Dr B.R. Ambedkar speaks on M.K. Gandhi [BBC sound archives]
1. HOW TO HANDLE CAW CELL
Posted by: “Sorry to say, “Please”” email@example.com mydearsattu11
Date: Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:02 am ((PDT))
सीएडबल्यू सेल को हैंडल केसे किया जाए
1. जब भी सीएडबल्यू सेल से कोई फोन आए तो उनको बहुत ही निम्र स्वभाव से बोलोकी सर लेटर भेज दीजिये ।
2. जब भी सीएडबल्यू सेल से कोई भी लेटर आए तो इग्नोर मत करो ले लो ।
3. जब भी सीएडबल्यू सेल से कोई भी कर्मचारी खुद आ कर लेटर दे तो ले लेनाचाहिए ।
4. सीएडबल्यू सेल लेटर सिर्फ एक प्रार्थना पत्र होता है नहीं की कोई सम्मन ।
5. कानूनी रूप से जरूरी नहीं की आप जाए या आप का कोई फॅमिली मेम्बर भी जाए ।
6. घबराने की कोई जरूरत नहीं आपको गिरफ्तार नहीं किया जाएगा ।
7. सीएडबल्यू सेल सिर्फ एक बातचीत करने की जगह है जहां पर कुछ सरकारीकर्मचारी आपकी वाइफ़ की शिकायत पर आपको ओर आपके परिवार को बुलाते है ओर कोशिश करतेहै की समझोता हो जाए ।
8. समझोते से मतलब है की या तो आप पत्नी की बात मानो ओर उसके द्वारा लगाए गएझूटे आरोप मानो नहीं तो आपके खिलाफ एफ़आईआर की जाएगी ।
9. सीएडबल्यू सेल केवल महिलाओं के लिए है इसलिए आपकी बात वहाँ कोई नहींसुनेगा ।
10. कोई भी प्रूफ न दे ।
11. शिकायत कॉपी की मांग करे अगर मिल जाए तो ठीक नहीं तो आरटीआई के द्वारामांग करे ।
12. किसी भी कोरे कागज पर हस्ताक्षर न करे ।
13. जब तक जरूरी न हो किसी भी पारिवारिक सदस्य को जाने की जरूरत नहीं ।
14. स्त्रीधन की लिस्ट को ले ले ओर देख ले की हर पेज पर लड़की ने साइन करा हो ।लेकिन साथ ही वहाँ पर लिख दे की लिस्ट डीपी एक्ट 2 के अनुसार नहीं है ओर न ही ठीकतरह से बनी हुई है ओर असली बिल भी नहीं लगे हुए है ।
15. इस्त्रीधन की सूची का जवाब: की यह सूची कानून से हिसाब से नहीं बनी है । ओरजो गिफ्ट लड़की को लड़के ओर उसके परिवार ओर रिश्तेदारो से मिले है वो भी सूची मेंनहीं है। । जब लड़की ने घर छोड़ा था तब वो अपना सारा समान ले गयी थी जेसे की जेवर,कपड़े, महंगे समान आदि । कुछ सामान है जो की निमंलिखित है ओर में देने के लिए तयारहूँ ।
16. 90 प्रतिशत शिकायत एफ़आईआर में बदल जाती है ।
17. 2 या 3 तारीख के बाद आपको पता चल जाएगा की एफ़आईआर हो सकती है ।
18. इसलिए अग्रिम जमानत ओर आदेश जमानत आदि के लिए आवेदन कर दे ।
19. कभी भी झूठ न बोले या झूठा सबूत या झूठा गवाह न दे । हो सके तो सच पर कायमरहे । जो सच बोलते है भगवान उनके साथ होता है ।
20. लेकिन बोले वही जो बोलना चाहते है कुछ ओर न बोले । डर या तनाव की वजह सेकुछ झूठ न बोले । अगर साथ में नहीं रहना तो नहीं रहना है ओर रहना है तो रहना है ।
21. जांच अधिकारी का नंबर हमेशा साथ रखे ताकि वो आपको ओर आप उसको समय समय परअपना विवरण बताते रहे । एक बात हमेशा याद रखे की कभी भी जाँच अधिकारी को रिश्वतदेने की कोशिश न करे। एक गलत कदम आपको मुसीबत में दाल सकता है ।
22. स्थानीय बैठक में आते रहे, लोगो से मिलते रहे, जानकारी लेते रहे, आदि ।
23. इस समय आप काफी तनाव में होते है इसलिए अपने आपको व्यस्त रखे जितना हो सकेमजे करे सोचने से ओर रोने से कुछ नहीं होता ।
24. इस दौरान कभी भी मुकदमा न डाले । खासतोर से हिन्दू विवाह अधिनियम के तहतकोई भी मुकदमा न डाले ।
25. अगर कोई बच्चा या बच्चे है तो बोले मुझे उनसे मिलना है ।
उपर लिखित जानकारी सामान्य है ओर जरूरी नहीं की हर किसी पर लागू हो ।
Reliving the memories of 1984
Thirty years after the anti-Sikh riots that raged in Delhi, there are no easy answers to these questions: What should the Sikhs do? Should they forget the past? Should they live in the past? Or should they live with the past?
|JUSTICE DELAYED AND DENIED: A file photo of the victims of the anti-Sikh riots protesting at Rajghat in 2013. The State is either ill-equipped or unwilling to punish those guilty of perpetrating violence in these riots. If the troops had been called in earlier, at least the lives of about 2,000 people could have been saved. PTI|
LET me begin my story from my diary of 1984, to be precise that of March 24. On that day I escorted my teacher Dr Ganda Singh to the Rashtrapati Bhawan where he was to be conferred the Padma Bhushan by Giani Zail Singh, the then President of India. In the glittering ceremony, I noticed Mrs Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister, Members of her Cabinet and other dignitaries and distinguished citizens who were to be honoured for their contribution in different fields. After the ceremony when we were going out for tea, Dr Ganda Singh, who had some eye problem, banged into the glass door of the Ashoka Hall and his Padma medal and spectacles fell on the floor. Rajiv Gandhi, who was walking beside him, quickly picked up the two items and passed them on to him and gently escorted him till the tea was over.
Later that evening, the Guru Nanak Foundation had arranged a reception for Dr Ganda Singh. It was attended by almost all prominent Sikhs in the national capital with the late Khushwant Singh as the main speaker. While writing my diary for that day, I felt proud that the Sikh community, which constituted less than 2 per cent of the Indian population, has done so well in independent India. Some of the prominent names that came to my mind were those of Baldev Singh, the first Defence Minister of independent India, Surjit Singh Majithia, Deputy Defence Minister of India, Swaran Singh as the Minister for Defence and later External Affairs, Hukam Singh and Gurdial Singh Dhillon as Speakers of the Lok Sabha, Buta Singh, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, Sport, Works and Housing, Dr Manmohan Singh as Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Arjan Singh and Dilbagh Singh as Chiefs of the Indian Air Force and many Sikhs in other important positions. In spite of talk of grievances, some real and some imaginary, Sikhs were doing well in all walks of life, be it business, sports or services.
Little could I imagine that this best period in the history of the Sikh community would turn out to be the worst because of Army action in the Golden Temple, killing of Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi by two of her Sikh bodyguards and countrywide anti-Sikh riots that followed. On that fateful day, I happened to be in Chandigarh for an official meeting where we got to know that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was dead though a formal announcement was made late that evening. While I managed to reach my home in Hauz Khas late that evening, what came as the first shock was to see the Green Park gurdwara set on fire. My family heaved a sigh of relief when I knocked at the door. In that group of 40 houses, I was the only turbaned Sikh. My immediate neighbours, all Hindus, were more worried about my safety than me. On the top floor, a young boy had stocked soda water bottles and stones to keep the mob away in case of any attack. Another neighbour who carried his service revolver offered to stay with our family the whole night to ensure that we were duly protected.
On November 1, when violence spread throughout the city as a result of organised gangs taking over command of the anti-Sikh pogrom, the situation became rather alarming. I was advised by my teacher Prof Bipan Chandra to move to his home in the JNU campus. I was told that the mob was checking all vehicles at the IIT crossing, looking out for Sikhs and it was advisable for me to hide myself in a blanket and lie down in the leg space in the Ambassador car, with my wife and daughters occupying the backseat. My wife was advised to camouflage her identity by changing her dress. It was for the first time that I found my distinct identity, of which I always felt proud, had become my liability in spite of my opposing militant activity in Punjab and fighting the ideology of hate throughout my teaching career.
My daughters who faced this trauma for the first time could not understand as to what was happening in a secular country. My younger daughter asked as to who had killed the Indian Prime Minister. Before I could answer, Bipan Chandra replied, “Ideology of hate”. She was too young to understand that it was this ideology which had led to the division of India and, later, the killing of Mahatma Gandhi who was opposed to any division on communal lines. That night I missed my sleep and kept on thinking how political parties use the ideology of hate for electoral gains. What disturbed me the most was the fact that Sikhs outside Punjab, who for their own reasons did not support the militant movement in Punjab, had become victims of mob violence for no fault of theirs.
In spite of my best efforts, I could not reconcile to the overnight change of the Sikh image from trusted lieutenants of the Indian State to a potential threat to its unity. I regretfully recalled how Punjab politics was communalised for electoral gains, with disastrous consequences for the Sikh community and the Indian State. The next day we heard about the violence spreading to different parts of Delhi and other parts of the country and the police and state machinery mutely watching this carnage. Later in the evening, Gopi Arora, a senior civil servant, asked Bipan for his advice as to how to check the growing violence. Bipan’s answer was simple, “You control the media. Let the TV and radio keep on announcing rioters being killed by the police.” But HKL Bhagat, who was the Minister for Information and Broadcasting, had other plans up his sleeve. On the contrary, he wanted to use the media to create a mass hysteria against the Sikhs, with an eye on the forthcoming Parliamentary elections. The Mishra Commission noticed that when Mrs Gandhi’s dead body was lying in state in Teen Murti, a group of people walking passed the body raised slogans, “Khoon ka Badla Khoon,” which was duly covered by the country’s only television channel, Doordarshan, and repeated 18 times for obvious reasons.
Attacks and pelting stones on the cars in the entourage of the President of India, who rushed to the AIIMS, soon after his return from Yemen, and other incidents of October 31, 1984, are mentioned by the Nanavati Commission as “first signs of public resentment resulting in an angry outburst in Delhi,” but what happened for three consecutive days and nights between November 1 and November 3, in the national capital in the presence of heads of many countries who had joined in the national mourning, could not have happened without a free hand given to the organised gangs consisting of party workers and criminal elements from different political outfits. Gangsters armed with weapons of destruction like pistols, petroleum and other inflammable materials surrounding hapless Sikhs inside their localities and houses points toward an organised pogrom.
According to the Mishra Commission, “If troops had been called on the morning of November 1, 1984 and Army columns had been moving in the streets properly, lives of at least 2,000 people could have been saved.” According to Nanavati Commission’s report, “There is enough material on record to show that at many places police had taken away their (Sikhs) arms and other articles with which they could have defended themselves against the attacks by the mobs.”
According to the Nanavati Commission, at some places mobs indulging in violence were allowed to use DTC buses or other vehicles belonging to the State Transport Corporation. The modus operandi of the attackers was almost the same in various localities. The attackers “either came armed with weapons and inflammable materials like kerosene, petrol and some white powder or were supplied with such materials soon after they were taken to the localities where the Sikhs were to be attacked.”…. “Male members of the Sikh community were taken out of their houses. They were beaten first and then burnt alive in a systematic manner. In some cases, tyres were put around their necks and then were set on fire by pouring kerosene or petrol over them. In other cases, a white inflammable powder was thrown on them which immediately caught fire. This was a common pattern which was followed by the big mobs which had played havoc in certain areas.”
The silver lining in the otherwise dismal picture was the role played by the well-meaning members of the civil society and organisations like the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) and the Sikh Forum. At that difficult moment when most of the Sikhs had taken shelter in the homes of non-Sikh neighbours and friends and poor widows and children taken to relief camps, it were mainly non-Sikhs, especially Mrs Mohini Giri and her colleagues from the Guild of Service and War Widows Bhavan, who rushed relief to Teliwara and other areas in East Delhi which were not easily accessible. Faculty and students of the JNU played a positive role in coming out in open defence of the hapless Sikhs, who had become objects of hate and ridicule overnight. It was only appropriate that when Sant Harchand Singh Longowal came to visit Delhi to express sympathy with the members of the Sikh community, the first thing he did was to visit the JNU, wherein he started his speech by thanking non-Sikh sisters and brothers for saving many Sikh lives.
While immediate relief was provided to the victims of the riots in different camps, no long-term strategy was planned for their emotional and economic rehabilitation and integration in the mainstream. VP Singh, who became the Prime Minister of India in 1989, in his wisdom provided small flats to the widows of 1984 riots in Tilak Vihar, Sector 16-J, Rohini and Garhi in East of Kailash, thus giving the national capital the dubious distinction of having “widows colonies” to be used as a votebank during every election. In spite of nine inquiry commissions, during the Congress, Janata Dal, NDA and UPA rule at the Centre, justice has eluded the Sikhs.
This shows that the State is either unequipped or unwilling to punish the guilty. In spite of the Mishra Commission fixing the responsibility of the Delhi carnage on Congress workers and criminal elements and giving a clean chit to Congress leaders, popular Sikh memory will neither forgive nor forget HKL Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar, Jagdish Tytler, Dharam Das Shastri and others for their role in the anti-Sikh riots.
Now that history has come full circle — from November 1984, when the Sikhs were hiding their identity and taking shelter in safe havens — to May 2004 when Dr Manmohan Singh, a turbaned Sikh, was elected to highest executive office of the Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy: What should the Sikhs do? Should they forget the past? Should they live in the past? Or should they live with the past? These are the questions to which there are no easy answers. —The writer is Professor of Eminence, Punjabi University, Patiala
* After the assassination of Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, by two of her Sikh bodyguards, anti-Sikh riots erupted on November 1, 1984, and continued in some areas for days, killing more than 3,000 Sikhs.
* Sultanpuri, Mangolpuri, Trilokpuri, and other Trans-Yamuna areas of Delhi were the worst affected.
* Mobs carried iron rods, knives, clubs, and combustible material, including kerosene
* The mobs swarmed into Sikh neighbourhoods, and arbitrarily killed any Sikh men or women they could find.
* Their shops and houses were ransacked and burned down.
* In other incidents, armed mobs stopped buses and trains, in and around Delhi, pulled out Sikh passengers and either lynched them or doused them with kerosene before burning them alive.
* Others were dragged out from their homes and hacked to death with bladed weapons.
NEW DELHI: A daughter-in-law has no right to continue to occupy the self-acquired property of her parents-in-law against their wishes, the Delhi high court has held in a significant order.
Justice A K Pathak in a recent verdict, made it clear that a self-acquired property doesn’t fall under the definition of a “shared household” enunciated in the Domestic Violence Act and a daughter in law can’t enforce her right in such a property.
In fact, HC went a step further, holding that even an adult son or daughter has no legal right to occupy the self-acquired property of the parents against their consent.
“Daughter-in-law cannot assert her rights, if any, in the property of her parents-in-law wherein her husband has no right, title or interest. She cannot continue to live in such a house of her parents-in-law against their consent and wishes. In my view, even an adult son or daughter has no legal right to occupy the self-acquired property of the parents; against their consent and wishes. A son or daughter if permitted to live in the house occupies the same as a gratuitous licensee and if such licence is revoked, he has to vacate the said property,” the court noted in its order.
HC was hearing an appeal by the daughter-in-law against a trial court’s verdict directing her to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the property to her estranged father-in-law. In her plea in HC the woman said she is a legally wedded wife and has a right to live in the property from where her father-in-law wants her evicted.
She claimed that the property was purchased out of joint family funds. Accusing the father-in-law and husband of harassing her for dowry, she informed HC that she is living separately from her husband due to matrimonial discord and divorce proceedings are on. Under DV Act, the property is a shared household where she has the right to reside, the wife maintained.
But the father in law through advocate Prabhjit Jauhar told HC that he is sole owner of the self-acquired property. Jauhar also convinced the court that the property was not purchased from joint family funds and his son had no share in it.
The father-in-law furnished before the court proof that he disowned his son in 2010 who has since then been living separately.
Justice Pathak concluded that the legal position “which can be culled out from the above reports is that the daughter-in-law has no right to continue to occupy the self -acquired property of her parents-in-law against their wishes more so when her husband has no independent right therein nor is living there, as it is not a “shared household” within the meaning of Section 17(1) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”
HC also took into account lack of evidence to show that suit property was purchased from joint family funds.
Sexual harassment and women lawyers
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, uses the definition of sexual harassment,as laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the famous Vishakha case of 1997. The very court that gave this innovative law held back on its implementation for 16 long years.
It’s easy to imagine a time early on in one’s legal career when women faced sexual harassment in some form or the other. Thirty years ago we weren’t equipped to respond to a senior lawyer making some implied sexual advance as if it were a norm. Or to a client, say an ageing chairperson of a reputed public undertaking who, with shameless ease and mild amusement, could lean forward and suggest we “sort it out at my place”.
It never seemed to cross the mind of the now proverbial man “old enough to be my father” that this and so much more, was not only professionally inappropriate but sexually offensive. For him or others like him, it was well… just the way things are. And why should we have been equipped? Why couldn’t we take for granted that we, like our male counterparts, could go to court, undertake a legal brief, or enter a contractual negotiation free from the experience of being groped, sexually belittled, ogled, touched, or otherwise sexually demeaned or harmed without fearing the stigma or being perceived as prudish? Because then, unlike now, it was about moral wrongs and not equality rights.
Equality denied: By not implementing Vishakha guidelines by the Supreme Court of India
Many women have encountered sexual harassment at the workplace, but when you are a lawyer, few are willing to admit it. In a study carried out by Sakshi (NGO) on judicial perceptions of women who come to the court in situations of violation, 80 women lawyers in 5 metros were interviewed. 64 per cent of women lawyers surveyed said they often felt patronised, ignored, demeaned, harassed or treated like an outsider both in subtle and overt ways in the course of their professional life. When specifically asked if they had ever experienced physical or verbal sexual harassment by judges, lawyers, court personnel or others, 54 per cent of female lawyers reported verbal and physical sexual harassment from both judges and other lawyers. Off the record, many more women advocates interviewed admitted to have experienced some form of sexual harassment. For the sake of their careers they didn’t complain. That was 1996.
Then came Vishakha. A landmark shift reminding us that we didn’t have to be sexually violated to make a living. It introduced us to the contemporary idea that constitutional equality at work raised the human status of those unequal experiences. And unlike the legalese (legal lexicon) that often mangled our experience of sexual violations through incomprehensible law reform, Vishakha made the beneficiary matter. It was user friendly. It prioritised prevention, called on workplaces to raise awareness about sexual harassment, created an innovative redress model and ensured that the responsibility for compliance would lie with the employer. Or so we thought.
Not for legal eagles
16 years post Vishakha, the very court that gave us an innovation, held back on its implementation. With that inexcusable omission, it knowingly allowed a vacuum to prevail which would foster workplace sexual harassment in the legal profession. In this context, a revelation this November by a legal intern of sexual harassment by a retired judge of the Supreme Court was simply a classic case waiting to happen. And the skeletons continued to tumble out with a second intern posting she had been “at the receiving end of unsolicited sexual advance [sic] more than once” by the same judge. Three other cases and four others by instances of young lawyers being sexually harassed by other judges surfaced. Alongside those revelations came Tehelka and Vishakha revived.
Overnight sexual harassment in the profession was no longer about whispers in the corridors of a court, a gripe or some prudish resistance by a woman, but a legitimate grievance. One that was visible, audible and relevant. Or at least its exposure was. By abandoning a Vishakha compliant workplace at the Supreme Court itself, it was only matter of time for an increasing population of young women law professionals to no longer bear the cost of silence, and opt to speak up. Blindfolded by the inevitable consequences of its own complacency, the opportunity seemed ripe for the Court to comply with Vishakha. Surprisingly it didn’t.
Instead, the CJI(Chief Justice of India) invoked an entirely independent committee of 3 Supreme Court Judges, one woman and two men, to look into the matter. Why? Six days later, a petition signed by women practising at the Supreme Court, led by the Additional Solicitor General called upon the CJI to constitute the Committee in accordance with the Vishakha judgement – 50 per cent women and an external member familiar with the legal implications of sexual harassment. Again, it didn’t.
Courts above law?
We were left instead to the assurances of the CJI “that justice will be done in all respects” and that he had promptly constituted a Committee to look into “an incident of alleged aberration.” Aberration? How did the very Court which gave historic recognition and expression to women’s experience of inappropriate sexual behaviour as workplace sexual harassment which violated our Constitutional equality rights, reduce such recognition to an “aberration”? An approach echoed in the Tehelka journalists’ complaint of alleged “sexual violation” by Tarun Tejpal, which was projected by its feminist Managing Editor, as an “untoward incident”. Pattern anyone?
On the 7th of December, the CJI published his conclusions on the report of the Panel that probed the intern incident. For the first time, the real purpose of this entire exercise became obvious. According to the statement, the CJI took up the matter because of the “fact that such allegation against a Supreme Court Judge will have a direct bearing on the Institution’s reputation and credibility”. In other words, it was never about the impact of sexual harassment on the intern, but the potential impact (read “fall-out”) for the Institution. The statement goes on to share that the role of the Panel was to “ascertain the truth of the allegations.” Seven sittings and three affidavits later, lo and behold, they figured out what we all knew from just reading the blog. She was actually telling the truth. No wonder the intern described her experience before the Panel as “being looked at with suspicious eyes”. The CJI goes on to accept that the intern’s statements and her witnesses, “prima facie discloses an act of unwelcome behaviour (unwelcome verbal/non-verbal conduct of sexual nature) by Justice (Retd.) A.K. Ganguly with her in the room in hotel Le Meridien on 24.12.2012 approximately between 8.00 P.M. and 10.30 P.M.”
Self-preservation of the court
Then, in an inexplicable twist, the statement quickly concludes that as the intern was not on the rolls of the Supreme Court and the Judge had retired `no further action is required by the Court`. Did one of the Panel or the CJI bother to read the blog? Those facts were already in the public domain. If the Panel had no jurisdiction over either the intern or Justice Ganguly in the first instance, then why even bother with a finding? Yet having found a prima facie case of sexual harassment by Justice Ganguly towards the intern, the CJI should have logically followed through with the Vishakha equation. Was there a legal injury to the intern’s equality rights? Given the unequal power dynamic between the intern and the Judge, the answer was an unequivocal yes. That finding alone would have nudged “workplace sexual harassment” that much closer to transforming social inequality of women lawyers into their status of equality.
Which makes me ask- who then actually benefited from this outcome? Net, net, the Supreme Court. Not only was it an occasion for them to close the door on complaints about retired judges, it brought relief to a Court clearly worried about a stray media headline suggesting one of its own as the potential offender. The entire episode was never about justice for the intern. Rather, it was a blatant exercise in self-preservation. After 16 years of non-compliance with Vishakha and increasing public pressure to act on “workplace sexual harassment,” this was an occasion that cried out for the Court- at the very least — to communicate a tough zero tolerance message on sexual harassment of women in the legal profession, be the offender a clerk, a client, a lawyer, a judge, retired or not. It didn’t.
|“While headlines on such appointments (women appointed in senior positions) make visible the obvious contribution women are making within the legal profession, the trickle of numbers betrays an underlying subtext of systemic bias within which decision-making about such appointments (be it the Bench or the Bar) continues to take place.” — Naina Kapur|
Subtlety of the sub- text
Despite such a disappointing outcome, it’s fair to ask — has anything changed with Vishakha? Yes. Experiences of sexual violations at work have a name — workplace sexual harassment — and the status of those affected by such experiences are no longer just about moral wrongs, but about fundamental rights. The stigma and fear of thirty years ago in the profession is perhaps lessening. Where violations of equality arise as a result of workplace sexual harassment, there are more places to complain about it. On the same date as the CJI washed his hands of the intern matter, a group of junior women lawyers petitioned the High Court of Allahabad alleging sexual harassment by their male colleagues. That petition has been admitted and a Committee being set up.
In the end the lesson from Vishakha versus the CJI’s inaction is a recurring one — at the end of every legal intervention is a beneficiary. How and if they benefit depends on what’s at the beginning of every legal intervention — an attitude.
For the “persons” who are women
In 1915, having completed all the necessary qualifications in law, Regina Guha applied to be a pleader at the Calcutta Bar, where a four-judge bench had to determine whether “persons” admitted as “pleaders” included women.
Degrees in law could be conferred on both men and women in Calcutta University. But the bench was adamant for letting a woman be a pleader.
According to a 2013 list of Senior Advocates designated by the Supreme Court of India since 1955, only five out of 309 advocates have been women.
Of the 200-plus lawyers appointed as Senior Advocates in Delhi and Mumbai over a period of twenty years (up to 2011), only three were women.
The writer runs a virtual law firm “Preventive Law & Equality Compliance.” She was the lead instructing counsel for Vishakha v. St. Of Rajasthan, 1997, Supreme Court of India. “
Link Here :
In this video Rahul Kanwal is interviewing IAS Officer Dr ASHOK KHEMKA regarding the land deals SCAM ( more than Rs 50 Crores within a few months without really doing anything ) of Mr Robert Vadra in Haryana under Chief Ministership of Mr Bhupinder Hooda.
Mr Rahul Kanwal infact threatens Dr Khemka that he will be terminated from IAS on some frivolous grounds.
If you observe carefully it seems Rahul Kanwal is batting for Congress, whereas Dr Khemka is really dignified in his response under so much stress and pressure.