‘Form committee to monitor govt docs’ attendance’

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Chennai:14.03.2019

The Madras high court has directed the government to constitute a monitoring committee to supervise the attendance and assess the performance of government doctors and maintenance of government medical hospitals across the state.

Justice SM Subramaniam has also directed the government to recover adequate compensation from government doctors who violate terms of service, including the lock-in periods, after completing postgraduation under government quota.

The judge passed the order while dismissing a plea moved by Dr Silamban, a government doctor, who had been absenting from service for the past seven-and-a-halfyears without authorization. The petitioner who joined the service through TNPSC in 1993, later completed his diploma in anaesthesiology as a service candidate with stipend.

“Government doctors are gaining rich experiences at the cost of public money and even through public themselves, who all are attending government hospitals. Poor men are being used as guinea pig for learning. Poor man’s body is dissected and provided for learning. Government resources and life of poor men are at the mercy of government doctors. If no adequate measures are taken to monitor the quality of treatment and performances undertaken, the state is failing in its duty to uphold the right to life ensured to the citizen under the Constitution,” Justice Subramaniam said.

Apart from corrupt practices at government hospitals, it is painful to pen down that doctors themselves are irregular in attending duty, resulting in death of patients, who all are not in a position to afford quality treatment from corporate hospitals, the judge added.

Noting that the situation results in denial of social justice and equal treatment, the court said, economic condition of a citizen cannot be a ground for denial of quality treatment. Thus, the government is duty-bound to ensure cleanliness, availability of doctors, including speciality treatment, paramedical staff, supporting staff, which all are imminent and a constitutional mandate.

Adding that frequent complaints are noticed across the state that government doctors are developing their private practice by neglecting public duty, Justice Subramaniam said, “It is a misconduct both under the service rules as well as MCI regulations. Thus, adequate steps are highly warranted.”

The court asked the government to recover adequate compensation from those who violate service terms

Supreme Court urges BCI to reconsider rule mandating age limit for law courses

Aditya AK March 12 2019  

The Supreme Court today passed an order asking the Bar Council of India (BCI) to reconsider its rule mandating an upper age limit for admission to law courses.

After hearing the matter today, the Bench of Justices SA Bobde and Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that there is no age to acquire education. Justice Kaul observed that since children from economically weaker sections of society may not have a linear education, they would be disadvantaged by the age limit rule.

The order passed by the Bench urges the BCI to reconsider Clause 28 of the Rules on Standards of Legal Education.

“We consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to permit the Bar Council of India to reconsider the age limit after hearing the various stakeholders, including the petitioner.”

The direction was made in a petition filed in 2016 by two aspiring law students, Rishabh Duggal and Rishabh Arora. They had challenged the BCI’s age limit rule as being unconstitutional and ultra vires various provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.

In 2008, the BCI had introduced the Rules on Standards of Legal Education framed under the Advocates Act of 1961. Clause 28 in the Schedule III of the Rules sought to impose an age cap for prospective law students. The maximum age limit for joining the Bachelor’s law course was set at twenty years for general category students and twenty-two for SC/ST/OBC students. Similarly, for the post-graduate course, the limit was thirty years for general category and thirty-five for reserved categories.

After a slew of petitions in different high courts challenging Clause 28, the BCI formed a one-man committee of advocate S Prabhakaran to peruse the validity of the provision. The same committee found that the clause fell afoul of Article 14 of the Constitution and recommended its deletion. Subsequently, the BCI passed a notification on September 28, 2013, withdrawing Clause 28.

This matter was then exhumed by B Ashok, an advocate of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. In his writ petition, he prayed that the BCI notification withdrawing Clause 28 be quashed as it was in contravention of the amendment procedure under the Advocates Act. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the petition.

The BCI then challenged the decision before the Supreme Court of India; however, a Bench of JS Khehar and Rohinton Fali Nariman JJ. upheld the Madras High Court verdict in December 2015. In effect, the clause stood valid.

Subsequently, the High Courts of Bombay and Punjab & Haryana had struck down the rule, citing the legislative incompetence of the BCI to introduce such a rule.

Despite this, the rule still stood. However, as the petition notes, several high courts have allowed petitioners who had crossed the age limit to appear for entrance exams including the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT).

Attempts have been made in previous editions of CLAT – for instance, the 2017 edition – to impose the age limit prescribed by Clause 28.

In March 2017, while hearing this petition, the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of Clause 28.

And now, the Supreme Court has directed the BCI to reconsider the rule.

Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for the petitioners.

The matter is listed for the first week of April.

Pollachi Sexual Abuse Case

What is the Pollachi sexual abuse and extortion case: A detailed explainer

 Ragamalika Karthikeyan

• Wednesday, March 13, 2019 - 18:20

 The Pollachi case has taken TN – and the rest of India – by shock. TNM has put together all the verified information that is available so far.

On February 12 this year, Priya (name changed), a 19-year-old college student in Pollachi, was called by her acquaintance, Sabarirajan, who told her that he wanted to discuss something important with her alone. Sabarirajan, who also goes by the name Riswandh, asked Priya to meet him at a bus stop in Pollachi, and when Priya reached there in the afternoon, Sabarirajan was standing near a car along with his friend Thirunavukkarasu, another acquaintance of Priya. The duo asked her to get into the car with them, and said they would talk on the way. While Thirunavukkarasu started the car, Sabarirajan was sitting in the back seat with Priya. And suddenly, two more men – Sathish and Vasanthkumar – got in. The four of them forcefully disrobed Priya and shot a video, and snatched a gold chain she was wearing. They threatened her that if she did not do as they said, and provide them with sexual favours and money when they demanded it, they would upload the video on the internet. When she screamed and cried, they left her in the middle of the road and drove away.

Upset and scared, Priya did not reveal the incident to her family. But when the men blackmailed her and tried to extort money from her multiple times, Priya decided to take her family into confidence.

Her brother Subhash (name changed) then tracked down Thirunavukkarasu and Sabarirajan, beat them up, and unearthed what is perhaps an elaborate and scary sexual violence and extortion racket. Subhash and his friends got hold of Thirunavukkarasu and Sabarirajan’s cell phones, which contained videos of at least three other women that the men may have blackmailed. The family submitted this to the Pollachi police, along with a complaint of sexual harassment and robbery.

The police have filed an FIR on February 24 against Sabarirajan, Thirunavukkarasu, Sathish and Vasanthkumar under sections 354A (sexual harassment), 354B (assault or use of criminal force against woman with intent to disrobe), and 392 (robbery) of the IPC; section 66E of the IT Act (violation of privacy); and section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Sexual Harassment of Women Act (sexual harassment).

The rape and extortion racket

Priya’s ordeal and the phones collected from the four accused has revealed a massive racket run by the four men, and allegedly several other men – and the police is looking into who the perpetrators of these crimes are. They have asked other victims to come forward with their experiences with these men.

TNM has learned some details of the modus operandi of these men was. One of them – usually Sabarirajan alias Riswandh – would lure women to a secluded house or hotel, and either force himself on them or convince them to have sex.

All the while, his accomplices – hidden from view – would shoot the act on a camera.

If it was a sexual assault, one of the accomplices would barge in and pretend to be a saviour, while the other men continued to shoot the video. At least one such video of a young woman who was sexually assaulted by Riswandh (alias Sabarirajan) has been released by a Tamil magazine. TNM will not share the video, or other videos that are circulating.

In the videos that the men have shot, the young women can be heard naming Riswandh (alias Sabarirajan) multiple times. In one of these videos, Thirunavukkarasu can be clearly seen.

Thirunavukkarasu

In another video, Sathish can be seen in a sexual act, and he has left the door open for his friends to shoot the act.

In another video, Riswandh shoots a woman and continuously asks her whether she would meet him the next day. The police say such videos were used to blackmail for money or sexual favours.

If the sex was consensual, the men would threaten to upload the videos on the internet or circulate them through WhatsApp, unless the women gave them sexual favours, along with money and other valuables. In all the videos, it is clear that the door of the room was kept open so other members of the gang could take pictures and shoot videos.

How many victims?

The lawyer of the survivor told TNM that they have recovered three videos from the cell phones they seized from two of the men. While there are media reports and estimates that there are anywhere between 50 and 200 victims of this racket, there is no confirmation of any such number so far. However, at least six women are there in the videos that have leaked now, only Forensic department can recover the rest.

In an audio message that one of the accused Thirunavukkarasu released, he says that a false case has been foisted on him – but also suggests that ‘99 other women’ were willing participants.

The case of assault of victim’s brother

Priya and her family filed a complaint and the police registered an FIR on February 24, 2019. On February 25, Subhash was assaulted by four men – allegedly friends of Thirunavukkarasu and Sabarirajan. Senthil, Babu, Mani and Vasanthkumar beat up Subhash for filing a complaint against Thirunavukkarasu, and allegedly threatened that if anything were to happen to these men, Subhash will not be alive.

An FIR was registered by the Pollachi police in this case, under section 341, 294(b), 323, 324, and 506(2) of the IPC.

The Pollachi police added the name of a fifth person – ‘Bar’ Nagaraj, an AIADMK functionary who has now been expelled by the party – in the FIR.

All five men are now out on bail.

Who are the four accused

Sabarirajan alias Riswandh is a 25-year-old civil engineer in Pollachi. Thirunavukkarasu is a 26-year-old financier. Vasanthakumar works for Thirunavukkarasu to collect money from clients. Sathish is the owner of a readymade garments shop in Pollachi.

Politics over sexual violence

While the case was registered in late February, and TNM reported about the arrests on February 27, the incident has become politicised in the last few days.

The AIADMK has been criticised for the alleged involvement of Nagaraj in the saga, with some media reports suggesting that the rot runs higher up in the party. Tamil Magazine Nakkheeran’s editor Nakkheeran Gopal, in a video, alleged the involvement of Tamil Nadu Deputy Speaker Pollachi Jayaraman’s sons in the sexual abuse and extortion racket. However, Nakkheeran has not given any evidence of their involvement, or how they are allegedly linked to the accused in the case.

While Jayaraman himself has denied allegations, the survivor, Priya, and her brother Subhash have released statements where they said that it was Jayaraman who in fact has supported them from the beginning. In an audio statement, Priya said that her family approached Jayaraman through a family friend, and he has been helpful with filing the complaint and taking the case forward.

Subhash meanwhile released a video statement where his face is not visible, where he has linked the politicisation of the case with the announcement of Lok Sabha election dates.

Meanwhile, opposition party DMK held a rally in Pollachi on Tuesday demanding action against the accused. Speaking at the rally, DMK MP Kanimozhi said, “Many of them are saying we are politicising the issue. Nobody wants to politicise this. But if the government acts only after the matter becomes politicised, then what else can be done?”

Revealing identity of victim, circulating videos

While the survivor and her family have maintained that the police is helping them in the case, Pollachi Superintendent of Police Pandiarajan revealed the survivor’s name in a press meet, against every law to protect the identity of the victim.

“The name of the survivor in this case was revealed only to silence the other women and prevent them from coming out in the open and complaining,” Kanimozhi alleged at the DMK rally on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, several videos of victims are doing the rounds on WhatsApp, with no consideration for the victims’ consent or mental health. These videos were allegedly on the phones seized from the four accused – two of the phones were retrieved by the survivor’s brother while the other two were seized by the police.

Reconsider Upper Age Limit For Admission To LL.B. Courses, SC To Bar Council Of India [Read Order]

Reconsider Upper Age Limit For Admission To LL.B. Courses, SC To Bar Council Of India [Read Order]: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Bar Council of India to reconsider, after hearing the various stakeholders, the upper age-limit for taking admission to the five-year and three-year law...

Reconsider Upper Age Limit For Admission To LL.B. Courses, SC To Bar Council Of India [Read Order]

Reconsider Upper Age Limit For Admission To LL.B. Courses, SC To Bar Council Of India [Read Order]: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Bar Council of India to reconsider, after hearing the various stakeholders, the upper age-limit for taking admission to the five-year and three-year law...

Polachi sexual assault case: Goondas Act slapped on four accused 

 The four accused -- Thirunavukkarasu, Sathish, Sabarirajan and Vasanthakumar are in judicial custody now. 

 Tuesday, March 12, 2019 - 11:44 

 

The police have slapped the provisions of the Goondas Act on the four accused who have been arrested in connection with the Pollachi sexual assault case. Just a day earlier, the Pollachi Magistrate Court had extended the remand for three of the four accused by 15 days.

The police action is in keeping with their earlier assertion that the four men -- Thirunavukkarasu, Sathish, Sabarirajan and Vasanthakumar -- had sexually assaulted and extorted other women. According to the police, their modus operandi involved befriending college-going girls online, filming them after they met them in person, and blackmailing them later with the videos for money.

The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 or the Goondas Act defines a goonda as “a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences.”

Under the Goondas Act, a person may be detained without bail for a period that may extend up to one year. In 2011, the Madras High Court held that a single case was enough to detain a person under the Goondas Act.

It may be recalled that the Tamil Nadu police also slapped the Goondas Act on 17 accused in the rape of a 11-year-old child in Chennai last year.

Background

On February 24, a Pollachi-based woman registered a complaint with a local police station, alleging that four men -- Thirunavukkarasu, Sathish, Sabarirajan and Vasanthakumar -- sexually assaulted her in a car under the pretext of a friendly meeting on February 12. Police confirmed that the perpetrators of the crime shot videos of the girl, using it later to extort money from the survivor. While Sabarirajan, Vasanthakumar and Sathish were arrested on February 24, Thirunavukkarasu was apprehended on March 5.

 Soon after the survivor narrated her ordeal to her family, her brother Subhash confronted the men about the incident. The confrontation soon escalated to a physical altercation where Subhash was assaulted by four men.

According to the police, AIADMK functionary A Nagaraj came to the defence of Thirunavukkarasu after the confrontation, threatening and assaulting Subhash. Subhash lodged a complaint with the police. While the initial FIR did not mention him, Nagaraj's name was later added.

Nirmala Devi, accused in sex for cash scandal, granted bail by Madras HC 

 Tuesday, March 12, 2019 - 14:34
 
Nirmala Devi, a former Assistant Professor in an arts college in Aruppukkottai was arrested in April 2018 for trying to lure girl students to provide sexual favours to ‘higher officials’ of Madurai Kamaraj University.

Nirmala Devi, the main accused in the sex for cash scandal, was granted bail by the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday. This comes more than a week after the Tamil Nadu government had told the High Court that it had no objection to Nirmala Devi being granted bail. Justice Dhandapani had granted bail observing that the investigation is complete, the chargesheet has also been also filed and government has no objection. The state government had, however, submitted that Nirmala Devi should not speak to the media while she is out on bail. This submission has been accepted by the court.

On April 16, 2018, Nirmala Devi, a former Assistant Professor in an arts college in Aruppukkottai, was arrested for trying to lure girl students to provide sexual favours to ‘higher officials’ of Madurai Kamaraj University (MKU) in exchange for money, grades and career opportunities. In the 19-minute long audio clip, Nirmala Devi can allegedly be heard telling four students of the college about ‘opportunities’ that await them if they agree to do an ‘assignment’ she was offering. She promised them marks, academic prospects and money if they took up her offer.

Earlier this year, the court had ordered an interim stay on the trial based on a chargesheet filed by the CB-CID, based on a petition filed by Suganthi, the General Secretary of All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA). Suganthi had alleged that the investigators had not pursued leads on purpose to unravel who the big names behind the racket were.

She alleged that the CB- CID had limited the case to three people- Nirmala Devi, Assistant Professor V Murugan and former Research Scholar Karuppasamy. She had stated that CB CID has deliberately not questioned or revealed the names of people for whom Nirmala Devi was allegedly soliciting sexual favours from students.

During the hearing last week, the court had asked the TN government if Nirmala Devi’s life was in danger and the government had said there was no danger.

Murugan and Karuppasamy, were granted bail by the Supreme Court. However, Nirmala Devi’s bail application has been rejected multiple times by various courts.