As a voter- I expected my government to give me NOTA-“None of the above” option before I snatch it via other way.

Directions to implement NOTA option by judiciary is certainly a welcome step in our evolving democracy. This step should come from a active government indeed. I feel that judiciary is a warning to the political parties to become proactive in taking steps to safe-guard the democratic set-up, otherwise judiciary is empowering itself to pave the way to politician’s field .

I consider that this mechanism of NOTA is the necessity of time, and definitely will prove a vibrant step for protecting democracy. This option will definitely compel the frozen and latent national political parties to field better qualified politicians.

And again I ponder on the same question- 'Why do I vote to the passive political parties, to make a government, which have shown inertness in taking positive steps, which are today being taken by the judiciary?'

Whose prime duty should it be to sense the current of the nation-  sitting government’s or judiciary? Obviously primarily, the sitting government and the opposition, as well, are under an obligation to sense this. But both are inert and have tendency to play the blame game inside and outside the parliament house. And whatever is being done by the government is done passively. Our system today is nothing but merely a follow up of a routine to hold session every 6 months and these sessions are hardly fruitful cause even the big promises are touched only via the ordinance route. Rather, in the past decade, judiciary has been more active than government, via suo motto or via PILs in bringing out reforms in election process.

Take the recent landmark judgment of SC that has brought the required change in the electoral reforms. But our government is on a duty to safe-guard its own existence, and the cabinet is taking the route of ordinance to sustain itself, which was criticized within the parliament and also outside the parliament. In such a scenario, why will the parliamentarians think about the public welfare, when their own existence is at stake? And who is challenging their wrong existence in parliament? It is judiciary. And the government, instead of  trying to clean system, is trying to bring ordinance to safeguard the disqualified MPs and MLAs. Ironic isnt it?

As a voter, what do I expect to my lawmakers?

Today, I feel shaken on a simple but deep question asked by my friend on previous evening tea. - “As a voter, what do I expect to my lawmakers?”

Brainstorming started-

Is it eradication of poverty? No.. No .. In our welfare state, this may be an attractive party line to attract the innocent voters, but I consider that this is the prime goal of any government in my welfare state India. Now-a-days we are not in that bad condition as we were in those immediate post independence days. Though there exist not-suitable-employment for majority, yet there is employment to earn bread and butter. And I do agree that the process is still going on for the doers. I am though not wholly yet quite satisfied with this performance. As I know poverty is a relative term it do vary from nation to nation, from period to period, so eradication of poverty is not in my contention of my expectation to my lawmakers. This is a routine process these days for sustainability of any government.

Likewise the Growth, the growth process now a days complement to eradication of poverty. Again not an issue in my contention for expectation to law makers. They are there to do this.

• I think we are just growing and we are not developing.
• What does the GDP mean to me, if my government cannot provide me a crime free, transparent, female friendly and pollution free atmosphere in my day-to-day life.
• I am really not happy with the insensitivity of the government towards any burning social issue.
• I expect my government to be proactive towards any existing or popping up social issue. And I don’t want that government be active only after outrage of mass, provocation by media.
• I want rapid justice for every ordinary case and not only for rarest of rare cases.
• I don’t want that sensitive bills be not laid by the insensitive government on table of parliament in the wake of bad politics.
• I want my government to be diligent and efficient and effective, and without the fear of losing its power for a good cause . I wasn't a government who prefers nation more than its own sustainability.
• I want a government which can use plebiscite option in sensitive issues.

Oops! I think its unending topic.

In short, I may conclude that growth with justice would be my only expectation from my government.

I will continue to write on it….


  www.sfippa.com/13164967/free

Modern Juvenile a challenge to legislatures.

Juvenile, a person who is under age(below 18 yrs. in India)

The age 18 yrs. had been considered by our learned legislatures as an age which is a must be acquired by a person to be  held criminal for some criminal act. Our learned legislatures, in yesteryears when there was no easy access to the world of information, would have considered that an ordinary child could not have acquired the knowledge of the consequences of his or her acts. So instead of holding them criminal they had considered the below 18 juveniles as delinquents on doing some criminal act. And instead of penalizing them, a reformatory step used to be taken. All this to have a progressive and productive society.

Now a days the theory seems  to me an obsolete one. Now a  days, due to information disbursement at such a large scale by social media, tele media, internet and other means , these theory have become irrelevant. the scenario has completely changed, as now a days information are just a click away. Consequently, the maturity age to acquire the knowledge of the act committed has to be done not only on biological basis, rather other parameters like background of the juvenile, motive of the committing crime by juvenile, frequency of committing crime, and tendency of reforming oneself, should also be taken into consideration, before deciding the question of juvenile or adult of someone. 

The person below 18 yrs is not absolutely lacking knowledge of the consequences of criminal acts, rather he or she is ready to take advantage of his below 18 yrs age and feel themselves as privileged ones, and knowingly and habitually do crime. Is this way the objective of setting the age of majority be 18yrs being achieved?

Maturity to acquire knowledge of committing any offence should be considered not only on the basis of the biological age, rather other parameters  all should be given due consideration in setting the age of juvenile and there should be different points for different parameters. And if the sum total of all the parameters determines the maturity level of the juvenile as immature then only he or she should be treated as juvenile, and not otherwise.

These days there is a dire need to change the law on juveniles? Our legislatures should take serious steps on this issue and bring out some effective and consonant amendments in every aspect of the related laws.