The Right to Walk - A DraftCraft Productions Film
There are obstacles and impediments of all sorts on footpaths and roads alike, in cities all across India. With hard-nosed residents parking vehicles, often arbitrarily, in front of entrances to residential structures in violation of the local civic law; situations where the civic authorities turn a blind eye to barricades dumped unceremoniously onto footpaths, even in the middle of the road, posing a risk to motorists and pedestrians alike; to instances of corporates working closely with the authorities to collectively usurp public space and property lawfully meant for the pedestrian, the common man's Right To Walk risks being completely subverted.
This campaign undertaken by DraftCraft is aimed to educate, inform and advocate for the common man's Right To Walk. Through the Right To Walk campaign, DraftCraft will provide legal support by way of drafting RTI applications, pose legal queries before pertinent civic officials, even represent affected groups and individuals at relevant fora; hold workshops, exhibitions and talks to help bridge differences; create content by way of editorials and films to drive home the point and urge the authority to intervene and resolve; help provide targeted advocacy for niche causes and Be The Change!
DraftCraft is an India-based media-legal think-tank that endeavours to research, document, film and advocate on behalf of the most ignored, under-reported, marginalised sections of society. DraftCraft has been initiated by Gajanan Khergamker - independent editor, legal counsel and documentary film-maker - with over three decades of experience.
(Disclaimer: 'The Right To Walk' has been produced by DraftCraft Productions in public interest, in good faith and without prejudice. It can be copied or distributed freely. However, anyone doing so should use it 'as is' without any change and retain creative attributions)
Save Backgarden!
"Whether a swimming pool on South Mumbai's Backgarden has legal sanction or not isn't the important thing. What matters is that there should be proper public consultation in the regard. And, the interests of weaker segments should be safeguarded," feels DraftCraft founder Gajanan Khergamker.
"Save Backgarden - A documentary produced by DraftCraft Productions - has been created only to put all the parties' perspectives in one place making it easier for anyone to understand the issue," he says.
It has been initiated by Gajanan Khergamker - an independent editor, legal counsel and filmmaker - with over three decades of experience. DraftCraft fetches legal aid to the deprived through activism and legal intervention. The think tank provides a platform for the affected through campaigns aimed to agitate and advocate for the underdog.
Public dissent over the construction of a swimming pool in South Mumbai's 'Backgarden' and resistance by a section of the locals, even direct beneficiaries, made it a key issue for DraftCraft.
(Disclaimer: 'Save Backgarden' has been produced by DraftCraft Productions in public interest, in good faith and without prejudice. It can be copied or distributed freely. However, anyone doing so should use it 'as is' without any change and retain creative attributions)
Esther's last tweets…were they prophetic?
Esther Anuhya’s tweet: Dont put in too much of belif in any1…Even ur shadow leaves you wen u r in dark… followed three months later by her last tweet: I rather have an honest enemy than a fake friend…Good night world!, seem ominously prophetic today. The 23-year-old software engineer arrived at Mumbai’s Lokmanya Tilak Terminus at 4.55 am on January 5 after alighting from the Vishakapatnam-LTT Express train she had boarded the train from Vijayawada after visiting her family at Machilipatnam for Christmas and then…vanished.
Could it be that Esther’s belief had apparently been quashed by a fake friend?
After Esther went missing
Then began the ordeal for Esther’s family. After the mandatory melee to register a missing person’s complaint, the skirmish over jurisdiction issues and other trials, a formal complaint was lodged, but remained a formality. After a full 10 days, Esther’s mutilated, ‘burnt’ and decomposed body was found off the Mumbai-Thane highway on January 16, and that too, by Esther’s cousins.
The police, who had been twiddling their thumbs all this while, trying to dismiss it as a case of elopement, have now woken up to swiftly take the credit for the discovery. However, even a First Information Report (FIR) filed by Esther’s father and cousins clearly states that they discovered the body without police help.
What her family is going through
“I didn’t cry even once,” says 19-year-old Mary Singavarupu Lavanya, Esther’s younger sister, “…not in front of my parents.” Mary has been putting up a brave front before her parents and cousins, but she misses her sister immensely. After Esther’s death, it is up to Mary to take charge.
“As children, we fought a lot but we got closer when when we finally started studying together at the same school – Amleshwari Vidya Nilayam,” recalls Mary. Esther was very excited about staying in Mumbai, Mary remembers. “She told us that it was a very safe city. It wasn’t dangerous at all. Nobody bothered her and she felt very secure there,” recalls Mary, unable to hold back her tears.
On last December 25, Christmas morning, Esther went with her father Jonathan, sister Mary and other family members to a nearby Church at Machilipatnam for the 4 am mass. On their return, the girl went with her father and sister to a nearby hotel to pack a large Christmas lunch for the family – the family was hosting the lunch also to celebrate the renovation of their home. “We bought veg fried rice, chicken curry, bread halwa and a mutton gravy for 40 people. Esther was very keen on footing the bill for the lunch. It was about Rs 8,000 and it was her first ever treat for the family,” recalls Mary. “I so wish I had told everyone about that then itself,” she says.
Breaking the news
When Esther went missing on January 5, everyone back home prayed together for her. But their hopes dwindled as each day passed, till her cousins found her body in Mumbai on January 16. Mary struggles to hold back her tears as she speaks of how they broke the news to her mother.
“Just the day before we got her body home, my relatives showed my mother the news on television, telling her that some missing girl’s body had been found in Mumbai. They said that they were very worried about Esther. She quickly realised what everyone was suggesting and let out a loud wail. Since then, she has been inconsolable. She refuses to let me out of her sight,” recalls Mary.
“I always thought Dad was strong but Esther’s death has broken him. I have never seen him cry this way,” says Mary. She is also heartbroken that she did not record the Telugu Thanksgiving song that Esther sang before Christmas lunch. “Although I even thought that I should take pictures and record the song, the whole family being at one place, I didn’t,” says a rueful Mary. “I wish Esther had listened to Dad and stayed back at the railway station till it was daylight that day…” she trails off.
Should there be ramps for the disabled outside ATMs?
“Being disabled due to age or infirmity is a curse. Worse still is if there is nothing to make daily life any easier. Isn’t there a law or rule providing aid for the disabled to bank or use ATMs? What is the solution to an issue that makes life miserable for the disabled?”
- A disgruntled senior citizen, Colaba
For one, I feel, India has failed to tap the resources of seniors and/or the disabled who are empowered with colossal experience and wherewithal to tackle situations in a way few younger could. However, the very basics associated with urban life, such as banking and communication are almost out of reach for the senior and/or disabled.
While almost all Mumbai banks are swift to insist on Know Your Customer (KYC) norms and force customers to update their records vis-à-vis providing latest documents, proofs and the works, none of them adhere to a Master Circular issued by the RBI with regard to making their branches and ATMs disabled friendly.
Point 9.5 of the Master Circular RBI/2011-12/56 / DBOD No.Leg.BC.18/09.07.006/2011-12 dated July 1st, 2011, clearly lays down the need for bank branches/ATMs to be made accessible to persons with disabilities. ‘Banks are advised to take necessary steps to provide all existing ATMs/future ATMs with ramps so that wheel chair users/persons with disabilities can easily access them and also make arrangements in such a way that the height of the ATM does not create an impediment in its use by a wheelchair user. Banks may also take appropriate steps including providing ramps at the entrance of the bank branches so that the persons with disabilities/wheel chair users can enter the bank branches and conduct business without much difficulty.’
Please quote the above point and make a representation, preferably in writing and endorsed by the branch head, to the respective representative of the bank branch in question. You can even attach a copy of the said representation to any future correspondence with the same bank branch to escalate the issue even to higher authorities for redress.
Elsewhere…
Incidentally, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disability, a new United Nations human rights treaty body, issued a very unique decision on a case involving visually-impaired Hungarian complainants Szilvia Nyusti and PéterTakács.
Seven of the human rights treaty bodies (the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Committee against Torture, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) may, under particular circumstances, consider complaints or communications from individuals who consider that their rights have been violated.
The ruling made in favour of the two plaintiffs who, under article 2 of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, put forth the “failure by [Hungary’s] authorities to eliminate discrimination on the ground of disability by a private credit institution and to ensure that persons with visual impairments have an unimpeded access to the services provided by the ATMs on the equal basis with the other clients”.
The plaintiffs Nyusti and Takács, clients of OTP Bank Zrt., who paid annual fees, equal to those paid by sighted clients, for banking card services and transactions, were unable to use the OTP ATM machines without any assistance. The keyboards were not marked with Braille fonts, nor did they provide voice assistance.
The laws in India are perfected to the ‘T’ but mostly in letter and not in principle. It rests upon the handful of initiated and brave to pursue the policy and pave the path in a zone quite uncharted till date.
The Right To Life as provided in The Constitution of India through Article 21 assures all an associated Right To Walk. Over the years, it has become nearly impossible for the common man to walk in public places, along public spaces and exercise a right that is intrinsically associated with your very Right To Life. Your Right To Walk is associated with an inbuilt guarantee of safe passage without risk of injury or threat to life and property. But, are you assured of your Right To Walk? Hardly!
It's Fashionable to Get 'Appalled'
A corrective move by the Indian Supreme Court in overturning an ‘over-reaching verdict’ passed by a Delhi High Court vis-à-vis the ‘constitutional validity’ of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is being flayed publicly as usual. The deafening outrage is the loudest from within India and beyond from among Indian expatriates, NRIs and self-styled authorities on Indian systems. Support to the Supreme Court decision comes from the most unimaginable quarters: American Family Association’s Bryan Fisher has nothing but praise for India’s controversial anti-gay sex law.
In India, if a law interpreted as being ‘anti-gay’ isn’t struck down by its highest court of the land, even if it’s absolutely beyond its jurisdiction to do so, it’s nothing short of blasphemy for the world at large. That laws aimed to castigate gays are legislated and upheld by the Highest Court of Russia, Australia, even moved in the form of a Bill to protect religious rights of the majority and “exclude gays,” by a US Senator supported by 11 co-sponsors, is conveniently overlooked. It doesn’t stop the US from being “disheartened” with the Supreme Court verdict while conveniently refusing to look within.
When the Indian Apex Court bench of Justices Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya reversed the Delhi High Court’s 2009 verdict and held that the 150-year-old Section 377 “does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality,” it only corrected a legal excess committed by the High Court in ‘legislating’. That, an amendment of the law is a legislative procedure laid down by the Constitution and courts are only empowered to determine and uphold the ‘legislative intent’ that went behind the framing of the law, seems to be lost somewhere down the line.
“It is relevant to mention here that Section 377 IPC does not criminalize a particular people or identity or orientation. It merely identifies certain acts, which if committed, would constitute an offence. Such prohibition regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation,” said Justice Singhvi.
INDIAN SUPREME COURT ONLY EMPOWERED TO EXAMINE 'INTENTION' OF LEGISLATURE
In upholding the law, the Supreme Court is only empowered to examine the ‘intention’ of the legislature. And, in that, the Supreme Court has laid that the onus of deleting the provision rests upon the legislature. Where the question of Section 377’s constitutionality is concerned, there was no ambiguity.
India, the world’s largest democracy is ruled by laws legislated by the people who are voted to power again by the people. So, to delete Section 377 or amend it suitably to exclude consenting adults in private is the job of the Parliament.
“Since 1950, the Legislature has chosen not to amend the law or revisit it. This shows that Parliament, which is undisputedly the representative body of the people of India has not thought it proper to delete the provision. Such a conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that despite the decision of the Union of India to not challenge in appeal the order of the Delhi High Court, the Parliament has not made any amendment in the law,” read the Supreme Court judgment.
But the reasoning cuts no ice when it comes to chest-thumping reactions from Indians, particularly Indian expat. So, there’s a surge in global support for local activists who have waged “a relentless war for same-sex relations to be legalized”. Dozens of Bollywood stars have come forward to criticize the decision to reinstate Section 377 of IPC which bans “sex against the order of nature” and is widely interpreted to mean gay sex. Among those ‘hurt’ are Aamir Khan and John Abraham who described the judgment as “very intolerant and violative of basic human rights,” Freida Pinto of the Slumdog Millionaire fame who tweeted that she was “absolutely appalled by such narrow mindedness,” and more. That not a single celebrity chose to flay the petitioners who belong to hard-nosed religious groups and their associated ideology, reeks of hypocrisy.
So, for the record, here goes a list of the petitioners who moved the Supreme Court to re-instate Section 377. Delhi Commission for Protection Child Rights, Suresh Kumar Koushal, an astrologer, Krantikari Manuvadi Morcha, Trust Gods Ministry, Late VHP leader BP Singhal; Apostolic Churches Alliance, Utkal Christian Foundation, All India Muslim Personal Board, SK Tizarawala, a representative of Baba Ramdev and Petitioner in person from Joint Action Council Purshottaman Mulloli and petitioner in person Ram Murti.
LOOSE USE OF TERMS SUCH AS 'COLONIAL ERA LAW', 'ARCHAIC LAW'
The loose use of terms such as ‘colonial era law’ to run down a nation’s judicial processes is in poor taste and attempts to trivialize the processes of the world’s largest democracy. Why, wasn’t the Bill of Rights created back in 1789 and ratified in 1791? And, isn’t way older than 1861 when Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was created? So, by that logic, the Bill of Rights is more archaic than the IPC. Name-calling is the prerogative of the ill-informed and motivated. There is absolutely no exercise of restraint or a bonafide attempt to empathize with the subject in question or those who it affects.
Interestingly, despite all the brouhaha raked by celebrities and socialites in India and beyond, not a single one has urged for a change through legislative means. In the failure to understand India’s constitutional functioning, most indulge in the easiest of follies…bashing the state and for any reason whatsoever.
If it isn’t the inept handling of a natural disaster like the Uttarakhand disaster, it’s the “regressive” stand adopted by the highest court of the land. It only seems fashionable and in that narrow sense defeats the very purpose of the gay cause.
All political parties are aware that anyone takes an anti-Section 377 stand may risk losing the support of its ‘regressive’ voter base and hence never ever risk such a move. So, it pays to stay mum and provide the regulatory lip service as and when asked.
Also, who will risk taking on such an issue barely months before the battle of the millennium during the next general elections? The deafening silence of almost all political parties in the entire Section 377 imbroglio underlines the fact that while most of the closet gays have come out in the open vis-à-vis their leanings following global support and the Delhi High Court ruling of 2009, a sea of closet gay-haters continues to thrive. While they provide the loudest support in social media and all over, their stand remains suspect.
Political parties had been waiting for the Supreme Court to bell the cat while they publically flay the legal move and relinquish all responsibility for the act.
US BILL TO PROTECT TRADITIONAL FROM GAY-FRIENDLY FEDERAL GOVT
Just a while back, in the United States, Senator Mike Lee and eleven original cosponsors introduced legislation to protect religious organizations from discrimination by the federal government for supporting traditional marriage. The “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act” bars the government from denying any person or group tax-exempt status for exercising their religious conscience rights.
“This bill protects the rights of individuals and organizations from religious discrimination by the federal government,” said Senator Lee. “Those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage deserve respect and tolerance. It is critical that we clarify the law to ensure that their fundamental civil liberties are not at risk.” It will ensure that Churches will not be pressurized into recognizing Gay marriages.
Australia High Court Shoots down Pro-Gay Law, Insists on Legislation
And, Australia’s High Court on December 12th struck down gay marriage in the nation’s capital, ruling that the Parliament must decide on same-sex unions. In a unanimous judgment overturning the Australian Capital Territory’s new same-sex marriage law, the High Court ruled that only the Parliament and not state and territory authorities had the power to decide who could wed.
Russia’s Anti-Gay Legislation Helps Protect Minors
Russia’s highest court recently ruled that a controversial law banning “gay propaganda” was not in breach of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court dismissed a complaint from leading gay rights campaigner Nikolai Alexeyev that St. Petersburg city council had acted unconstitutionally by passing legislation to ban the promotion of homosexuality among minors.
The law, which came into effect in March 2012, allows for fines of up to 5,000 rubles ($150) for individuals and up to 500,000 rubles ($15,000) for organizations. A similar federal law banning the promotion of “non-traditional sexual relationships” among minors took effect in June this year. But, till sense prevails, will the world’s intellectually-sensitized proponents of ‘inclusion’ get “appalled” by a “regressive” US, Russia and Australia too? Chances are…they won’t! It’s just not as fashionable as bashing India.
THE SUPREME COURT VERDICT IS SEEN AS 'PROTECTING CHILDREN'
While the Supreme Court bashing continues, it may make sense to attempt to figure the logic that spurred the petitioners into challenging the Delhi High Court decision to de-criminalize the offence. A reputed Delhi Commission for Protection Child Rights (DCPCR) also joined in the petition against the repeal of Section 377 in the Indian Supreme Court, and fought the section shoulder to shoulder with conservative religious groups.
Only two years before the High Court order was passed in 2009, a national study on child sex abuse conducted by the ministry of women and child development had revealed that 50 per cent of the child victims were male. Section 377 was the only protection that male children had against sexual assault.
“In the last 150 years, there have been only 200 cases were this section has been effectively applied. All those cases applied to sodomy and in more than 90 per cent of the cases, the victims were minors. So the application of the Section 377 was to protect victims,” offered the-then chairperson of the Commission Abod Kanth.
The High Court in legalizing consensual sex between consenting adults had failed to address the fall-out of the impact of such relationships on children. Children of LGBT parents were more prone to social stigmatization. In decriminalizing homosexuality, the High Court did not devise any protection as far adoption laws were concerned – whether gay and lesbian couples can adopt children, whether they have right to adopt.
The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act addresses the issue of sexual assault against children it does not address concerns raised by DCPCR relating to adoption, parenting, and stigma to LGBT kids. These issues need to be discussed, deliberated and legislated through process of law. Simply retaining Section 377 or repealing it does not affect gay rights as extensively as widely, and wrongly, understood. It will need a full-fledged legislative endeavor.
The Apex Court has put the ball in the Parliament’s court and thrown open the option of legislating extensively on the issue and amending the section appropriately; and, in that, provided the perfect platform for change.
There are obstacles and impediments of all sorts on footpaths and roads alike, in cities all across India. With hard-nosed residents parking vehicles, often arbitrarily, in front of entrances to residential structures in violation of the local civic law; situations where the civic authorities turn a blind eye to barricades dumped unceremoniously onto footpaths, even in the middle of the road, posing a risk to motorists and pedestrians alike; to instances of corporates working closely with the authorities to collectively usurp public space and property lawfully meant for the pedestrian, the common man's Right To Walk risks being completely subverted.
This campaign undertaken by DraftCraft is aimed to educate, inform and advocate for the common man's Right To Walk. Through the Right To Walk campaign, DraftCraft will provide legal support by way of drafting RTI applications, pose legal queries before pertinent civic officials, even represent affected groups and individuals at relevant fora; hold workshops, exhibitions and talks to help bridge differences; create content by way of editorials and films to drive home the point and urge the authority to intervene and resolve; help provide targeted advocacy for niche causes and Be The Change!
DraftCraft is an India-based media-legal think-tank that endeavours to research, document, film and advocate on behalf of the most ignored, under-reported, marginalised sections of society. DraftCraft has been initiated by Gajanan Khergamker - independent editor, legal counsel and documentary film-maker - with over three decades of experience.
(Disclaimer: 'The Right To Walk' has been produced by DraftCraft Productions in public interest, in good faith and without prejudice. It can be copied or distributed freely. However, anyone doing so should use it 'as is' without any change and retain creative attributions)
Save Backgarden!
"Whether a swimming pool on South Mumbai's Backgarden has legal sanction or not isn't the important thing. What matters is that there should be proper public consultation in the regard. And, the interests of weaker segments should be safeguarded," feels DraftCraft founder Gajanan Khergamker.
"Save Backgarden - A documentary produced by DraftCraft Productions - has been created only to put all the parties' perspectives in one place making it easier for anyone to understand the issue," he says.
It has been initiated by Gajanan Khergamker - an independent editor, legal counsel and filmmaker - with over three decades of experience. DraftCraft fetches legal aid to the deprived through activism and legal intervention. The think tank provides a platform for the affected through campaigns aimed to agitate and advocate for the underdog.
Public dissent over the construction of a swimming pool in South Mumbai's 'Backgarden' and resistance by a section of the locals, even direct beneficiaries, made it a key issue for DraftCraft.
(Disclaimer: 'Save Backgarden' has been produced by DraftCraft Productions in public interest, in good faith and without prejudice. It can be copied or distributed freely. However, anyone doing so should use it 'as is' without any change and retain creative attributions)
Esther's last tweets…were they prophetic?
Esther Anuhya’s tweet: Dont put in too much of belif in any1…Even ur shadow leaves you wen u r in dark… followed three months later by her last tweet: I rather have an honest enemy than a fake friend…Good night world!, seem ominously prophetic today. The 23-year-old software engineer arrived at Mumbai’s Lokmanya Tilak Terminus at 4.55 am on January 5 after alighting from the Vishakapatnam-LTT Express train she had boarded the train from Vijayawada after visiting her family at Machilipatnam for Christmas and then…vanished.
Could it be that Esther’s belief had apparently been quashed by a fake friend?
Then began the ordeal for Esther’s family. After the mandatory melee to register a missing person’s complaint, the skirmish over jurisdiction issues and other trials, a formal complaint was lodged, but remained a formality. After a full 10 days, Esther’s mutilated, ‘burnt’ and decomposed body was found off the Mumbai-Thane highway on January 16, and that too, by Esther’s cousins.
The police, who had been twiddling their thumbs all this while, trying to dismiss it as a case of elopement, have now woken up to swiftly take the credit for the discovery. However, even a First Information Report (FIR) filed by Esther’s father and cousins clearly states that they discovered the body without police help.
What her family is going through
“I didn’t cry even once,” says 19-year-old Mary Singavarupu Lavanya, Esther’s younger sister, “…not in front of my parents.” Mary has been putting up a brave front before her parents and cousins, but she misses her sister immensely. After Esther’s death, it is up to Mary to take charge.
“As children, we fought a lot but we got closer when when we finally started studying together at the same school – Amleshwari Vidya Nilayam,” recalls Mary. Esther was very excited about staying in Mumbai, Mary remembers. “She told us that it was a very safe city. It wasn’t dangerous at all. Nobody bothered her and she felt very secure there,” recalls Mary, unable to hold back her tears.
On last December 25, Christmas morning, Esther went with her father Jonathan, sister Mary and other family members to a nearby Church at Machilipatnam for the 4 am mass. On their return, the girl went with her father and sister to a nearby hotel to pack a large Christmas lunch for the family – the family was hosting the lunch also to celebrate the renovation of their home. “We bought veg fried rice, chicken curry, bread halwa and a mutton gravy for 40 people. Esther was very keen on footing the bill for the lunch. It was about Rs 8,000 and it was her first ever treat for the family,” recalls Mary. “I so wish I had told everyone about that then itself,” she says.
Breaking the news
When Esther went missing on January 5, everyone back home prayed together for her. But their hopes dwindled as each day passed, till her cousins found her body in Mumbai on January 16. Mary struggles to hold back her tears as she speaks of how they broke the news to her mother.
“Just the day before we got her body home, my relatives showed my mother the news on television, telling her that some missing girl’s body had been found in Mumbai. They said that they were very worried about Esther. She quickly realised what everyone was suggesting and let out a loud wail. Since then, she has been inconsolable. She refuses to let me out of her sight,” recalls Mary.
“I always thought Dad was strong but Esther’s death has broken him. I have never seen him cry this way,” says Mary. She is also heartbroken that she did not record the Telugu Thanksgiving song that Esther sang before Christmas lunch. “Although I even thought that I should take pictures and record the song, the whole family being at one place, I didn’t,” says a rueful Mary. “I wish Esther had listened to Dad and stayed back at the railway station till it was daylight that day…” she trails off.
Should there be ramps for the disabled outside ATMs?
“Being disabled due to age or infirmity is a curse. Worse still is if there is nothing to make daily life any easier. Isn’t there a law or rule providing aid for the disabled to bank or use ATMs? What is the solution to an issue that makes life miserable for the disabled?”
- A disgruntled senior citizen, Colaba
 |
| The RBI circular on ramps outside banks and ATMs |
While almost all Mumbai banks are swift to insist on Know Your Customer (KYC) norms and force customers to update their records vis-à-vis providing latest documents, proofs and the works, none of them adhere to a Master Circular issued by the RBI with regard to making their branches and ATMs disabled friendly.
Point 9.5 of the Master Circular RBI/2011-12/56 / DBOD No.Leg.BC.18/09.07.006/2011-12 dated July 1st, 2011, clearly lays down the need for bank branches/ATMs to be made accessible to persons with disabilities. ‘Banks are advised to take necessary steps to provide all existing ATMs/future ATMs with ramps so that wheel chair users/persons with disabilities can easily access them and also make arrangements in such a way that the height of the ATM does not create an impediment in its use by a wheelchair user. Banks may also take appropriate steps including providing ramps at the entrance of the bank branches so that the persons with disabilities/wheel chair users can enter the bank branches and conduct business without much difficulty.’
Please quote the above point and make a representation, preferably in writing and endorsed by the branch head, to the respective representative of the bank branch in question. You can even attach a copy of the said representation to any future correspondence with the same bank branch to escalate the issue even to higher authorities for redress.
Elsewhere…
Incidentally, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disability, a new United Nations human rights treaty body, issued a very unique decision on a case involving visually-impaired Hungarian complainants Szilvia Nyusti and PéterTakács.
Seven of the human rights treaty bodies (the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Committee against Torture, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) may, under particular circumstances, consider complaints or communications from individuals who consider that their rights have been violated.
The ruling made in favour of the two plaintiffs who, under article 2 of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, put forth the “failure by [Hungary’s] authorities to eliminate discrimination on the ground of disability by a private credit institution and to ensure that persons with visual impairments have an unimpeded access to the services provided by the ATMs on the equal basis with the other clients”.
The plaintiffs Nyusti and Takács, clients of OTP Bank Zrt., who paid annual fees, equal to those paid by sighted clients, for banking card services and transactions, were unable to use the OTP ATM machines without any assistance. The keyboards were not marked with Braille fonts, nor did they provide voice assistance.
The laws in India are perfected to the ‘T’ but mostly in letter and not in principle. It rests upon the handful of initiated and brave to pursue the policy and pave the path in a zone quite uncharted till date.
The Right To Life as provided in The Constitution of India through Article 21 assures all an associated Right To Walk. Over the years, it has become nearly impossible for the common man to walk in public places, along public spaces and exercise a right that is intrinsically associated with your very Right To Life. Your Right To Walk is associated with an inbuilt guarantee of safe passage without risk of injury or threat to life and property. But, are you assured of your Right To Walk? Hardly!
It's Fashionable to Get 'Appalled'
A corrective move by the Indian Supreme Court in overturning an ‘over-reaching verdict’ passed by a Delhi High Court vis-à-vis the ‘constitutional validity’ of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is being flayed publicly as usual. The deafening outrage is the loudest from within India and beyond from among Indian expatriates, NRIs and self-styled authorities on Indian systems. Support to the Supreme Court decision comes from the most unimaginable quarters: American Family Association’s Bryan Fisher has nothing but praise for India’s controversial anti-gay sex law.
In India, if a law interpreted as being ‘anti-gay’ isn’t struck down by its highest court of the land, even if it’s absolutely beyond its jurisdiction to do so, it’s nothing short of blasphemy for the world at large. That laws aimed to castigate gays are legislated and upheld by the Highest Court of Russia, Australia, even moved in the form of a Bill to protect religious rights of the majority and “exclude gays,” by a US Senator supported by 11 co-sponsors, is conveniently overlooked. It doesn’t stop the US from being “disheartened” with the Supreme Court verdict while conveniently refusing to look within.
When the Indian Apex Court bench of Justices Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya reversed the Delhi High Court’s 2009 verdict and held that the 150-year-old Section 377 “does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality,” it only corrected a legal excess committed by the High Court in ‘legislating’. That, an amendment of the law is a legislative procedure laid down by the Constitution and courts are only empowered to determine and uphold the ‘legislative intent’ that went behind the framing of the law, seems to be lost somewhere down the line.
“It is relevant to mention here that Section 377 IPC does not criminalize a particular people or identity or orientation. It merely identifies certain acts, which if committed, would constitute an offence. Such prohibition regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation,” said Justice Singhvi.
INDIAN SUPREME COURT ONLY EMPOWERED TO EXAMINE 'INTENTION' OF LEGISLATURE
In upholding the law, the Supreme Court is only empowered to examine the ‘intention’ of the legislature. And, in that, the Supreme Court has laid that the onus of deleting the provision rests upon the legislature. Where the question of Section 377’s constitutionality is concerned, there was no ambiguity.
India, the world’s largest democracy is ruled by laws legislated by the people who are voted to power again by the people. So, to delete Section 377 or amend it suitably to exclude consenting adults in private is the job of the Parliament.
“Since 1950, the Legislature has chosen not to amend the law or revisit it. This shows that Parliament, which is undisputedly the representative body of the people of India has not thought it proper to delete the provision. Such a conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that despite the decision of the Union of India to not challenge in appeal the order of the Delhi High Court, the Parliament has not made any amendment in the law,” read the Supreme Court judgment.
But the reasoning cuts no ice when it comes to chest-thumping reactions from Indians, particularly Indian expat. So, there’s a surge in global support for local activists who have waged “a relentless war for same-sex relations to be legalized”. Dozens of Bollywood stars have come forward to criticize the decision to reinstate Section 377 of IPC which bans “sex against the order of nature” and is widely interpreted to mean gay sex. Among those ‘hurt’ are Aamir Khan and John Abraham who described the judgment as “very intolerant and violative of basic human rights,” Freida Pinto of the Slumdog Millionaire fame who tweeted that she was “absolutely appalled by such narrow mindedness,” and more. That not a single celebrity chose to flay the petitioners who belong to hard-nosed religious groups and their associated ideology, reeks of hypocrisy.
So, for the record, here goes a list of the petitioners who moved the Supreme Court to re-instate Section 377. Delhi Commission for Protection Child Rights, Suresh Kumar Koushal, an astrologer, Krantikari Manuvadi Morcha, Trust Gods Ministry, Late VHP leader BP Singhal; Apostolic Churches Alliance, Utkal Christian Foundation, All India Muslim Personal Board, SK Tizarawala, a representative of Baba Ramdev and Petitioner in person from Joint Action Council Purshottaman Mulloli and petitioner in person Ram Murti.
LOOSE USE OF TERMS SUCH AS 'COLONIAL ERA LAW', 'ARCHAIC LAW'
The loose use of terms such as ‘colonial era law’ to run down a nation’s judicial processes is in poor taste and attempts to trivialize the processes of the world’s largest democracy. Why, wasn’t the Bill of Rights created back in 1789 and ratified in 1791? And, isn’t way older than 1861 when Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was created? So, by that logic, the Bill of Rights is more archaic than the IPC. Name-calling is the prerogative of the ill-informed and motivated. There is absolutely no exercise of restraint or a bonafide attempt to empathize with the subject in question or those who it affects.
Interestingly, despite all the brouhaha raked by celebrities and socialites in India and beyond, not a single one has urged for a change through legislative means. In the failure to understand India’s constitutional functioning, most indulge in the easiest of follies…bashing the state and for any reason whatsoever.
If it isn’t the inept handling of a natural disaster like the Uttarakhand disaster, it’s the “regressive” stand adopted by the highest court of the land. It only seems fashionable and in that narrow sense defeats the very purpose of the gay cause.
All political parties are aware that anyone takes an anti-Section 377 stand may risk losing the support of its ‘regressive’ voter base and hence never ever risk such a move. So, it pays to stay mum and provide the regulatory lip service as and when asked.
Also, who will risk taking on such an issue barely months before the battle of the millennium during the next general elections? The deafening silence of almost all political parties in the entire Section 377 imbroglio underlines the fact that while most of the closet gays have come out in the open vis-à-vis their leanings following global support and the Delhi High Court ruling of 2009, a sea of closet gay-haters continues to thrive. While they provide the loudest support in social media and all over, their stand remains suspect.
Political parties had been waiting for the Supreme Court to bell the cat while they publically flay the legal move and relinquish all responsibility for the act.
US BILL TO PROTECT TRADITIONAL FROM GAY-FRIENDLY FEDERAL GOVT
Just a while back, in the United States, Senator Mike Lee and eleven original cosponsors introduced legislation to protect religious organizations from discrimination by the federal government for supporting traditional marriage. The “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act” bars the government from denying any person or group tax-exempt status for exercising their religious conscience rights.
“This bill protects the rights of individuals and organizations from religious discrimination by the federal government,” said Senator Lee. “Those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage deserve respect and tolerance. It is critical that we clarify the law to ensure that their fundamental civil liberties are not at risk.” It will ensure that Churches will not be pressurized into recognizing Gay marriages.
Australia High Court Shoots down Pro-Gay Law, Insists on Legislation
And, Australia’s High Court on December 12th struck down gay marriage in the nation’s capital, ruling that the Parliament must decide on same-sex unions. In a unanimous judgment overturning the Australian Capital Territory’s new same-sex marriage law, the High Court ruled that only the Parliament and not state and territory authorities had the power to decide who could wed.
Russia’s Anti-Gay Legislation Helps Protect Minors
Russia’s highest court recently ruled that a controversial law banning “gay propaganda” was not in breach of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court dismissed a complaint from leading gay rights campaigner Nikolai Alexeyev that St. Petersburg city council had acted unconstitutionally by passing legislation to ban the promotion of homosexuality among minors.
The law, which came into effect in March 2012, allows for fines of up to 5,000 rubles ($150) for individuals and up to 500,000 rubles ($15,000) for organizations. A similar federal law banning the promotion of “non-traditional sexual relationships” among minors took effect in June this year. But, till sense prevails, will the world’s intellectually-sensitized proponents of ‘inclusion’ get “appalled” by a “regressive” US, Russia and Australia too? Chances are…they won’t! It’s just not as fashionable as bashing India.
THE SUPREME COURT VERDICT IS SEEN AS 'PROTECTING CHILDREN'
While the Supreme Court bashing continues, it may make sense to attempt to figure the logic that spurred the petitioners into challenging the Delhi High Court decision to de-criminalize the offence. A reputed Delhi Commission for Protection Child Rights (DCPCR) also joined in the petition against the repeal of Section 377 in the Indian Supreme Court, and fought the section shoulder to shoulder with conservative religious groups.
Only two years before the High Court order was passed in 2009, a national study on child sex abuse conducted by the ministry of women and child development had revealed that 50 per cent of the child victims were male. Section 377 was the only protection that male children had against sexual assault.
“In the last 150 years, there have been only 200 cases were this section has been effectively applied. All those cases applied to sodomy and in more than 90 per cent of the cases, the victims were minors. So the application of the Section 377 was to protect victims,” offered the-then chairperson of the Commission Abod Kanth.
The High Court in legalizing consensual sex between consenting adults had failed to address the fall-out of the impact of such relationships on children. Children of LGBT parents were more prone to social stigmatization. In decriminalizing homosexuality, the High Court did not devise any protection as far adoption laws were concerned – whether gay and lesbian couples can adopt children, whether they have right to adopt.
The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act addresses the issue of sexual assault against children it does not address concerns raised by DCPCR relating to adoption, parenting, and stigma to LGBT kids. These issues need to be discussed, deliberated and legislated through process of law. Simply retaining Section 377 or repealing it does not affect gay rights as extensively as widely, and wrongly, understood. It will need a full-fledged legislative endeavor.
The Apex Court has put the ball in the Parliament’s court and thrown open the option of legislating extensively on the issue and amending the section appropriately; and, in that, provided the perfect platform for change.