Rana Ayyub and the Streisand Effect!

Gujarat Files: Anatomy of A Cover Up, Rana Ayyub self-published this book as according to her, a well known publisher refused  to publish the book. The subject matter of the book i.e. 2002 Riots and Fake Encounters of Gujarat, itself is enough to scare the publishers. She also claimed that she had in fact stinged none other than, Mr. Narendra Modi, and, She can provide the sting to the investigating authorities if requested.

She also claimed that between 2012 - 2014, she had approached many publishers but to hear a firm rejection.

She and other FoE crusaders are upset with the 'Bhakt's critical ratings' of her book. The abusive language used by the Bhakts on Amazon and Flipkart's review section raises some valid concern. They say if you don't like the book publish a book which provides counter narrative. As the book contains under cover operation it is very hard for a layman to judge its authenticity. Nonetheless, abuses seldom help anybody. Dialog would.

 Lately, when any writer faces a problem to publish his book which has some controversial subject matter involving Politicians or Business czars, Streisand effect comes in to play. The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.

Rana Ayyub also got the Streisand Effect handy. Due to this negative publicity, the book tops the chart and is a top seller on both the sites. Many blogs and leading E - journals have published excerpts of the book. It also generates curiosity in public.

Moral of the story: Don't pulp the books, churn your mind and counter a book with a book!

May I have your liberty to write Your Lordships?

 

My lord, i have enough reason to believe that your Lordships has long forgotten the role of the judiciary in democratic set up. I don't want rather not in a position to give sermon regarding what you can do. I have identified some areas which your Lordship shall not use their proprietary.

 

1.) My Lords you are not a professor of English. Any Lawyer while assisting the Court is more concerned about law than language. In any case it is not the duty of the court to take viva voce of the lawyers. The Courts of law is not a class room of any college where students enrol to make themselves Shakespeare. The court room is different from a lecture room.

 

2.) My lord, You are not our Moral Science teacher. Don't preach us for moralities and all. The law is devoid of morals. The law is an objective subject. We have already passed with flying colours the subject of Moral Science while we were in our secondary school.

 

3.) My lord, sometimes i feel shy rather conscious while assisting your good office. The reason is your constant advice regarding our physical appearance.

An- tie SOCIAL!!!

Isn't it an Irony that we call it a Social Media by which we are becoming more and more unsocial? What is Social? According to Dictionaries Social means, "relating to or involving activities in which people spend time talking to each other or doing enjoyable things with each other."  We forgot how to talk while we are physically and in real time together. Around the globe scientists are giving a signal that Virtual world will kill the real world. We will lose our voice. We need microphone, speaker and screen for conversation. We feel shy and even irritated if we have to make a face to face conversation. We will forget gestures at all.

Nonverbal communication will also become dead as we prefer screen over skin. Don't you feel that Smart phone has made us all socially dumb! A child doesn't know and has not experienced the smile on his father's face when he gets back from his office and sees his child waiting for him the father most probably, is on Smartphone. The opposite situation may also arise when the father gets back home his child is playing on Smartphone. Even when the family is having dinner or lunch they all just mechanically, have their food without even having a glance on their food.  

Slowly and Steadily more and more people become aware about the value of real conversation. Let's hope we become ‘More-Smart’ by dumping the use of Smartphone while we are accompanied by our loved once. 


(Picture Source: Google Images)

Haajir Ho - 2.

When I joined the court in 2010 my senior told me that whenever you are in the court room always have your eyes on the Judge/bench so that you can understand how he is reacting and behaving in a given case/situation. It will help you when you get a chance to argue before him. OBSERVE is the message!

Accordingly, I started observing the Judges which has helped me immensely to ascertain What to argue, when to argue, what not to argue, which line of argument particular judge hates etcetera. The Court Craftsmanship or the Art of Advocacy is effective communication to the canvas of the mind through the artwork of four brushes, effective speaking, effective writing, effective reading and effective listening. Nowadays, Smartphone captivates your attention from the arguments and you fail to listen what the Opponent is canvassing.

In 2011 I went abroad for my higher studies. I came back and what I have seen in the courtroom gave me a shock and surprise. In the Court Room where a division bench nested only the Senior Judge and a lawyer were physically and mentally present in that court room all other including respondent lawyers, Bench Clerk, Legal Assistant, Stenographer, Government Pleader all were busy on Screen. They are not at all interested in court room proceedings. The respondent lawyer even didn’t respond to the Judge at the first instance when the judge raised a query to him it was a petitioner lawyer who drew his attention towards the judge!

 

Haajir Ho - 1.

In the Mid August the Air condition system of the High Court of Gujarat failed hence, we were living a nightmare with perspired Lawyer's UNIFORM i.e. Black suit, Robe and Collar band! No, ventilation point for our body to get in or get out our body heat!!! No, we the lawyers are not the only VICTIMS of this Natural Surroundings! Honorable Judges were living the worst nightmare. Though, the registry did arrange pedestal fans for the court rooms but, they are just mute spectator of our agony. Sometimes the total number of these fans outnumbers the total strength of advocates in a particular court room! 

As the temperament running high of the lawyers so as the JUDGES'. It was the Court where Service Matters and allied matters listed for adjudication. A Party-in -Person appeared for his case and started canvassing rather, narrating the troubles in life he is facing as he believes that all the solution for his troubles lie at the doorstep of High Court. The Judge who takes/ hears the matters is thorough Gentleman and Man of knowledge. She became to make the party in person aware, a Law Professor. She slowly and firmly tried to explain the Jurisdiction under Article 226. The Party in Person ain't impress with the lecturing skill of the Judge and he did not allow the Judge cum Professor to speak by raising the voice of his arguments. Everything has its own limit so as the Judge's patient. It is one of that situation where the passion of the litigant won at the cost of the patient of the Judge. Suddenly, he attains the highest pitch of his voice and pose a question to the Judge "If I won’t get justice here from the High Court then where should I go?" the Judge readily answered the question by saying, 'Go to UP (Uttar Pardesh)!' The Judge was emotionally carried away! In fact, the petitioner is hailing from UP which makes those words more cruel. 

 -----------------------------------

We are back to normalcy. The Air Conditioned Court rooms make our lives more peaceful. we again started surfing the net and try to make ourselves more updated than we are updated few seconds ago. In this exercise of keeping ourselves updated I found out an article "Won't hear you in person because you might turn emotional "- CJI. Being a lawyer I was quite happy as nowadays there is an influx of Part-in-Person with whom we the lawyer rub shoulders. Professionally and economically its not an ideal situation for any lawyer.

Avoiding the above mentioned thoughts, a law student in me somehow managed to desert his slumber and presented me a set of questions, why does CJI believes that only Party in person can turn emotional? does to turn emotional a crime? Can Judge and Lawyer turn emotional while addressing the Court? Is there any law/convention which expressly prohibits the Party in Person to turn emotional while arguing? Does it not amount to violation of principle of Natural Justice? Does it not tantamount to violation of fundamental rights of Party in Person? 

Alcoholic Mothers Raise a TOAST NOT a drink!

Alcoholic Mommas, You better stop drinking while you are expecting your offspring. Your inability to stop drinking might drag you to the Court and you might be sued for your misdeeds you have committed while your baby was still a ‘unique organism’. Though, the good news is that in a recent Judgment, the court of appeal (civil division), the Royal Court of Justice while adjudicating the question, regarding, the ability of a child, to claim criminal injuries compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, as a result of being born with Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) as a direct consequence of her mother’s excessive drinking while pregnant in circumstances where it was asserted that the mother was aware of the danger of harm to her baby being caused by drinking to excess, the Court has answered negative.[1] Moreover, it is once again reiterated that in English law women do not owe a duty of care in tort to their unborn child.

To understand the Judgment in its full light we need to know what is the scheme of CICA.

There is a scheme which considers claims for compensation “from people who have been physically or mentally injured because they were the innocent victim of a violent crime…”

The scheme is the 2008 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme made by the Secretary of State pursuant to s1 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995.

 Under paragraph 6 of the Scheme, dealing with eligibility, compensation may be paid in accordance with the Scheme to an applicant who has sustained criminal injury on or after 1^st August 1964.

Paragraph 8 of the Scheme provides:

“For the purposes of this Scheme, criminal injury means one or more personal injuries as described in paragraph 9, being an injury sustained in and directly attributable to an act occurring in Great Britain…which is:

(a) a crime of violence (including arson, fire-raising or an act of poisoning); …”

Paragraph 10 of the Scheme provides:

 “It is not necessary for the assailant to have been convicted of a criminal offence in connection with the injury”…

The offence that the drunkard mother is said to have committed is that set out in Section 23 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. This provides:

“Maliciously administering poison, etc so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm.

Whosoever shall unlawfully administer to… any other person, any poison or destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby…to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted there of shall be liable…to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding ten years”

The Court has concentrated on the question whether embryo or foetus can be sustained and qualified the definition of a ‘person’, given that the victim was a foetus at the time the alcohol was ingested. A reference is made to Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994)[2]. In the said reference the House of Lords considered the case of a defendant who stabbed a woman in the stomach, knowing her to be pregnant. Shortly afterwards she went into labour and gave birth to a grossly premature child, which survived for only 121 days. The stabbing set in train events which caused the premature birth, which itself led to the child’s death, its chances of survival being very significantly reduced by the fact of the premature birth. Thus, a chain of causation between the stabbing and the death of the child was established. The issue was whether in those circumstances the crimes of murder or manslaughter could be committed. In this context the Lords has held that

Their Lordships held that a foetus was a unique organism and at that stage was neither a distinct person nor an adjunct of the mother. It is further held that whilst there could not be a conviction for murder, there was sufficient for a conviction for manslaughter. The defendant in stabbing, had intended to commit an act which was unlawful and which any reasonable person would recognise as creating a risk of harm to some other person. Although a foetus was not a living person, the possibility of a dangerous act directed at a pregnant woman causing harm to a child to whom she subsequently gave birth, made it permissible to regard that child as within the scope of the defendant’s mens rea for the purposes of manslaughter when committing the unlawful act. Accordingly the crime of manslaughter could be committed even though the child was neither the intended victim nor could it have been foreseen as likely to suffer harm after being born alive.

The Court has also relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division[3] where the court had to consider whether a foetus was capable of being a third person against whom a threat could be made. The court said in terms that a foetus was not “another person” distinct from its mother to whom the threatening words had been uttered.

Relying upon these authorities, the court did not find any reason to disturb the view taken by the lower tribunal.

Cheerssss…. You Drunkards Ladies. Party Hard!

---

[1] [2014] EWCA Civ 1554

[2] [1998] A.C. 245

[3] [1990] 1 QB 290

Image: https://fasdprevention.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/alcohol-can-harm-your-unborn-child.jpg?w=490

Democracy and Spiritual Guru!!!

"I say ninety per cent of Indians are idiots." Mr Katju, burped these words of wisdom. Though, He did not reject his being in 90%. I was restless to know that from where Mr. Katju got his wisdom of 90%. 'If there is a will, there is a way' A book viz.  'Don't Kill Him! The Story of My Life with Bhagwan Rajnish - Maa Anand Sheela has paved a way for me. After reading the book I have reason to believe that Mr Katju might be influenced by OSHO. A paragraph from the book would suffice the purpose. 

"... this is something you have to understand precisely. Democracy does not work. It only gives power to those who stand at the lowest. This degrades quality of life. A democracy is determined by the masses. The masses are mediocre. Their decision is not intelligent. Only ten percent of the people on earth are intelligent. The administrative powers must be given to the person who is qualified to do it. Decisions have to be made by people who are suited for the role and understand complexities. Don't listen to those people who only want to make complaints. They don't understand my work. They don't understand me. They are not intelligent...."

It is well known fact that Mr Katju's  judgments starts with cuplets of great poets of India. The fact that he is influenced and adored OSHO is a discovery for me.  Osho's view on Democracy also appalled me! Osho did not want mediocrity in his commune. He believed that democracy brings mediocrity.

Democracy is not the highest goal. It is better than dictatorial regimes, it is better than monarchies, but it is not the end of the journey – because democracy basically means government by the people, of the people, for the people, but the people are retarded. So let us say: government by the retarded, for the retarded, of the retarded.

Mr Kaju said the same thing, ' You people don't have brains in your heads ...'. He further Said, "You mad people will start fighting amongst yourself not realising that some agent provocateur is behind this,"

Both the intelligent men lack the propriety to comment on such issue. Both have flawed views and that prove them right that 90% of Indians are idiot!

Moral of the Story: "You people don't have brains in your heads....It is so easy to take you for a ride." - Mr Katju.