all employees had
been marked present, both in the forenoon and afternoon. On further query, I
was informed that all the employees had waited patiently outside in the
scorching sun and on the siege being called off had entered their offices. They
had marked their attendance with the permission of the Collector. On seeking a
copy of the permission and the authority of the Collector to give such
permission, there was no response.
Same day, the District
Consumer ‘Court’ working in the same premises had also marked all their
employees present. But in the dockets of the cases posted for that day, it had
been recorded that the cases were being adjourned due to non-availability of
the staff. Complaint to the then Chief Minister elicited no action.
Kerala is known as a
consumer state. Right from the milk and vegetables we consume, everything comes
from neighboring states. Kerala has also proved to be one of the best markets
for luxury cars. However, as far as the government is concerned it is truly
said that all the tax collected by it isn’t enough to even pay its employees.
Whatever little is done towards constructing and maintaining roads or paying
social security pensions, the money must come from sale of liquor and lottery
tickets. But with Covid, even commerce has taken a beating here. So, now even
the Motor Vehicle Act is being extensively used to collect fines.
A report on social media (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0nMjQG5GnM, it is in
Malayalam) states that for everything and anything- using alloy wheels to names
written the on glasses- the motor vehicles department is levying fines. The
reporter had only two requests- one, the rules should be enforced without fear
or favor and, two, those who are required to maintain the roads should also be
penalized for their failures.
And that brings me to the
issue of members of the IAS using flags with the emblem of their alma mater-
the Lal Bahadur Sastri National Institute of Administration- on their cars. A
member of the IPS, when appointed as the Transport Commissioner, ordered these
to be removed as they were held illegal. The IAS lobby prevailed on the
political leadership to make it legal.
I have always wondered if
between enforcing road rules and enforcing cleanliness of public spaces which
should get priority. I for one, have no doubt that it should be the latter
because the unhygienic surroundings affect the whole community adversely,
health wise. But that is not the case.
The floods of 2018 had
cleaned the river Bharathapuzha like never before. But soon one could see
people defecating on the rocks in the river bed. A complaint to the
municipality followed by an application under the RTI Act revealed that a
Health Inspector had visited the place and a board had been put up there
warning people of penalties for defiling the river.
On 31 Oct 2020, The
Statesman reported a ruling of the Allahabad High Court (https://www.thestatesman.com/india/religious-conversion-just-for-purpose-of-marriage-is-not-acceptable-allahabad-hc-1502932769.html)
in a case where a Muslim
girl had converted to Hinduism on 29/06/2020 and married a Hindu boy on
31/07/2020. The couple had sought direction of the court to their relatives not
to interfere with their married life coercively. The judge had dismissed the
petition on 23/09/2020 observing that the said conversion has taken place only
for the purpose of marriage.
Since the question in this
case was not of the validity of marriage per se and was only of being left to
live their life in peace, I got a copy of the order (WRIT - C No. -
14288 of 2020) and studied it. The learned judge had quoted a case law (Writ-C
No.57068 of 2014) where the case of a Hindu girl who had converted to Islam at
the behest of a Muslim youth who had married her after conversion and a few
similar cases had been decided. The girls did not know anything about Islamic
faith, Koran or the prophet had been quoted as the reason to hold the marriage
void.
Now there is a report
dated 23 Jan 2019 of Deccan Chronicle where in a Hindu girl (Valliamma) had
married a Muslim man (Mohammed Illias) without converting. A division bench of
the apex court had held that the marriage was irregular and the effect of such
a marriage is that the wife is entitled to get dower but cannot inherit the
husband’s property. However, the son born of that marriage was entitled to inherit
the property of the father.
And here is an even more
weird case. ‘SBI says husband can't use wife's debit card, court agrees’ (https://m.timesofindia.com/city/bengaluru/woman-at-fault-for-sharing-debit-card-with-spouse-court/amp_articleshow/64485320.cms).
The gist of the case is
like this. A pregnant lady gave her ATM Card to her husband to draw money from
an SBI ATM. The machine delivered a slip showing the money was debited, but the
amount was never released. He reported the matter to the bank and was told the
amount would be credited into the account within 24 hours. But it did not
happen. The bank thereafter denied responsibility stating that the transaction
had been completed correctly. The couple obtained CCTV footage confirming that
the cash was not dispensed. They also obtained a cash verification report of
the ATM for that day, which showed excess cash of Rs 25,000 in the machine. The
Banking Ombudsman closed their case by simply observing that the ATM PIN had
been shared. The Bangalore IVth Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum upheld the Ombudsman’s decision, after almost four years, on 29 May 2018.
The case of a young widow
trying to get a medical insurance claim of her late husband is yet another
study of this law of lawlessness. The husband had died of cancer in the brain.
While under treatment, he had undergone chemotherapy through tablets taken
orally. This did not need hospitalization due to advancement in medical
science. But every course of oral tablets needed prescription from the
Oncologist, before which certain other related procedures like MRI Scan had to
be undergone. Each course cost Rs 25000/- and there were 6 courses for one
cycle of treatment, lasting 6 months. The terms and conditions of the policy
also explicitly stated:
Hospitalisation shall mean
admission in any hospital/ nursing home in India upon the written advice of a Medical
Practitioner for a minimum period of 24 consecutive hours. The time limit of 24
hours will not be applicable for the following surgeries/procedures.
xxx
Or, any other
surgeries/procedures agreed by TPA/Company which require less than 24 hours
hospitalization due to advancement in Medical Technology.
So, the only question
involved before the Insurance Ombudsman and subsequently the High Court was:
what were the conditions that needed to be fulfilled for the TPA/Company to
agree for procedures that needed less than 24 hours hospitalization? Suffice to
say both, the Ombudsman and the Court, did not give her the required relief, or
more precisely, justice.
A week ago, I had posted a
query at Quora: When judges are required to know the law and the parties to any
case are expected to know the facts, why should we have advocates representing
parties before judges? I had tagged a few lawyers and activists suggested by
the site. There were 6 responses in as many days. And all of them were harping
on the same old points of knowing the laws, procedure, format et al. I had only
one reply. And that was a quote from the book 'India's Legal system: Can it be
saved? by Fali S Nariman, a renowned jurist. He had stated unambiguously that ‘For
more years than I can imagine we lawyers have been using our lawyering skills
not in a profession but in a game, in which the more skillful (which tends to
become also the more costly), will invariably win.’ In other words, the richer
of the contenders will (invariably) win in our courts.
Long back I came across
two judgments of the apex court, quoted by the respondent to an appeal being
pursued in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission:
In Ittavira Vs Varkey (A
1964 SC 907) the court had ruled that 'courts have jurisdiction to decide right
or to decide wrong and even though they decide wrong, the decrees rendered by
them cannot be treated as nullities'. And,
In Misrilal Vs Sadasiviah
(A 1965 SC 553) the apex court had ruled that 'there can be no interference in
revision merely because the decision is erroneous in law or in fact where there
is no error pertaining to jurisdiction'.
And we saw how many times
P Chidambaram had approached the apex court for bail.
I have been writing on how
even the simplest of laws, the Right to Information Act, has been subverted by
the very people tasked, empowered, equipped and paid to enforce it. I will not
dwell on it for now. But the question needs to be asked: who deserves to be punished
more severely- the ordinary folks who are not too conversant with our
complicated laws or those who are tasked, empowered, equipped and paid to
enforce them?
04 Nov 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment