Protection of Women in Work-places

We live in a generation where man and woman are not in competition with each other. It might sound a little inappropriate as we have never really known the two sexes to be in a conflict, but I say this because for the past few centuries, man is always known to dominate the society, and women have been found to be suppressed, at least in most societies other then the matriarchal ones. It may be regarded like a situation where there was always a competition between the two genders, and man always won. Today, it has been accepted and is a norm that the competition has seized, and no one suppresses the other in any way. Well, is it true?

An ideal situation is never real. This is the tragedy of life in a way, but it is also true that blindfolded perspectives towards any issue are the worst forms of assessment of the real world. A mirage in the desert might seem a blessing, but it is not real. The previous paragraph is the same. It is true that society has moved forward, but it is untrue that the competition has seized. It is untrue that women are no more suppressed, no more traumatized, and have attained the same pedestal as men. They might have the matter in them, but somehow men have always been successful to keep them at bay from the glitter of equality or dominance. I clarify at the outset that I am not a feminist but a practical person who knows that in villages, a woman still has her veils covering her face when her husband comes home and tortures her. In some remote parts of the country, 'sati' is still not alien. These are truths that cannot be changed.

Well, this introduction was necessary for a reason. The oppression of women transcends boundaries of rural and urban life. One of the most prominent scenarios where such atrocities surface are with working women. I know of a person, rather my friend's elder sister, who was found dead in her office, and rumors had it that she was killed. She was a very bright student, and very successful professionally. Many such other cases surfaced over time, and it was felt that a gap in law existed where there was no effective legislation in place for the protection of working women. A PIL saw the doorstep of the Supreme Court, and the judgement saw guidelines come in place which are now the law for precautions and preventions that may be employed by women and employees for a better working environment for women. Most of us know about the judgement, but inhibitions seem to suggest that prejudice is created by the guidelines, and they are unnecessary. Well, I think its time the guidelines in place are understood.

1. Employers and other persons duty:

They are basically duty-bound to see to it that any form of sexual harassment does not happen in the workplace.

2. Definition if Sexual Harassment:

The judgement defines it as any for of advances of physical touch, requests for any sexual activity, pornography or any sexual comments.

3. Employers Steps for Preventing:

The employers are to make rules and regulations, and create an environment where the commission of sexual harassment can be optimally prevented.

4. Criminal Proceedings:

The Employers are duty bound to initiate criminal proceedings in case of such acts. The victims of such harassment have the right to demand either the transfer of the offender, or of their own.

5. Disciplinary Action:

In case of such complaints, disciplinary actions can also be taken.

6. Complaint Mechanism:

It is also the duty of the employer to create a complaint mechanism according to service rules or any other manner, where the victims have an efficient scheme in place to file complaints in case of such harassments.

7. Complaints Committee:

The judgement also calls for the establishment of a committee which would address such complaints. Such a committee would be headed by a Woman, and half of the members should also be women.

8. Where harassment is done by an outsider not employed in the concern, the employee must extend all support to the victim, in all possible manners.

These are the guidelines that were brought in force by the judgement, and have been the law since. It is indeed sad that the Parliament is yet to enact any legislation in this regard, but nonetheless, this judgement is the law till a legislation comes in force.

It is important for any female employee to know that she is entitled to such levels of protection, and that she cannot be subjected to any form of discrimination on the basis of her sex. It is also vital that women employees ascertain their rights in the proper manner, and pursue proper course of action in case any such unfortunate incidents surface.

Silence is never the answer, and more so in this century, silence is stupidity. A bold voice has always demanded respect, and it keeps on demanding the same, so it is important that we all stand up and hold our heads high, especially when we have the law in our side. Please know that women are not unprotected in any way, and it is only wise that the world realizes this at the earliest, and starts giving them the respect that they deserve. As for women, know what are made available to you by the law, and make sure that you utilise them to the maximum.

OUR FORGOTTEN DUTIES...

Not many people are lucky to share a friendly and interactive relation with their faculty, but in my Law College, it was amazing. I would even have discussions with them over a cup of tea, in a stall somewhere near campus. It was exactly in such a situation when I had a discussion with two of my faculty members, and realized a wrong perception that many people had that needed to change. Till that day, even I lived in the hallucination of how my duties end with one act, but now I know better, and I believe that my worthy readers should know about it too.

Well, my first post in the blog was about voting, and how we had a right 'not to vote'. I remember how after 26/11 people said that we chose the government, and its their responsibility to take care of us now. I argued the exactly same stand with my professors, and he laughed at me and said. "You really think that by casting your vote, you are done with your responsibilities?" I argued for sometime on my preconceived notion that voting was the optimum duty I could do, and thus shift the burden to the shoulders of the people I would choose to represent me. I am sure many of you think the same too. However, is it true?

Well, the Constitution of the country guarantees a very important right under Article 19 (1)(a), it being the 'right to freedom of speech and expression'. Wrongly thought to be a rephrasing of the 'freedom of press', it is arguably the mos prominent of rights when it comes to assuring appropriate governance in the country.

This freedom includes the freedom of press, but it is more importantly a freedom that asks us to act and react to the situations around us. Many a times, we see problems around us, but how many times to we actually do anything about it? I remember complaining about the road conditions in Bangalore, but I never bothered to voice my opinion in public. I never bothered to find out how I can make the authorities know about the condition of certain lanes in my area, but I somehow never failed to complain about them.

Go to any government website, and there is a link to lodge your concerns. I remember looking into the website of Bangalore University, finding out the mail addresses of the important people there, and when I sent mails to them, all the mails failed. I know this must be the situation all around in many of the sites. The best part is we see the failing mails, and then leave it there. The truth is that when we end our efforts there, we are failing in our duty. There are other channels to find out better medium of informing the concerned authorities about your grievance.

NGOs do a very credible job of voicing people's concerns, and that can also be used. M C Mehta, the most prominent lawyer in environmental matters takes to the Supreme Court any matters that need the expertise of the Courts to settle them. (http://mcmef.org/) Public Interest Litigations are an important tool in our hands, where the voice of the common man can reach the apex court and be heard.

However, with all of this, I want to highlight how the whole idea of completing our responsibilities by casting a vote is misplaced. Our responsibilities are much more deep rooted. We need to realize how we should exercise our freedoms to channelize our problems and make them travel to the ears of the concerned authorities. We have the rights which assure us that privilege, but we do not react. That is the moment when we fail to do our duties, and thus loose our right to complain too. It is important that we do our part first with due diligence, and then point fingers at our representatives and the executives in the government.

For my worthy readers, I would like to provide some links where it is shown the importance of the freedom I was talking about:

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/54357-city-based-techie-uses-right-information-act-bring-about-change-society.html : The power of RTI, a facet of the right I was talking about.

http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/Media/freedom.htm : A good reading material about freedom of speech and expression.

http://sanjukta.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/welcome-decision-by-sc-restricting-the-freedom-of-speech-often-absued-by-bloggers/ : Without any doubt, it is an amazing blog written by the writer, much better than what I have reproduced. It would be really interesting to read it...

Well, with all this I just hope to instill a sense of responsibility in my readers as to what the should do instead of tease India and its governance across the 'coffee table'...

DEATH SENTENCE: LITTLE LIGHT THROWN...

Kasab has been sentenced to death! The news ignited mixed emotions. Some hailed it as an ideal judgement in light of the atrocities of 26/11; some questioned the necessity of death penalty in India, and what purpose would it serve by killing a person? Would it not be against the ideals of the father of our nation? Are we trying to take revenge?

Well, these questions are not new, and I would also like to add a disclaimer that I am not the most equipped and the earliest to write about this topic. However, in the midst of the huge dramatic statements and jargon like ‘rarest of the rare case’, and ‘non-reformative condition’, the real idea seems to get diminished and forgotten. The Supreme Court has already discussed the issue, and Bachan Singh’s judgement in 1980 actually explained the stand of capital punishments in India.

However, I am going to discuss it in a common-man’s perspective.

All my readers would agree with me that ‘hanging to death’ is not a child’s game, and it would be actually inappropriate for us to conceive that such a punishment should be awarded in every second case. Thus, in the judgement that becomes operational in every trial which may have a probability of ending with a death sentence being awarded, the Supreme Court has said that death sentence could only be awarded in the rarest of rare circumstances.

Now, what is the ‘rarest of the rare’ circumstance? What does it mean? Well, in the judgement, many twists and turns have been adopted to explain it. I would prefer a more lame but useful approach. A convict (person found guilty) is normally imprisoned under a few theories of punishment. In India, we have basically adopted two of the theories, they being reformative theory and deterrent theory. Thus, by awarding imprisonment, we not only intend to deter, or rather discourage others from committing such an offence, but we also intend to reform the person, by having appropriate schemes in place to change his character, and make him a responsible person of the society. The question that arises now is what happens when a person cannot be reformed? Would it really make sense to keep a hardcore murderer or a serial killer in jail in hopes of reforming him? Moreover, in India, the maximum punishment after death sentence is, in operation, 14 years of imprisonment, known as ‘imprisonment for life’. I would deal with this concept too, in my future posts, but as of now, it would be convenient to understand that imprisonment can be for a maximum period of 14 years. So after 14 years, what happens to that hardcore murderer? Wouldn’t letting him go be a allowing a menace to be unleashed in society? Well, that is exactly the circumstance where death sentence is inevitable. It would only be logical that such a menace is removed from society, and as such, this would not mean revenge.

This is a very basic understanding of the concept, which of course has its various aspects and the courts always determine the validity on a case to case basis. So there is no real laid down standard for determining what amount to the ‘rarest of the rare circumstance’. However, a lot of argumentation takes place in a court before the award is pronounced.

However, a death sentence is always subject to the ratification of the High Court, and then too, there can be an appeal made to the Supreme Court, and a final mercy petition made to the President of India.

Well, I understand that the procedure is cumbersome and sometimes leads to delays which are unnecessary. However, it would be inappropriate to deny a person chances to change the fate inflicted on him, and thus, India, with its history of benevolence, has such a cross-check and cross-appeal mechanism for its convicts.

Well, that is how death penalties work in the country, and in spite of the counter arguments given by human right activists and patrons in favor of removing death sentence, it still exists in India.

I think a must-watch video is here: http://www.ndtv.com/news/videos/video_player.php?id=145512&from=homePageWatch

I actually can say nothing as against the arguments that were presented here by the panel. My worthy readers must watch this video...

ELECTOR's RIGHT NOT TO VOTE

THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS RULES, 1961

An important rule reads:

49-O.Elector deciding not to vote.-

If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form-17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under the sub-rule (1) of Rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17-A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.

It is known that legal jargon irritates many enthusiasts who wish to know about the law. I thought as a law student, awareness in law is a forte that I can effectively pursue, and maybe is a duty of mine too. It is with this view in mind that I have started writing this blog. I was wondering what is that topic that should be the first in this blog. The choice was evident and simple. We all know about the campaign that went ahead after 26/11 about voting, and it being a responsibility of every Indian. However, I am sure that this small aspect of the rules governing voting in India is known to very few people, and I thought it would be ideal for me to start my blog with this information.

The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 governs conducting of any elections in the country. According to Rule 49-O, an elector has a right not to vote.

At the outset, let me clarify that this is not a right to negative voting. There was a petition filed before the Supreme Court about negative voting, but the same has not been allowed. So the concept of negative voting does not actually exist in India. However, this right of 'not to vote' has its own implications. An elector, according to this rule, has the right to register himself in a polling booth, but still not cast his vote, and the non-casting of the same is recorded, with the elector's remarks which is made by the presiding officer.

This means that every time when we hear complains that whom can we choose when everyone is a 'black-sheep', we have a choice not to choose anyone, but still make a record of the same. It is also important to realize that what happens if in a polling booth, majority have denied to cast their vote for anyone? Would that mean that the candidates contesting from that constituency do not get elected at all?

Well, this was a hoax that was circulated. This provision does not mean that the candidates in a constituency are not elected if such non-votes are more in number. However, the number of such non-casted votes are available under Right to Information. The Law Commission has recommended that in Electronic Voting machines, a separate column is maintained to choose 'none of the above', but it is yet to be accepted and amendments made therein. But shouldn't an elector have the right to vote against all candidates if he chooses to?

Well, I know that with the information that I have provided, it must not be very encouraging to pursue 49-O, since it hardly creates any consequences. However, it does create an awareness that when every sheep in the herd is black, you have the right to choose none of them. It also assures that your vote would not be misused by anyone, when you have chosen not to cast a vote yourself.

For my very precious readers, I have a few links that would provide even more reading material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/49-O : Wikipedia can be trusted to have informations about everything. It does have information about 49-O too. Interesting reading material available.

http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/subord/cer1.htm : This is the complete Rules. It would also give an insight about how conduction of elections work, for anyone who is interested to find out about the whole scheme of giving of tickets, and such other issues.

http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/PROPOSED_ELECTORAL_REFORMS.pdf : This is the .pdf version of the complete recommendations made by the Election Commission as regards many reforms in the election proceedings, inclusive of recommendations for neutral or negative voting. It is an interesting read.

Well, I hope to arouse a little interest in everyone who has been skeptical about legal jargon, in matters or law, so that basic knowledge about efficacious remedy is available to everyone, even without going to a lawyer for their expert views.