Friday, 21 August 2015

Parawise reply to DELHI CHARTER OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS BILL, 2015.

PARAWISE REPLY TO DELHI CHARTER OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS BILL, 2015

In the era when various courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court has talked about the gamut of misuse of Gender based (biased) laws, the Delhi Government, known for its target of vote bank appeasement, has proposed Delhi Charter of Women's Rights Bill 2015.
 
The Government has completely ignore Men and Mal vote bank and it is really sad to see the proposal as that makes me question myself, I AM A MAN AND NOT EVEN EXISTING FOR GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI?
 
Today, group of Mumbai University 'FEMALE' students unwrapped what Public Opinion is really saying. So, Dear Politicians, ignoring men is like playing with emotions of Male Vote Bank (and female too as the survey report had 997 female respondents out of 2000 total surveyed).
 
Source: http://www.mid-day.com/articles/men-too-are-victims-of-sexism-find-girls-who-carried-out-survey-in-mumbai/16472159
 

Here is the para-wise reply to the proposal of Delhi Dialogue Commission:

SectionDraft ProposalResponseObjection
3In respect of the enforcement and effectuation of any of the Rights enumerated under this Act, the Commission shall be empowered to formulate schemes, rules and regulations for ensuring the availability of all of such RightsSTRONGLY OPPOSEDPlease refer to The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, even National Human Rights Commission CANNOT formulate ANY Schemes, Rules, Regulations. Please refer to Chapter II, Section 12, subsection (d), which clearly states " review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation;". We would like to re-emphasize on the exact wording which says "review and recommend". So when NHRC is not having such powers, how a GENDER SPECIFIC body be conferred with powers of formulating rules? This is in direct violation of Human Rights Act and hence strongly opposed.
4 (a)a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court, appointed by the Chief Justice of the High Court, who shall be the President of the Commission;STRONGLY OPPOSEDIn the time, when already Judiciary is suffering with lot of vacancies because of which the courts are over-burdened, proposing a sitting Judge for this additional role is clearly inhuman towards Judges and towards litigants who are already suffering with inordinate delay and hence strongly opposed.
4 (b) (ii)be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to women, children or sexual minorities.STRONGLY OPPOSEDIt is high time that such a bias for constitutional positions is ended with immediate effect. Unfortunately, plight of men is not a concern for the current or previous government and the 'assumption' of women being harassed is being countered by 'bias against men'. If a person has NO EXPERIENCE in problems related to BOTH men and women, such a person MUST not be given these powers. Basing such discussions on Justice Verma committee is grossly wrong as a biased report can not be relied upon. We wish to remind the government that Justice Verma Committee was formed on basis of a knee-jerk reaction & a specific group appeasement and was completely guided and misguided by the ongoing media trials. Such a report and it's implementation is unconstitutional. Hence, strongly opposed.
4
Explanation (d)
has been removed or dismissed from the service of the Government or a body corporate owned or controlled by the Government; orSTRONGLY OPPOSEDIt is very common where a man is generally removed from the service post any of the criminal cases, which are generally filed with ease of 'ordering a pizza' in case of 49 Anti-Male laws. It is also widely known that either because of the involved woman creating ruckus as man's workplace or by way of sending case details illegally to the company HR, the complainant girl easily damages the man professionally also. In such a wide spread misuse, a man not being allowed to be part of this proposed commission is gross abuse of his Human Rights, hence strongly opposed.
4 (1)The Commission shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) but shall be guided by principles of natural justice and subject  to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Commission shall have powers to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its hearing. STRONGLY OPPOSEDWith this proposal, it is clear that this draft has been proposed in gross disrespect to the laid down laws. Allowing a biased commission to not follow the law of the land (like CrPC) is similar to having a lawless land where there are bodies who have powers above the law. This proposal is making a joke of the Democracy and Independence of India and hence Strongly Opposed & Objected.
4 (2)For the purpose of proceedings under this Act, the Commission shall have all the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) in respect of the following matters, namely;-
(a) summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document or any other material which is produceable as evidence;
(c) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;
(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
(e) power to punish for contempt arising out of wilful failure to comply with any order of the Commission;
(e) such other matters as may be prescribed. 
STRONGLY OPPOSEDTHIS IS GROSS VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF MEN. When the commission does not have mandate to protecting Men, how can it be given any rights even closer to a Civil Court? So, India is heading towards making a Justice system where Men will ALWAYS BE RESPONDENT? MEN WILL HAVE NO RIGHT TO START LITIGATION?
a. India is now a country where a man under litigation (as a respondent) goes through multiple cases for the same alleged offence thus violating his Human Rights Guaranteed under Section 20(2) of Constitution of India. With this proposed amendment, a man, on just a written complaint, would simultaneously summoned by a Mahila Thana & a Court & even DCW now? Isnt this gross violation of Human Rights of Men?
b. Giving investigative authority to the commission shows a total lack of authority of police. If DCW is so doubtful about usefulness of work, Mahila Thana or CAW cell MUST be closed down first and a bigger debate should be initiated along with Men’s Rights Organizations on this.
c. DCW takes evidences or does investigation in very biased manner with focus of blaming men for all crimes. Such a body cannot be entrusted with any such powers.
d. DCW does not have any mandate to allow men to file complaints of harassment done to them and will always start proceedings with man being a respondent and hence a biased system for any witness recording or examination. We cannot allow DCW to question authenticity of the Judicial Justice delivery system. As it is the Justice system is sometimes Anti Male in it’s judgements but still citizens have some trust left on Judiciary. This amendment would take away that trust too from Judiciary.
f. Strongly opposed as an open ended demand will be MISUSED like so many laws which are MISUSED already.
4 (3)Any proceeding before the Commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purpose of section 196, of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and the Commission shall be deemed to be a civil court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).STRONGLY OPPOSEDIf the target of these amendments is to run parallel justice system, it would be inducing further delay in already delayed justice mechanism. Government must instead look towards strengthening the Justice system by first making more courts and filling all vacancies of Judges. Hence, strongly opposed.
5 (1)Award compensation for the violation of any of the Rights, where there is any active violation or gross negligence of Rights by the State and by other people who owe duty of care to the complainant; Issue any direction or order, including order for compensation, as may be deemed necessary to any person who has violated the Rights of any Woman to ensure observance of and compliance with such Right, provided that no such order may be issued which is within the jurisdiction of any Court or Tribunal as per any special statute; Provided that any order under this Section 3 may be passed Draft for Discussion by the Commission on the basis of complaint received from any woman or from any other person on behalf of such woman or by the Commission on its own initiative. STRONGLY OPPOSEDBringing few facts to the table:
1. Various laws (50 Gender Biased laws especially) have inbuilt provisions of compensation and there are even separate provisions in law for demanding compendation e.g. civil defamation, still giving such a power to a Gender Biased commission would mean that Laws will become Legal Extortion in Real terms.
2. As it is, in case of 'Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India', the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said "by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed." Making parallel body to courts for compensation would only result in government sponsored extortion from men.
3. By this proposal, this body seems to be over riding body to the Judicial system of India thus bringing the democracy itself under threat.
Hence, strongly opposed.
6 (1)The Commission shall not pass substantive orders on any dispute that falls within the ambit of the rights conferred by any of the legislations enumerated in the Schedule to this Bill. STRONGLY OPPOSEDThe commission can not be allowed to pass any orders at all as that means a parallel, yet Gender Biased, court system. Substantive or non-substantive, NO order passing rights can be given to a commission thus threatening the rights of 50% of the population i.e. Men. Hence, strongly opposed.
6 (2) (i)Advise, counsel and provide legal aid to complainants to approach the appropriate authority; STRONGLY OPPOSEDDistrict Legal Service Authority (DLSA) and National Legal Services Authority (NLSA) are registered bodies which are made to take care of such scenarios. Owning the government budget is NOT a matter of priviledge, it is a matter of responsibility. Wasting tax payers money (which by the way comes 82% from men) in creating parallel and same/similar duties body shows highest grade of irresponsible and misuse of public money. Hence, strongly opposed.
6 (2) (ii)In exceptional cases, upon written request made by the complainant, file suits, writs, complaints, petitions, intervention applications or other proceedings in a representative capacity before the appropriate authority to secure the Rights enumerated.
Provided that the costs for the proceedings referred to in sub-clause (ii) shall be borne by the Commission. 
STRONGLY OPPOSED1. Already almost all the laws which are Gender Biase (49 already), have brought in Penal provisions thus making the accused as a accused against State. When State is fighting the case on behalf of the complainant, adding more and more parties to the cases is an attempt only to delay justice and court procedures even more. This is strongly opposed.
2. Costs of any government body is not born by the government, it is ultimately taxing the pockets of taxpayers (82% are men) and tax payers money is used against them only. Hence, strongly opposed.
7 (1)Provide information and legal aid to any woman for the purpose of pursuing her rights under any of the statutes listed under the Schedule to this Act.OPPOSEDThis is already the role and responsibilty of a women commission as designed by the act. This is duplication of the existing role and hence opposed.
7 (2)Carry out desk and empirical research on the issues affecting the effective exercise of Rights; OPPOSEDAlready the mandate includes this role. Wasting more public money in doing biased research is gross abuse of the money of the taxpayer. Hence, opposed.
7 (3)Identification and liaising with experts who have proven ability and expertise in the field of women’s rights and allied areas;STRONGLY OPPOSEDIt is now a known fact the various claimed experts (generally NGOs) are already making news for wrong reasons. 90% of such NGOs were found fake. Please refer this news article (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/good-governance/centre-ngo/90-of-NGOs-seeking-funds-under-WCD-scheme-found-fake/articleshow/46790570.cms). Thus involving such experts/bodies/NGOs would mean wastage of public money. Hence, strongly opposed.
7 (4)Identification of legal proceedings or areas of law that require the active intervention of the Commission to carry out the objects of this Act. STRONGLY OPPOSEDLaw implementation is already job of a government department. It is called as Police Department. Misuse of public fund to create parallel body to even do Policing is unwanted and hence strongly opposed.
8The State Government may, by notification, regulate and limit the amount of compensation that may be awarded in terms of Section 5(1) and (2) hereinabove. The State shall also be empowered to recover the amount of compensation so Draft for Discussion given from officers whose acts of omission or commission have caused the violation of Rights for which such compensation has been awarded. STRONGLY OPPOSEDThere are various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court that proceedings can not be used as recovery proceedings. Even then the draft seems to have no respect of what Hon'ble Supreme Court has said about sanctity of Proceedings. Hence, strongly opposed.
9Any scheme, rule or regulation formulated by the Commission under Section 4 (2) and 7 shall be placed before the Legislative Assembly within 90 days of the formulation of any such scheme, rule or regulation. The same may be varied at any stage by the Legislative Assembly by a majority of vote of members present and voting. STRONGLY OPPOSEDPlease refer to The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, even National Human Rights Commission CANNOT formulate ANY Schemes, Rules, Regulations. Please refer to Chapter II, Section 12, subsection (d), which clearly states " review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation;". We would like to re-emphasize on the exact wording which says "review and recommend". So when NHRC is not having such powers, how a GENDER SPECIFIC body be conferred with powers of formulating rules? This is in direct violation of Human Rights Act and hence strongly opposed.
10Any failure to obey the direction or order passed under Section 5 (1) hereinabove shall be punishable with a fine not exceeding 50 percent of the annual income of the Government servant concerned and may further be punishable with imprisonment for upto six months, in addition to the fine. Such offences shall be non-cognizable and shall be initiated on a complaint from the Commission to the Metropolitan Magistrate having jurisdiction as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. STRONGLY OPPOSEDObjections to 5(1) are submitted above.
In addition to that, in case of none compliance to compensation orders, even courts have separate procedures of execution but this commission seems to getting powers of a watchdog, a court, a police and even recovery team, all in one while ignoring the whole set of government bodies who are already doing this. Hence, strongly opposed.
11Nothing in this Act shall apply to any matter that is in conflict with the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. OPPOSEDHope that commission, before drafting this had also read the The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and also the Constitution of India itself. If such a commission is being formed under the misunderstanding of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, we would wish to remind that the Article talks about making or Provisions and NOT COMMISSIONS.
12In case of any issue, complaint or proceeding concerning the Girl Child that does not come within the purview of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, no rule, regulation or scheme shall be passed by the Commission without consultation with the Delhi Child Rights Commission. STRONGLY OPPOSEDThis is really sad that the proposed commission is just not spreading bias between Man and Woman but also between the Girl Child and Boy Child.
Can such a commission be ever proposed? If yes then first the Delhi Government should announce that Constitution of India is NOT applicable to Delhi. Strongly opposed.
13No award of compensation or direction or order passed under Section 3 shall, if such direction or order concerns a Girl Child as complainant or as the subject of such order or direction, shall be passed without consultation with the Child Rights Commission. 
15Every woman shall be entitled to:
i) respect for her life and the integrity and security of her person, both within her home and in public spaces.
ii) enjoy the right to dignity inherent in a human being.
iii) the right to privacy
iv) The right to freedom of speech on all media, including digital media
v) the right to exercise complete autonomy in personal relationships including with respect to her choice of partners.
vi) the right to equal opportunity and non-discrimination 
STRONGLY OPPOSEDWhy is such a right not for all Humans? Can the rights of women override rights of Human Beings? All the proposals in drafts are overriding the The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, which defines Human Rights as "“human rights” means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India."
The draft of the "Rights of Life, Security, and Bodily Integrity" of the commission seems to have completely ignored and infact overruled the Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Also, my the right to exercise complete autonomy in personal relationships including with the respect of her choice of partners, the draft has just not put a government stamp on allowance to adultery but is also making Male / Men just a commodity. Strongly Opposed.
16Every woman has the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without her informed consent; with an exception in the case of an emergency;STRONGLY OPPOSEDWhy is such a right not being asked for all Human beings. Is Delhi government OK for men being used a guniea pigs WITHOUT their legal & informed consent? A draft which brings such a bias to threat of life, limb and free will MUST be scrapped immediately. Strongly Opposed.
17Every woman shall be protected from all forms of violence whether the violence takes place in private or public, including unwanted or forced sexual intercourse or activity;STRONGLY OPPOSEDIs the Delhi Government not aware of PWDVA 2005 or IPC 376 or various other laws which already cover this? Unnecessary duplication and again, completely Gender Biased. Strongly Opposed.
18The State shall protect and rehabilitate every woman who is has been a survivor of trafficking and shall offer all forms of medical and psychological treatment as may be necessary to ensure rehabilitationSTRONGLY OPPOSEDThe Delhi government seems to be unaware of the existing and crores of resources allocated to OSCC (One Stop Crisis Center) and instead of asking funds from the Women and Child Development Ministry is proposing to misuse of Public Money for same 'alleged' work. The details of OSCC are available here (http://wcd.nic.in/nirbhaya_centre.pdf)
19The State shall promptly provide effective mechanisms and accessible services for information, redressal, rehabilitation and reparation of every woman being a survivor of violence.STRONGLY OPPOSEDWith Mahila Thana, Mahila Courts and now OSCC, why more misuse of tax payers money is being proposed? Strongly Opposed.
20Every woman shall be ensured the right to participative governance through participation without discrimination in all elections; representation at all levels in electoral processes; equal opportunity for partnership in decision making and implementation of development and economic programs. OPPOSEDPlease replace 'woman' with 'individual'.
21The State shall ensure protection to every woman whose right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt, convert, and to hold opinions without interference is interfered with. 
22Every woman shall have the right to manifest her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, teaching, ideas, or opinions of her own choosing, either individually or in community with others, both, in public or private. 
23Every woman shall have the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. 
24Every woman shall have the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of association. OPPOSEDDuplication of Article 19 of Constitution of India unless as per Delhi Government, Women are not citizens of India.
25 (1)Every woman shall have the right to equal opportunity in matters of public or private employment. OPPOSEDPlease replace 'woman' with 'individual'.
25 (2)Every woman in public or private employment shall be entitled to a workplace free of all forms of discrimination. OPPOSEDThe Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 already covers it and infact it has been termed “unconstitutional” by the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) Bangalore Bench. Please refer (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/cat-finds-illegality-in-law-against-sexual-harassment-at-workplace/article6204747.ece).
26Every woman, irrespective of her sexual orientation, shall have the right to equality before the law and equal protection of all the laws. STRONGLY OPPOSEDIf IPC 377 is proposed to be repealed in Delhi State, the same should be done for Males too. Discriminating against men must not become the matter of convinience. Strongly Opposed.
27No woman, subject to the applicable personal laws, shall be unfairly discriminated on grounds of gender including-
(1) Preventing women from inheriting family property.
(2) Any practice including traditional, customary or religious practice that impairs dignity of women and undermines equality between women and men, including the undermining of the dignity of the Girl Child.
(3) Any policy or conduct that unfairly limits access of women to land rights and finance and other resources
(4) Discrimination on grounds of pregnancy
(5) Limiting access to health care, education and other social welfare.
(6) Denying access to opportunities including employment or contractual opportunities or failure to accommodate diversity. 
STRONGLY OPPOSEDWith the amendment (e.g. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Hindu Succession Act) already done, in addition to various (49 now) laws which are already biased in favor of women and are grossly misused, such a proposal from Delhi Government is strongly objected.
28Every woman, subject to the applicable personal laws, shall have the same rights in case of separation, divorce and annulment of marriage provided that no personal law shall bar any woman from taking advantage of any civil law which is in terms more advantageous to her. STRONGLY OPPOSEDWith this proposal, government is proposing to take advantage of biased laws, and if that’s not happening, misuse this provision too to get benefit because of her gender. Unfortunately, the whole understanding and principle of Natural Justice has been completely killed by such proposals. Strongly opposed.
29Every woman shall have the Right to Free Education upto the under-graduate levelOPPOSEDPlease replace 'woman' with 'individual'.
30Every woman especially the Girl Child shall be protected from all forms of abuse, including sexual harassment in schools and other educational institutions and the State shall provide for sanctions against the perpetrators of such practices. STRONGLY OPPOSEDThis is really sad that the proposed commission is just not spreading bias between Man and Woman but also between the Girl Child and Boy Child.
Can such a commission be ever proposed? If yes then first the Delhi Government should announce that Constitution of India is NOT applicable to Delhi. Strongly opposed.
31Every woman who suffers abuse and sexual harassment shall have access to counseling and rehabilitation services; OPPOSEDPlease replace 'woman' with 'individual'.
32Every woman shall have the Right to Reproductive and Sexual Health.OPPOSEDWith Prostrate cancer killing more men as compared to breast cancer killing woman, governments need to start worrying about health of men. As it is, average life span of men is reducing and government's complete ignoring of men is the reason behind it. Opposed.
33Every woman shall have the right to nutritious and adequate food as well as access to clean drinking water.OPPOSEDPlease replace 'woman' with 'individual'.
34Every woman shall have the right to access to housing/shelter and to acceptable living conditions in a healthy environment.
35Every woman, irrespective of her marital status shall have access to adequate housing/shelter REQUESTPlease repeal all the Maintenance and Alimony laws prior to investing Public Money into this.
36Every woman shall have access to Public Transport facilities without fear of the risk of violation of her dignity in any form by means of teasing, molestation, stalking or any other form of intimidatory behaviour. OPPOSEDPlease replace 'woman' with 'individual'.
37 - 4237. Every elderly woman shall have specific measures commensurate with her physical, economic and social needs as well as her access to employment and professional training;
38. Every elderly woman shall have the right to freedom from violence, including sexual abuse, discrimination based on age and the right to be treated with dignity.
39. Every woman with disability shall have special protection and specific measures commensurate with their physical, economic and social needs to facilitate their access to employment, professional and vocational training as well as their participation in decision-making;
40.. Every woman with disability shall have freedom from violence, including sexual abuse, discrimination; and the right to be treated with dignity
41. Marginalized Women shall be provided facilities and aid to help them fulfil their special physical, economic and social needs.
42. Every woman in detention shall be provided with an environment which is suitable to their condition and should be guaranteed the right to be treated with dignity.
OPPOSEDPlease replace 'woman' with 'individual'.
44Rule-making power: The Government shall formulate necessary Rules to give effect to the functioning of the Commission for effective implementation to this Act. STRONGLY OPPOSEDThe proposed Act is Anti Male is clearly showing blatant misuse of Public money against half of the population. Such a proposal can not be pushed onto the citizens of Delhi. Strongly Opposed.
45Power to Remove Difficulties:
(i) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty:
(ii) Every order made under this section shall, as soon as may be after iis made, be laid before the Legislative Assembly.