Rajiv Killers Can Not Be Freed By Tamil Nadu

Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu declared in the State Assembly that the killers of Rajiv Gandhi, will be released by the State Government if the Central Government does not release them in three days.

She quoted Section 432 of the Cr.PC, India.

Rajiv Killers to be freed?
Rajiv Killers to be free?

This is the Law.

(1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any lime, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.

(2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.

(3) If any condition on which a sentence has been suspended or remitted is, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, not fulfilled, the appropriate Government may cancel the suspension or remission, and thereupon the person in whose favour the sentence has been suspended or remitted may, if at large, be arrested by any police officer, without warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.

(4) The condition on which a sentence is suspended or remitted under this section may be one to be fulfilled by the person in whose favour the sentence is suspended or remitted, or one independent of his will.

(5) The appropriate Government may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with:

Provided that in the case of any sentence (other than a sentence of fine) passed on a male person above the     age of eighteen years, no such petition by the person sentenced or by any other person on his behalf shall be entertained, unless the person sentenced is in jail, and,—

(a) where such petition is made by the person sentenced, it is presented through the officer in charge of the jail; or

(b) where such petition is made by any other person, it contains a declaration that the person sentenced is in jail.

(6) The provisions of the above sub-sections shall also apply to any order passed by a Criminal Court under any section of this Code or of any other law which restricts the liberty of any person or imposes any liability upon him or his property.

(7) In this section and in section 433, the expression “appropriate Government” means,—

(a) in cases where the sentence is for an offence against, or the order referred to in sub-section (6) is passed under, any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government;

(b) in other cases the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed.

But this does not mean that the Government can do it easily.

In the present case the case has been under TADA and the judgement was based on this and the case was investigated by the Delhi Police  under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act .

This makes the Center’s consultation mandatory.

Even if the State wants to ahead with its view despite the Central Government’s objections, it can not as , though Police comes under the State List, it can not supercede Central Law  such as TADA in this case.

The State List consists of 66 items. Uniformity is desirable but not essential on items in this list. The State legislature has exclusive power to make laws on these subjects. But in certain circumstances, Parliament can also make laws on subjects mentioned in the State list. Though States have exclusive powers to legislate with regards to items on the State List, articles 249, 250, 252, and 253 state situations in which the Union Government can legislate on these items.[2]

If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. There is an exception to this in cases “where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State. Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.”

The government in India’s Tamil Nadu state has decided to free seven people convicted of plotting the assassination of former PM Rajiv Gandhi.

The six men and a woman were members of the Sri Lankan Tamil Tiger rebel group.

The move came a day after the Supreme Court commuted the death sentences of three of the convicts, citing delays in deciding their mercy pleas.

Gandhi’s murder in May 1991 was seen as retaliation for the sending of Indian peacekeepers to Sri Lanka in 1987.

The decision to free the prisoners was taken on Wednesday morning at a cabinet meeting chaired by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalitha.

Ms Jayalalitha told the state assembly later that the government would send the cabinet decision to the federal government for approval.

“If there is no reply within three days from the centre, the state government will release all the seven… in accordance with the powers vested with the state government,” she said.

Among the prisoners to be released are the three men whose death sentences were commuted on Tuesday by the Supreme Court – Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan. They have been in jail for more than 20 years and on death row since 1998.

The court ruled that they should be spared the death sentence as it was inhumane to keep them for so long under the threat of execution.

Nalini Sriharan, an Indian Tamil woman who will also be released, was also given the death penalty by the trial court in 1998, but the authorities commuted this to life imprisonment in 2000.

Three other convicts – Robert Pious, Jayakumar and Ravichandran – who are serving life sentences for involvement in the assassination would also be among those freed, authorities said.





Enhanced by Zemanta

Voter’s Negative Vote Rahul Gandhi Right Solution

The latest decision by the Supreme Court of India declaring that the Voters have the Right to cast a Negative Vote in an Election if they found all the candidates unsuitable for being elected by pressing the No Option Button in the Electronic Voting Machine(EVM).

In a related move the Government passed an ordinance  that

‘Sitting Legislator so convicted ,would be allowed to continue while an appeal is pending.

However, he/she will not be allowed to Vote in the House or draw a Salary’

The Congress Vice president Rahul Gandhi called the Ordinance  as Non sense and as expected created a storm.

“Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi put the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in collision course with the party after he called an ordinance approved by the Cabinet and meant to protect convicted politicians “nonsense”. He said it ought to be “torn up and thrown away”.

To make matters worse, he added: “I feel, personally feel, that what our government has done as far as this ordinance is concerned is wrong.”

Let us leave the motives behind Rahull Gandhi’s statement and whether there was a communication gap between the Party, read Sonia Gandhi and the Mouna Guru of a PM ManMohan Singh.

I witnessed a discussion on the subject in various TV channels.

Those who welcome or advocated the Ordinance  had one seemingly just justification.

That is the fear of being framed by the Ruling Party on the eve of Elections , by foisting false cases.

And this would result in hindering the democratic process.

Seems correct.

But look at the ordinance.

If a Legislator can not Vote  or draw a Salary what difference does it make between totally forfeiting his election ?

The result in both the cases are the same.

And even if the apprehension, true of course,the politicians must remember that the privilege of foisting cases on the political opponents is open to all the parties.

Therefore each party will think twice before foisting cases.

What these parties do not admit that they do have criminals and that they are legislators and the parties are not willing to take any action to change this, Communist Parties included.

So the ordinance is Thrash and is motivated by the desire to protect criminals, called Politicians, as they guarantee Votes, along with the perceived Caste Group.


The fate of the controversial ordinance against disqualification of convicted lawmakers appears sealed with Rahul Gandhi today slamming it as “complete nonsense” and which should be “torn up and thrown away”.

Party leaders said that it was now a mere formality that the Union Cabinet withdraws the measure after the return of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh from the US.

Congress General Secretary Ajay Maken also gave indications making it clear “Rahul ji’s opinion is the opinion and the line of Congress… Now Congress party is opposed to this Ordinance. The views of Congress party should always be supreme.”

Maken sidestepped questions on whether Gandhi’s remarks meant a “rebellion” against the government or a public snub to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his government and whether it has now become a lame duck…

A bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam said that negative voting would foster purity and vibrancy of elections and ensure wide participation as people who are not satisfied with the candidates in the fray would also turn up to express their opinion rejecting contestants.

It said that the concept of negative voting would bring a systemic change in the election process as the political parties will be forced to project clean candidates in polls.

The bench noted that the concept of negative voting is prevalent in 13 countries and even in India, parliamentarians are given an option to press the button for abstaining while voting takes place in the House.

The court said right to reject candidates in elections is part of fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression given by the Constitution to Indian citizens.

It said that democracy is all about choice and significance of right of citizens to cast negative voting is massive.

With the concept of negative voting, the voters who are dissatisfied with the candidates in the fray would turn up in large number to express their opinion which would put unscrupulous elements and impersonators out of the polls, it said.

The bench, while reading out the operative portion of the judgement, did not throw light on a situation in case the votes cast under no option head outnumber the votes got by the candidates.

It said that secrecy of votes cast under the no option category must be maintained by the Election Commission.

The court passed the order on a PIL filed by an NGO, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) which had submitted that voters be given the right to negative voting.

Agreeing with the NGO’s plea, the bench passed the path-breaking verdict and introduced the concept of negative voting in the election process, saying that it would further empower the voters in exercising their franchise.

The latest verdict is part of series of judgements passed by the apex court on the election process.

Earlier, the apex court had restrained people in custody from contesting elections.

The apex court has also ruled that MPs and MLAs would stand disqualified after being convicted of serious crimes.

The government has brought an ordinance seeking to negate the court’s judgement striking down a provision in the electoral law that protected convicted lawmakers from immediate disqualification.




To Prove Rape Have Four Adults To Watch

If you can arrange for a Group of  four People to watch you being raped, then you can have the rapist convicted.

Need Four adults to testify  to prove rape
Need Four adults to testify to prove rape

This is what the UAE  law says!

A Dubai court has sentenced a Norwegian woman to 16 months in jail for having sex outside of marriage after she reported being raped, according to news reports from the United Arab Emirates.

Marte Deborah Dalelv, 24, was convicted Wednesday. She was also found guilty of perjury and of drinking alcohol, the English-language LocalreportedThe Norway Post said she was 25.

Dalelv told police March 6 that she was raped while in the emirate on business. Her father said she was instead jailed for four days and had her passport and money confiscated. She was then charged.

Norwegian diplomats secured her release to the local Norwegian Seamen’s Church.

The Norwegian Department of Foreign Affairs said Thursday that the verdict “flies in the face of our notion of justice” and was “highly problematic” in terms of Western human rights.

For a rape conviction, United Arab Emirates law requires either a confession or four adult male witnesses to the attack.

The case was not reported in the two major English-language newspapers in the United Arab EmiratesThe National and The Khaleej Times.



Exposes Rape More Punishment Than Rapist Steubenville Hack

The man whose hacks have led to the ‘Expose’ of Stubenville rape might get more term than the Rapist.

Law is an Ass, easy to say.

hacker who exposed rape.
Deric Lostutter, also known by his screen name KYAnonymous,
But the circumstances, cases are different.

People do not expect all Judges to Be Solomon.

But they should have IQ of a Child which can count,


Deric Lostutter, 26, said that a group of FBI agents aggresively raided his home in April.

Lostutter, also known by his screen name KYAnonymous, told The Huffington Post over the phone that on April 15, FBI agents raided the Winchester, Ky., house he shares with his girlfriend and brother and that he was told he could face jail time if he let the story get out.

It all started when he came home and noticed that a FedEx truck was randomly parked outside of his house.

“As I open the door to great [sic] the driver approximately 12 F.B.I. Swat Team agents jumped out of the truck screaming for me to ‘Get The F**k Down’ with m-16 assault rifles and full riot gear armed safety off, pointed directly at my head,” Lostutter wrote.

“They seized my laptop, my girlfriend’s laptop, flash drives, music CDs, an external hard-drive, two cell phones and my brother’s xbox 360 for some reason,” Lostutter told HuffPost.

Why? Loustutter admitted that he was the guy that released most of the incriminating information about the rapists.

Stubeville rape.
Stubeville rape exposed,

He was the one who published a trove of incriminating social media photographs, videos and messages that had been posted by Steubenville football players and that documented and ridiculed the victim.

“The tweets, screenshots, Instagrams. … Pretty much everything you’ve seen in the media, that came through me,” Lostutter said.

And now, the FBI is saying that he may have committe

If convicted, he could spend 10 years behind bars.

While the rapists, Ma’lik Richmond and Trenton Mays, only have to do one year.

A 26-year-old Kentucky man has revealed that his home was the subject of an aggressive raid by a group of FBI agentslast month in connection with an Anonymous hack that helped publicize key social media events in the Steubenville rape case.

Deric Lostutter, also known by his screen name KYAnonymous, told The Huffington Post over the phone that on April 15, FBI agents raided the Winchester, Ky., house he shares with his girlfriend and brother and that he was told he could face jail time if he let the story get out.

Lostutter, a self-employed IT security consultant and self-described Anonymous membersaid on his blog that he’d just returned from a turkey hunt when he noticed what appeared to be a FedEx truck in his driveway.





Gay Marriage Case US Supreme Court,Constitutional ? Audio Text

The Gay Marriage issue has hotted up in The US, the case  has reached The  Supreme Court for hearing and is being hotly debated.

The Supreme Court,US To hear Gay Marriage.
The Supreme Court,US To hear Gay Marriage.


What has hitherto an aberration in Behavior, has been  taken as sanctioned socially.


They may not agree that it has never been an aberration.


The whole issue snowballed into a Legal and Constitutional Controversy because California vetoed Gay Marriage and a Couple (Gay) have approached the Court for marriage.


Gay Marriage has now become an issue of Constitutional importance involving the  the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is unconstitutional.


What beats me is the argument that the Homosexuals couples want to be treated on par with hetero sexual couples!


The very terms used to denote these groups distinctly is, because of their difference, behaviour.


It is like making a Circle equal to a Square!


What exactly are these people demanding now?


To be treated on par with hetero sexual Family and the benefits?


You want the approval of the Society?


You did not listen to the objection of the majority, normal one at that,of going Homosexual, citing all and sundry arguments to justify not-normal behaviour!


You went ahead.


Why do you seek approval from the Society , only to claim the benefits from the Society?


Or respect and regards  from the people?


This is obtained by vilification or arguments but by adhering to Social Norms.


Since you chose a different path, have a set of rules and benefits among yourselves for yourselves.


Well. you can not eat the cake and have it too.



Inside the court’s ornate chambers, some justices wanted to slow things down.

“You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones or the Internet?” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked. “We do not have the ability to see the future.”

Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose questioning indicated that she was skeptical of the reasons proffered for why gay couples should not be allowed to marry, seemed to think that it might not be time for the court to make a bold decision.

“If the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer?” she asked.

A ‘difficult question’

Sotomayor’s question indicated the complicated nature of the case at hand.

Washington lawyer Charles J. Cooper is representing proponents of Proposition 8 in defending the law, since California officials have refused. He said the court should respect the decision of California voters, who faced the “agonizingly difficult question” of whether to protect traditional marriage after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay couples could wed.

Theodore B. Olson, representing two California couples who want to marry, wants Proposition 8 overturned. But he is also pushing the court to find that the Constitution demands that the fundamental right to marry be extended to same-sex couples nationwide.


United for Marriage has organizeddozens of pro-gay marriage eventsacross the nation Tuesday, many with the aid of Episcopal, United Church of Christ, Methodist, Unitarian Universalist and other congregations.

Meanwhile, anti-same sex marriage groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Family Research Council and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, have also made broad calls, each asking for prayers this week in support of keeping laws that bar same-sex marriage on the books.



The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage known as Proposition 8. Read the transcript or listen to complete audio of the arguments below. You can annotate the recording with comments and reactions by logging into SoundCloud.

DOMA oral arguments at Supreme Court (full audio)