Nothing comes in this country without paying hefty cost, education too

There was court order from Delhi High Court to effect dasti Service on the Defendants through Court Server. It has to be done through court Server within a week.

Dasti service is a form of legal service that is carried out through the court server. It involves delivering a court order or legal notice to a defendant through a court-appointed official. 

In this particular case, the Delhi High Court had ordered that dasti service be carried out on the defendants within a week. However, due to the overload of work on the process server branch, the court clerk was unable to get the work done in time.

Though my court clerk was trying to get this effect as soon as possible, however , as the process server brach was loaded with too much work, I had to go mention the matter to Registrar and  get the work done.

Frustration of my court court was apparent from his face. Obviously he was regretting of not being a lawyer. He was also regretting to coming from a farmer family. Though he was sharp, but perhaps because of his poor family back groud , he had to started to do the job at the early stage of life.

I consoled him and encouraged him to make his son lawyer. He again laughed and said, Sir We can not afford high tutuion fee of private school. And every body knows the situation of government school. In this country poor people are meant to remain poor. 

Obviously he was having desire to  make his son a lawyer, but was unable to afford the high tuition fees of private schools. This highlights the larger issue of the high cost of education in India, and the lack of opportunities available to those from poorer backgrounds.

Nothing in this country comes without paying the hefty fee, the justice too, the education too. If some one wants a good education, he is supposed to make heady payment to schools. With Court also, same thing is true.

The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to education for all, but in reality, access to quality education is limited to those who can afford it. 

Private schools and educational institutions have become increasingly widespread across the country, creating a divide between those who can afford quality education and those who cannot. 

This is a result of the failure of the government to provide good quality education in government schools. The lack of investment in government schools is a reflection of the wider issues within the Indian education  system. 

The government has failed to provide adequate resources and support to ensure that the justice system is functioning effectively. As a result, the burden of ensuring justice falls on the shoulders of overworked court officials, who are often unable to cope with the demands placed on them.

Though Indian constitution promises the right of education to all, but why Government is not be able to provide good Government school? How the promises, which has been made by the Indian Constitution, can be fulfilled? Why private schools and educational institutions are spreading line hydra across the country?

The high cost of education in India and the lack of opportunities for those from poorer backgrounds also serve as a reminder of the need for greater investment in education and other public services. Only by addressing these issues can India truly guarantee justice and equality for all.

Ajay Amitabh Suman

Delayed Justice is no justice

The concept of justice is an integral aspect of any society, and it is the fundamental responsibility of the judicial system to provide justice to the victims of crimes. However, the Indian judicial system's delay in delivering justice has become a recurring issue, leading to a growing dissatisfaction among the citizens. The recent incident where a rape victim was convicted after 17 years of trial is a harsh reminder of the need for speedy justice delivery.

As I took a sip of Tea in Delhi High Court canteen, I saw a news flash on the television that a rape victim was convicted after 17 years of trial. The news was disturbing, and my curiosity led me to have a conversation with the victim. The victim, contrary to my expectations, was not happy or relieved with the decision. The long delay in the decision-making process left her with a feeling of despair. The quote, "Justice delayed is justice denied," rightly came to my mind.

The Indian judicial system has come under scrutiny in recent years due to the prolonged process of delivering justice. The lengthy trials, procedural delays, and the backlog of cases have resulted in the justice system becoming frustrating and an arduous process for the victims. The incident mentioned above is just one among many such cases that linger on for years, and the victims remain bereft of justice.

In a democracy, it is the judiciary's responsibility to protect the human rights of every citizen and bring justice to victims of crimes. In the face of incompetency and inefficiency in the justice delivery, it falls upon the judiciary, the legal fraternity, and the government to take swift and constructive steps to restore the public's faith in the judicial system.

The process of speedy justice delivery is a collective responsibility of the advocates and the Hon'ble Judges. Advocates play an essential role in ensuring that the justice delivery process is swift, as they are the primary representatives of their clients. They can file petitions, put case summaries in front of the judges and present the evidence that aids in the conviction of the criminal. They play a vital role in expediting the judicial process by presenting the cases in front of the judges convincingly.

On the other hand, Hon'ble Judges have the responsibility to ensure that justice is delivered on time. During the hearings, judges can ensure efficient and thorough hearings, streamline the documentation process, and appropriately allocate resources to expedite the trials. The judges must provide specific timelines for the trials and follow due diligence, assertiveness, and fairness during the judicial processes.

The judicial system needs to thrive on the principle of justice delivery that upholds the dignity and the rights of the victims. The judicial processes need to be streamlined and made efficient, with a priority placed on speedy and just convictions. Public faith can be restored in the judiciary only when the victims' voices are heard, and the long-pending cases are dealt with swiftly.

Furthermore, the government needs to put in place adequate resources to enable the timely processing of cases. The judicial system requires the allocation of additional judges, adequate infrastructure, and the creation of specialized tribunals to deal with specific cases. These measures will go a long way in providing relief to the citizens seeking justice.

The recent incident in Delhi High Court canteen reiterated the need for speedy justice delivery in India. Justice delayed is justice denied. It is the responsibility of the advocates, Hon'ble judges, and the government to take cognizance of the matter and work towards streamlining the justice delivery process. It is only then that the judiciary will be successful in rebuilding the public's faith in the justice system, and victims will receive justice on time.

Justice denied is a consequence of delayed proceedings, which renders any decision useless if it comes too late. Therefore, it is the responsibility of both advocates and Hon'ble Judges to expedite the justice delivery system to maintain the people's trust in the judiciary.

If a Writer Writes Wrongly, he wrongs the history

One of my friend was sharing his experience as a Local Commissioner. Few days ago my friend was appointed as Local Commissioner by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a matter pertaining to Intellectual Property Right. He happened to visit a village in Haryana.

He further told me that at a Public Place , this quotation was mentioned:

"Ḍhol ganvār shūdra pashu nārī। sakal tāḍanā ke adhikārī"

[Drum, illiterate, Shudra , animal and  woman deserve Gross Chastisement]

My friend was further saying that at the bottom of the afore mentioned Quote , it mentioned, From Ramayan by Tulsidasa.

He said that though Tulsidasa spoken this quotes from the mouth of Sea God, still fact remains that People often misquote this statement.

The statement in question was a distorted version of a line from Tulsidasa's Ramayan. The original line was spoken by the Sea God, who warns Lord Ram that even the most marginalized individuals deserve respect and protection. However, the painted version of the statement was altered to suggest that certain groups, including women and individuals of lower castes, should be harshly punished.

This incident highlights the importance of accuracy and responsibility in writing. As my friend noted, writers must be aware that their words have the potential to shape societal beliefs and attitudes for centuries to come. If a writer propagates misinformation or bigotry, they are committing a crime against society.

Moreover, writers must ensure that their words are not taken out of context or distorted in a way that misrepresents their original meaning. The altered version of Tulsidasa's statement is a prime example of this issue. The original message of compassion and inclusivity was twisted into a call for violence and oppression.

It is imperative that writers take responsibility for the impact of their words. In a world where misinformation spreads rapidly through social media and other channels, it is more important than ever to ensure that information is accurate, balanced, and ethical.

The power of writing is undeniable, but so too is its responsibility. We must all do our part to ensure that the words we produce are used for good, not harm. By spreading accurate information, combating misinformation, and advocating for inclusivity and respect, we can help to create a better world through writing.

The Responsibility of write is much more. A Writer must realize that whatever they write or propagate , it is going to have lasting effect for centuries. It a writer writes some thing wrong, he is actually comitting a crime.

The Right of same sex couples to adopt a Child

The right of same-sex couples to adopt a child is a subject of fierce debates globally. Some countries fully recognize the rights of same-sex couples to adopt a child, while others are still contemplating it.

Though same-sex marriage has not yet been recognized by the Indian Legislature, a significant step has been taken in this direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Judgement namely Navtej Singh V. Union of India, where Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been struck down by the Supreme Court.

This was a landmark judgment in India's legal history, as it decriminalized homosexuality and recognized the rights of the LGBTQ community. The
afore mentioned Judgement struck down the penal consequences of Section 377 India Penal Code, in relation to consensual sex between two adults. It was great relief to LGBTQ community. But right to adopt a child for such same sex couple still remains a distance possibility.

As per the Indian law, adoption is governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Neither of the acts specifically prohibits same-sex couples from adopting a child. However, there is no mention of same-sex couples either, creating a legal vacuum that leaves the matter open to interpretation.

Section 2(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, defines adoption as the process through which the adopted child is permanently separated from his biological parent or guardian and becomes the legitimate child of his adoptive parents. In other words, adoption creates a permanent legal relationship between the adoptive parent and the adopted child.

On the other hand, the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, governs adoption rights for Hindus only. Section 8 of the Act provides that any Hindu male who is of sound mind and is not a minor may adopt a child. However, if the adoptive parent is a married couple, both should give their consent to the adoption.

The lack of clarity regarding same-sex couples' adoption rights in India has led to a series of court battles. In April 2019, the Madras High Court held that a lesbian couple could not be denied the right to parent a child merely because of their sexual orientation.

The court directed the Tamil Nadu State government to consider their application for adoption as per the guidelines. The case arose from the petition filed by the couple seeking to adopt a child.

The couple had married in the United States and returned to India to start a family. The court observed that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act did not bar same-sex couples from adopting a child.

This Judgement came in the year 2019, titled as Arun Kumar v Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu , where by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has interpreted the term bride to include the transwoman also.

However, in another case, the Karnataka High Court held that a gay couple could not be granted the right to adopt a child. The court refused to consider their plea, citing that the Indian law did not recognize same-sex marriage.

The case arose when two American men, in a committed relationship, sought to adopt a child through surrogacy in India. The court observed that the couple could not be granted the right to adopt the child as the Indian law did not recognize same-sex marriage.

The contrasting judgements of the Madras High Court and the Karnataka High Court highlight the conflicting nature of the Indian law regarding same-sex couple's adoption rights.

Internationally, many countries have already granted the right of adoption to same-sex couples. In the United States, same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015, granting same-sex couples the legal right to adopt a child.

In Canada, same-sex couples have been legally permitted to adopt a child since 1999. In Germany, same-sex couples have been granted the right to adopt a child since 2017.

In Australia, the Parliament passed a law in 2017, legalizing same-sex marriage, granting same-sex couples the right of adoption. Progress has been slower in some countries like Italy, where same-sex couples are still prohibited from adopting a child.

Live-in relationships have also become more socially acceptable in India in recent years, which is a positive development. However, the question remains as to whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children or not. This issue has generated a lot of debate and controversy in India, with proponents and opponents presenting arguments for their respective positions.

The primary argument against same-sex couples adopting children is that children need both a mother and a father figure to grow up in a balanced and healthy environment.

Opponents of same-sex adoption also argue that it goes against Indian cultural values and traditions. However, there is no empirical evidence to support these claims, and they are based on stereotypes and prejudice.

On the other hand, proponents of same-sex adoption argue that every individual, regardless of their sexual orientation, should have the right to adopt a child if they can provide a loving and nurturing environment for the child.

There is no evidence to suggest that same-sex parents are any less capable of raising children than opposite-sex parents. Moreover, denying same-sex couples the right to adopt is a violation of their fundamental human rights.

The right of same-sex couples to adopt a child remains a contentious issue, with debates raging on its legality and morality. India's legal system lacks clarity on this issue, leading to varying interpretations and court battles. While some courts have upheld the right of same-sex couples to adopt a child, others have denied it.

In light of the international trend towards granting the right of adoption to same-sex couples, India may need to revisit its laws to provide clarity on this issue.

Though India has made significant progress in recent years in recognizing the rights of the LGBTQ community. However, the societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships and adoption are still evolving. This is one aspect of matter. The another aspect of this issue is that making laws is one thing, but changing societal attitudes is another.

For instance, the Sati system, also known as the practice of widow burning or self-immolation, was a deeply ingrained and longstanding cultural practice in India. Raja Ram Mohan Roy's efforts to abolish the Sati system were met with resistance from various sections of the Indian society.

Through these efforts, Raja Ram Mohan Roy was able to gradually persuade the Indian society to accept the reform of the Sati system. In 1829, the British Governor-General Lord William Bentick passed a law banning the practice of Sati, which was met with widespread protests and violent reactions from the traditionalists.

However, over time, the ban was enforced and gradually accepted by most parts of the society, leading to the eventual eradication of the Sati system. Before banning Sati Pratha, Raja Ram Mohan Roy had to make the Indian Society accept such a reform. Only after that did the ban of the Sati system become successful.

Similarly, in spite of the regulations outlined in India's Dowry Prohibition Act, passed in 1961, which forbids the giving or receiving by either party of any money, property, or any other valuable thing, the Dowry system continues to exist.

Other laws, such as the Domestic Violence Act of 2005 and the Protection of Women Against Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act 2013, have been put in place to address aspects of the Dowry system, but they have proved futile in stopping it.

Until society acknowledges the devastating effects of this tradition and the need to condemn it, the Dowry system will persist. It ultimately requires a change in attitudes and beliefs, and it all starts with raising awareness and standing together to demand a better world where there is no room for dangerous systems like Dowry.

Therefore, it is essential to make the Indian society accept the rights of same-sex couples to adopt a child, and merely making laws will not serve the purpose. It is crucial to start a dialogue and raise awareness about the positive aspects of same-sex adoption and how it can benefit the child. This can be achieved through media campaigns, public debates, and community outreach programs.

In the present day scenario same-sex adoption appears to be a complex issue that requires careful consideration and dialogue. Every individual, regardless of their sexual orientation, should have the right to adopt a child if they can provide a loving and nurturing environment for the child.

It is crucial to change societal attitudes towards same-sex adoption through education, awareness, and dialogue. Only then can we truly create an inclusive society that respects the rights of all individuals. Without creating the acceptance and recognition from the Society, the law will remain toothless.

Ajay Amitabh Suman