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.
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.
If you can arrange for a Group of four People to watch you being raped, then you can have the rapist convicted.
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. 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,
The Gay Marriage issue has hotted up in The US, the case has reached The Supreme Court for hearing and is being hotly debated. 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.