Muslim cop imposes moral policing on muslim couples in Indian Hyderabad

[kurup]

the religion of police does not matter, he should be prosecuted for inventing his own law, judging people by that law, and inventing the punishment too.
Yes, in secular India, that should not be allowed.

If muslim couples were breaking law, file charges against them, and let court punish if found guilty.

I don't think wearing that burqa those women will be able to break any laws .

IMO , the cop could not digest the fact that muslim women were doing an outing with their partners .

 

[livingdead]

I don't think wearing that burqa those women will be able to break any laws .

IMO , the cop could not digest the fact that muslim women were doing an outing with their partners .

its a normal thing in hyderabad.. the police guy exceeded his brief.

 

[kurup]

its a normal thing in hyderabad.. the police guy exceeded his brief.

There are certain places in India like Hyderabad which has become a breeding ground of certain extremist ideology (you know what) .

If we don't take necessary steps to put a tab on that , these will get ugly and get out of our hand in the future .

 

[livingdead]

There are certain places in India like Hyderabad which has become a breeding ground of certain extremist ideology (you know what) .

If we don't take necessary steps to put a tab on that , these will get ugly and get out of our hand in the future .

hyderabad was always like this.. muslims live in ghettos there (old city) and nurse grivences against hindus. They elect their own MIM leader who are a bunch of communal thugs.
I dont think its going to change anytime soon.

 

[kurup]

hyderabad was always like this.. muslims live in ghettos there (old city) and nurse grivences against hindus. They elect their own MIM leader who are a bunch of communal thugs.
I dont think its going to change anytime soon.

What about after the formation of Telengana . Is situation going to change ??

 

[livingdead]

What about after the formation of Telengana . Is situation going to change ??

that wont change a thing, unless congress or tdp or trs enters muslim areas and win election from there.

 

[kurup]

that wont change a thing, unless congress or tdp or trs enters muslim areas and win election from there.

What is the support base of BJP in both Telengana and Rayalaseema ??

 

[livingdead]

What is the support base of BJP in both Telengana and Rayalaseema ??

not sure... @Srinivas @Ashokudu

 

[rubyjackass]

Sorry boss, you really ought to learn more about the lawmaking process. The people who make the law and pass it already know what it is for. Every law is introduced in a context. Sometimes some laws need interpretation from a judicial and constitutional POV, and that is where courts come in.

What you are talking about is just one way of interpreting the law.
Judicial interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Supreme Court showed in the Shah Bano case that the interpretation can be done according to the times(going against the normal practice of paying maintenance for a limited period).

Section 377 was passed to criminalize homosexuality and bestiality. There is no doubt in anybody's minds about it. I gave you the wikipedia link for section 377, introduced by the British in all commonwealth countries. Are you saying that they passed the law, but did not know why they passed it, and hoped that 200 years later a court would tell them?

What I said is that it is possible to reinterpret laws according to the current norms.

And that bit where you said "if you ask any lawyer who argued"...it is clear that you have not asked any lawyer yourself. The argument in court was NOT whether the law applies to homosexuality or something else - the argument was whether that law should exist or not. To be more precise, the argument was whether section 377 is unconstitutional, because it violates fundamental rights. That is why you hear all the activists asking the law to be scrapped, saying that section 377 should go.

If they ask for the law to be scrapped, it is obvious(my opinion) that they will loose. Firstly it is not against the fundamental rights to have such a law. For one bestiality is universally agreed to be unacceptable. The earlier High Court judgement calling the section unconstitutional was necessary because more earlier judgements interpreted the law as anti-gay. So it is a legal domino(India has a very strong tradition of precedents).

And that is also why in many former commonwealth nations, that law has been scrapped. You are wrong when you say that it is upto the courts to decide why the law was passed - the people who passed the law already knew why they passed the law, what it was for.

If a law is passed by the parliament, the courts can only strike it down if it is deemed unconstitutional. ie, if it violates the letter and spirit of the constitution. And if they cannot argue that it is unconstitutional, then the law will stay, until and unless the parliament amends or scraps it later. Lawmaking is the function of the parliament only.

You are arguing on the basis that following a precedent is mandatory in Indian law. I believe it is not so. Following a precedent is only a tradition. If there is any place where it is specified otherwise, please let me know.

 

[janon]

What you are talking about is just one way of interpreting the law.
Judicial interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Supreme Court showed in the Shah Bano case that the interpretation can be done according to the times(going against the normal practice of paying maintenance for a limited period).


What I said is that it is possible to reinterpret laws according to the current norms.

If they ask for the law to be scrapped, it is obvious(my opinion) that they will loose. Firstly it is not against the fundamental rights to have such a law. For one bestiality is universally agreed to be unacceptable. The earlier High Court judgement calling the section unconstitutional was necessary because more earlier judgements interpreted the law as anti-gay. So it is a legal domino(India has a very strong tradition of precedents).

You are arguing on the basis that following a precedent is mandatory in Indian law. I believe it is not so. Following a precedent is only a tradition. If there is any place where it is specified otherwise, please let me know.

That is what happened. Now it is upto the parliament to scrap the law.

The law was made for any penetrative sex that is not between a man and a woman. It was meant to prohibit homosexuality and bestiality. It wasn't simply an interpretation, it was what the law was made for.

No. I am saying that following an existing law is mandatory in India. If the law is bad, then the lawmakers, ie the parliament, the supreme lawmaking body should scrap or amend it. Precedence is an entirely different matter.

 

[rubyjackass]

That is what happened. Now it is upto the parliament to scrap the law.

That much is obvious.

The law was made for any penetrative sex that is not between a man and a woman. It was meant to prohibit homosexuality and bestiality. It wasn't simply an interpretation, it was what the law was made for.

It is upto the judiciary to tell us what the law was made for, which is another word for interpretation. It is also upto the judiciary to tell us whether it makes sense to follow a precendent in this case. It WAS an interpretation.

No. I am saying that following an existing law is mandatory in India.

Well genius, who is it that tells us what the existing law is? You should stop arguing about technical issues in lay man terms. The Supreme Court saw this case for the first time with respect to homosexuality. And the court refused to update the interpretation of the relevant section.

If the law is bad, then the lawmakers, ie the parliament, the supreme lawmaking body should scrap or amend it. Precedence is an entirely different matter.

I don't know what to reply to those obvious wise words.

 

[janon]

That much is obvious.

It is upto the judiciary to tell us what the law was made for, which is another word for interpretation. It is also upto the judiciary to tell us whether it makes sense to follow a precendent in this case. It WAS an interpretation.

Well genius, who is it that tells us what the existing law is? You should stop arguing about technical issues in lay man terms. The Supreme Court saw this case for the first time with respect to homosexuality. And the court refused to update the interpretation of the relevant section.

I don't know what to reply to those obvious wise words.

Really? This was the first time the law was seen WRT to homosexuality? Please read the wiki link I gacve about section 377, introduced in the 1800s. It was mainly for homosexuality only. About the second sentence of your post - the people who make the law say what the law is for. Nobody makes a law if they dont know what it is for. Please stop arguing pointlessly.