No Evidence To Indicate Role Of Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra & Parvesh Verma In Delhi Riots: Delhi Po

[jaatram]

Who knows about these imaginary conspiracies better than you and those who believe equally strongly in conspiracy theories among the green chaddis?

you must start medication for selective amnesia..... will be good for you in the future. Will help you ease the butthurt you are experiencing.

 

[Joe Shearer]

hese self appointed conscious keepers of Bharat Mata need a much required treatment.

Were you not the ones threatening to give such a treatment to the Pakistanis, to the Chinese, to the Nepalis? What happened? Ran out of piss and wind and prefer to give such treatment to pregnant women and children from Muslims in India?

you must start medication for selective amnesia..... will be good for you in the future. Will help you ease the butthurt you are experiencing.

The only butthurt is due to reading your slack-jawed drool-mouthed nonsense; now that you have come to the end of your thinking, the business of medication, of amnesia, of butthurt begins. Not surprising, except that you have shown unexpected stamina, to give you back your own bad coin, in lasting this long.

 

[jaatram]

There are no lal chaddis here, only people with a conscience. And people who are educated enough to know the difference between conscience and conscious.

Try to keep your paws off Bharat Mata. You and your like have mauled her enough for your foul games to stay in power.

I agree with you on no lal chaddis here... they are only a bunch of butt naked folks doing their own nanga naach. Virtual breast beaters venting out their frustration while their foot soldiers are being brought to justice.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I agree with you on no lal chaddis here... they are only a bunch of butt naked folks doing their own nanga naach. Virtual breast beaters venting out their frustration while their foot soldiers are being brought to justice.

As I said, the use of brains stopped quite quickly - by normal standards. By your standards, you did well. Very well.

 

[Nilgiri]

As I said, the use of brains stopped quite quickly - by normal standards. By your standards, you did well. Very well.

... these quips always crack me up.

 

[Chhatrapati]

if you only had a fraction of that contempt for those who consistently break the law and violate their oath to uphold the constitution.

Honestly tho why? Why should I respect a system or people that failed at his conviction? My contempt would give what exactly? So that I could be in the club of Modi haters or, this is the best part, watch BJP sweeping Delhi in MC and Union elections? Get my secular certificates from people like Xeuss or Showstopper or even that Radical Islamist from WB which you were rooting/sympathizing with, a few months back. I'm done with it.
At this point, I seriously find anyone from the left/centre-L who invokes Godhra riot connecting Modi as a joke. Don't like it? Feel free to handout Negative ratings in forum leave angry emoji's and bhakt comments on Facebook, cancel on twitter. Or eject from the 'Hive'.

 

[Joe Shearer]

... these quips always crack me up.

What else can one do against these troglodytes?

I'm done with it.

<Gasp!>

Chhatrapati is done with it!

Oy vey.

The end of civilisation as we know it.

 

[saiyan0321]

A Khaki-wash.

when they did not find the PM guilty of mass murder in 2002 you think they will for this? they will blame the victims, As long as this govt is in power one cannot expect justice . The subjugated the judiciary a long time ago.

That may be without a doubt true and of course in our region, abuse of such powers is common however the problem is not just that. Abuse is allowed when there are loopholes in laws and there is no section in the entire penal code of both countries that requires an amendment than the section 153-A which deals with promotion of enmity between groups and most likely the writ was for the charge 153-A clause B which deals with incitement or committing of an act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and harmony between different religions, castes, races, languages, groups etc. etc.

Now the problem with this is the explanation of the framer that was attached as well. As you guys know that the Law that we follow works on the principle of 'Innocent until proven guilty' and the criminal law is based on 'Preference to the accused rather than the accuser' or my favorite 'the accused is the favorite child of the court'. The explanation is what changed the nature of the section which stated that there should be involvement of malicious intention and it is no offence if you dont have malicious intention.

Now lets take two factors in.

The prosecution must prove the accused guilty under the legal concept of 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt' which means that it must be proven 100% that he had malicious intent. concept of mens rea is so strong here that the entire evidence flows from mens rea and ends at mens rea. Which means the prosecution is now focused on proving the thinking of the Accused and subjective mental states are inherently difficult to prove and the prosecution can rely on circumstantial evidence to prove the absence of mens rea

The explanation has now made it the entire game of mens rea. Infact i believe that the interpretation done by the Allahabad court in the case number AIR 1922 All 140 that the section is the embodiment of 'Moral turpitude' made it even a more case of mens rea. Intention plays an important role in morals and by highlighting it as such, the section became even more focused on intention. You see mens rea has alot of subjective elements and these subjective elements when combined with the heavy requirement of evidence in a criminal prosecution, increased the probability of an error in favor of accused. Mens rea gives rise to ignorance pleas as well and in this section where mens rea plays the only role, ignorance pleas plays an important role.

This was cemented 73 years later when in the case numbered AIR 1995 S.C 1785 the court stated that the 'INTENTION' to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the 'Sine qua non' ( a condition without which it cannot be) of the offence U/S 153-A and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea in order to succeed.
This was again created more difficult in the case numbered AIR 1977 S.C 3483 that merely inciting the feelings of one community or group without any reference to another cannot attract the provision of 153-A nor of 505. Which means that you can simply keep telling a group that you are downtrodden and being pressed and are suppressed and must free yourself and the group goes on a killing spree then the inciter will not attract this section. In all these cases the concept of mens rea played an important tole.

Now some jurists have argued in favor of strict liability where mens rea plays such a crucial role however strict liability could place people in jail who really didnt have the intention to cause a riot. The framers of this section took two things into account.

1. That the concept of speaking and free speech must not be made subservient to this section. We see everyday that speeches of leaders and communities have strong elements of 153-A and if strict liability is placed here then those speeches would lead to mass arrests since committing of riot isnt necessary in 153-A. It is necessary in 153-A clause B but not in clause A and many voices would be made silent here if strict liability is to be used. The framers thought with this thinking. Whether you agree with the thinking or not is a different story.
2. The idea of strict liability would place religious texts into question as well since religious texts are against the non-believers and if strict liability is to be applied then the religious texts would banned. There many precedents dating from British India to India and Pakistan where the courts stated strictly that due to Mens rea, 153-A does not apply to religious texts.

With this we understand that strict liability alone would cause more harm than good however the matter cannot be left entirely on mens rea thus i do advocate amending the section in two ways.

First the punishment must be increased from 5 years that both countries have to non-bailable to life imprisonment since incitement is such an offence that it can lead to riots and even genocides. It cannot be allowed to be left without the absolute strict punishment with a mentioned fine that is above one million.

Secondly the section must place actus rea in it as well and i know that some would argue that general mens rea is the committing of the act however the problem here is intention. General mens rea in incitement to riot would be partaking in the riot like supplying weapons or rioting themselves. It wont apply to the act of giving the speech that led to riots. The words must be made part of the evidence, the environment, the situation and the circumstances must be made part of the section so that the law is balanced rather than a climb above a treacherous mountain.

In this case the police has given first piece argument in favor of accused, who is already favored by the court due to law in a case where the prosecution has to prove intention and mental state and none of the three were beating muslims with the rioters.
The judge is going to look at the prosecution now and he say, "ok. That is what the delhi police has stated. What is your case now?" and if the prosecution says, "Police is involved, modi is evil, yogi is evil" he is going to throw the case out including the lawyer.

i am not defending the three but highlighting the monumental task that the prosecution has now in a section that is monumental to prosecute. The law must be amended. We have the same problem here. This is why so many inciters get to walk out of court. Legal evolution is the key here

 

[Chhatrapati]

Oy vey.

The end of civilisation as we know it.

I guess I made myself clear.

you need not fear being taken up seriously.

please spare me the suspension of the 'hive membership'.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I guess I made myself clear.

You made clear that you have preconceived notions and belong to a hive, and disguise it by speaking in parallel terms about those whom you wish to see removed for your hive's greater convenience.

Nothing more.

The position remains deserving of contempt.

 

[Chhatrapati]

The position remains deserving of contempt.

Couldn't care any less.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@saiyan0321

My position is completely different.

Modi was morally responsible for riots, for the killing of a minority in these riots, killing by an organised mob, but he was not guilty of murder as many of us like to put it at the cost of our own credibility, and he was very tightly organised about wiping out the evidence, including telephone company records, including destroying the careers and lives of recalcitrant police officials who would have testified against him.

So why do I blame him, again and again and again? Because of his violation of his sworn oath to uphold the constitution. It is famous that when Vajpayee went to Gujarat after the riots, in his departing press conference, he said in his cryptic, inflected way that Raj Dharma ought to be followed, very clearly implying that it was not followed. It was then that Modi, who was present, broke in, something most extraordinary for a Chief Minister of a State to do to the Prime Minister of the country, and said forcefully,"Wohi toh ho raha tha!" and a nonplussed Vajpayee heard him, kept silent, and waddled back to Delhi.

Modi did not follow Raj Dharma; that is to be interpreted as the constitutional oath of office. It will be noticed immediately that there is no direct link to the Constitution in our laws, other than when a statute defines penalties in its drafting. Other than that, we see every action not in terms of the provisions of the Constitution so much as in terms of the much older Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure, that predated the Constitution, and even the Government of India Act, by nearly half a century.

If we are to stabilise, the proper adherence to the Constitution needs to be handled separately by a permanent bench of the Supreme Court hearing these matters in original, and armed with a series of statutory remedies to these crimes - the breaches in question are nothing short of crimes, in this case, crimes against the state. The business of encounters, for instance; there is no reasonable way in which an ordinary citizen can object to this dangerous practice of the police, and no way in which a citizen can pursue the matter and get the practice stopped, or even get a particular instance investigated and the proven perpetrators handed over to justice.

I think we need to seriously re-align our methods of recognising breaches of the constitution, including violations of the oath of office, and of pursuing these easily and conveniently with the full backing of the state itself in a separate avatar in a progressive and fast-paced court.

Couldn't care any less.

Yes, that is the crux of the problem. It is termites like you who are destroying the state.

 

[saiyan0321]

@saiyan0321

My position is completely different.

Modi was morally responsible for riots, for the killing of a minority in these riots, killing by an organised mob, but he was not guilty of murder as many of us like to put it at the cost of our own credibility, and he was very tightly organised about wiping out the evidence, including telephone company records, including destroying the careers and lives of recalcitrant police officials who would have testified against him.

So why do I blame him, again and again and again? Because of his violation of his sworn oath to uphold the constitution. It is famous that when Vajpayee went to Gujarat after the riots, in his departing press conference, he said in his cryptic, inflected way that Raj Dharma ought to be followed, very clearly implying that it was not followed. It was then that Modi, who was present, broke in, something most extraordinary for a Chief Minister of a State to do to the Prime Minister of the country, and said forcefully,"Wohi toh ho raha tha!" and a nonplussed Vajpayee heard him, kept silent, and waddled back to Delhi.

Modi did not follow Raj Dharma; that is to be interpreted as the constitutional oath of office. It will be noticed immediately that there is no direct link to the Constitution in our laws, other than when a statute defines penalties in its drafting. Other than that, we see every action not in terms of the provisions of the Constitution so much as in terms of the much older Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure, that predated the Constitution, and even the Government of India Act, by nearly half a century.

If we are to stabilise, the proper adherence to the Constitution needs to be handled separately by a permanent bench of the Supreme Court hearing these matters in original, and armed with a series of statutory remedies to these crimes - the breaches in question are nothing short of crimes, in this case, crimes against the state. The business of encounters, for instance; there is no reasonable way in which an ordinary citizen can object to this dangerous practice of the police, and no way in which a citizen can pursue the matter and get the practice stopped, or even get a particular instance investigated and the proven perpetrators handed over to justice.

I think we need to seriously re-align our methods of recognising breaches of the constitution, including violations of the oath of office, and of pursuing these easily and conveniently with the full backing of the state itself in a separate avatar in a progressive and fast-paced court.



Yes, that is the crux of the problem. It is termites like you who are destroying the state.

Legal evolution of the region is very slow especially ours which saw Martial Laws and constant coming and goings of Constitution and Legal orders. One of the most annoying things for me is the lack of original thinking in the legal field on our part.

You suggested punishment for breaking the Articles of the Constitution like say if somebody abrogates the Fundamental rights or is found guilty in case of habeas corpus. There should be remedy and punishment to deter any future attempts. This is an original way of thinking that i have seen is absence in our legal fraternity. We are following the same thinking of keeping the Constitution away criminal prosecution and use it as an administrative document only and if that administration breaks the constitution then there exist no punishment but the punishment in sections provided in the penal code. An original idea is original idea. It can be wrong, flawed but it helps the legal evolution of the country and the legal procedure in place. Let us not forget that not long ago filmer was writing paper on divine rule of kings and John was writing a paper on separation of powers. Ideas clash and burn each other but they always evolve the legal thinking of the nation.

Now if we were to implement your suggestion then that would mean that the parliament would have to amend the constitution where they would be adding penalties on a document that governs them mostly. The sword and shield, that is the Constitution, would become very sharp and thus we would have a system where you can literally drag the ruler to court to punish him for breaking his oath or any article of the Constitution in place and that would mean that you could do the same for other institutions as well. So with all these possibilities, do you really think the legislative would do something so strong against themselves and the establishment or the executive would sign on such an amendment that would harm it the most. This cannot happen unless original thinking develops in our legal system and paper after paper is written on it and the jurists speak it again and again leading to such a pressure where the legislative would be forced to pass such an amendment and the executive to sign upon it.

I have often thought about such an amendment, trying to figure out where it can go wrong and where it cant and the conclusion was that before such prediction can be made, the jurists must up their game focus on new ideas and concepts rather than keep writing about interpretation of the limitation act. Actually work to further legal philosophy and not author books like learn Criminal trial in a 100 steps.

I think that when it comes to legal philosophy, the region of the subcontinent, born of such legal history and constitutional history, has failed to maximize the potential at the start and is now struggling with legal evolution. you cant expect the courts to keep playing the only role. Their rule can only be played through judgments but the legal fraternity in its entirety must play that role. Frankly it is legal philosophy that has suffered in the region's hustle and bustle in the modern world, attempting to gain the package of life.

 

[Joe Shearer]

We are following the same thinking of keeping the Constitution away criminal prosecution and use it as an administrative document only and if that administration breaks the constitution then there exist no punishment but the punishment in sections provided in the penal code.

Precisely.

IMHO, there is a disconnect. We are using a geared system to translate the provisions of the constitution into practical applications in day-to-day life.

Now if we were to implement your suggestion then that would mean that the parliament would have to amend the constitution where they would be adding penalties on a document that governs them mostly. The sword and shield, that is the Constitution, would become very sharp and thus we would have a system where you can literally drag the ruler to court to punish him for breaking his oath or any article of the Constitution in place and that would mean that you could do the same for other institutions as well. So with all these possibilities, do you really think the legislative would do something so strong against themselves and the establishment or the executive would sign on such an amendment that would harm it the most.

No, they will not, not unless hounded to do so.

There is another, greater problem.

What I have suggested is a major breach in the philosophical foundation of common law, as there will be far more dependence on a written code - the constitution, or its simulacrum - than on the body of case law that has accrued already, on laws that were different from the proposed derivative constitution-based body of laws.

This cannot happen unless original thinking develops in our legal system and paper after paper is written on it and the jurists speak it again and again leading to such a pressure where the legislative would be forced to pass such an amendment and the executive to sign upon it.

LOL.

I used crude language - hounding by ordinary citizens. But of course you are right; any deep change like this has to be explored threadbare before it even approaches statute-making.

 

[saiyan0321]

Precisely.

IMHO, there is a disconnect. We are using a geared system to translate the provisions of the constitution into practical applications in day-to-day life.

The thing is if a law is given absolute importance and is given the importance of supra-law then that law must contain the power to penalize the person that broke such a law. Multiple citations and precedents and jurists have claimed that constitutional law is supra-law so how can such superiority exist if that law cant punish? If a legislator comes to power based on fraud, lies, deception, fake documents then shouldnt he be punished for deceiving the system, the people and the country? ofcourse he should be. If somebody stifles the freedom of speech then should he be punished? ofcourse he should be. Remedy is not the only solution but can only be properly awarded through criminal prosecution.

I have seen, in most cases the courts treat it either as administrative law or at best civil law with remedy which is found in civil law. For example if a person lies in assembly then his membership is revoked. simply Civil punishment. If a department does not do the work he is asked to do then the courts will order him to do it. Simple nothing extraordinary. The officer is not punished for not doing his work but why isnt he punished? Time is spent on that writ, finances are spent so why isnt the officer punished?

This is a huge huge discussion that can only be perfected when scores of jurists write upon it with different ideas and concepts against it and for it.

What I have suggested is a major breach in the philosophical foundation of common law, as there will be far more dependence on a written code - the constitution, or its simulacrum - than on the body of case law that has accrued already, on laws that were different from the proposed derivative constitution-based body of laws.

All ideas area breach. That is why they are considered original. Separation of powers in a time when divine right to rule existed, was also a breach. I am not saying this is the solution. If anything this is strict liability and it may lead to strong codification but such ideas are neither bad nor good but those that help the constitutional evolution of the country. Filmer wrote on divine right to rule and in return john locke wrote on separation of powers. his separation of powers saw the parliament as supreme but such clashes brought forth new ideas. We need to start the thinking before we even act.

LOL.

I used crude language - hounding by ordinary citizens. But of course you are right; any deep change like this has to be explored threadbare before it even approaches statute-making.

Ordinary citizens are not going to do this. This is the game of legals and they are the ones that understand this. Ordinary people just want justice