Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Tuesday, December 3, 2024

SC Women Lawyers Association Seeks Chemical Castration For Child Rapists

Posted in: Supreme Court
Sun, Jul 22, 18, 21:54, 7 Years ago
star star star star star
5 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4165
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists

Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists. It must be done as early as possible to ensure that those who indulge in child rape get their due punishment swiftly so that a right and loud message goes across the society that rape will no longer go unpunished, unchecked and unabated. This is certainly the crying need of the hour.

While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that close on the heels of the government promulgating an ordinance that provides for death penalty for those convicted of raping girls below the age of 12, the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA) has made a representation to the Prime Minister's office, seeking chemical castration as additional punishment for child rapists. Judge Kamini Lau in her capacity as Additional District and Sessions Judge in Delhi has time and again in her landmark judgments supported chemical castration as additional punishment for child rapists. No sane person who respects children will ever oppose this perfectly legitimate demand of chemical castration as additional punishment for child rapists.

For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that the PMO has forwarded the petition of Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association to the Union Women and Child Development (WCD) Secretary, directing the Ministry to take appropriate action. "....Reply may be sent to the petitioner and a copy of the same may be uploaded on the portal," reads the PMO's April 26 communication to the Ministry. one hopes that the reply will be in the affirmative.

Truth be told, Mahalakshmi Pavani who is senior advocate and SCWLA President said that, "Though, following the ordinance, courts can pronounce death penalty on those convicted of raping girls below the age of 12, an additional punishment of chemical castration will act as a deterrent." Who wrong has Mahalakshmi Pavani said? Her stand is plausible and perfectly justified. Centre must pay heed to it and implement it as early as possible.
To put things in perspective, chemical castration is widely perceived to be an effective deterrent in installing fear in the mind of the child rapists to refrain from indulging in it as no rapist will ever want that he be chemically castrated. We must understand here that chemical castration involves injecting anti-androgens in a person, which lowers the level of testosterone which is the male hormone in the body, reducing sex drive and the capacity to get aroused. It is a reversible process, if injections are stopped.

Needless to say, the brilliant suggestion by SCWLA has been taken seriously even by the Centre. A senior WCD Ministry official said they would examine the representation. In its petition, the SCWLA also said the term "child" required to be defined. "Definition of child must include both small girls and boys between age group of 0-10 years. Because in the recent past there have been uncountable incidents where small boys have been sexually exploited and raped and have suffered untold pain and agony," read the representation.
It merits no reiteration that the April 22 ordinance came in the aftermath of the brutal rape of an eight-year-old girl in Kathua district of Jammu and Kashmir and the rape of a 16-year-old girl in Unnao district of Uttar Pradesh. Enough is enough! Now no more wastage of time!

There can be no quarrel with what the SCWLA said in its plea that, "In a society which is civilized and replete with cultural values of thousand years old and respects child and human rights, child abuse and the rape of a girl child can never be tolerated, and the culprits deserve to be dealt with iron hands of law. The punishment is provided under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 in respect of a woman who is minor but there may be circumstances where more specific attention may be necessitous for dealing with the rapist of a small girl child." Why should rapist of a small girl child not be castrated? Why should they be spared at all when they dare to commit the most abhorrent of all crimes? Why should they not face the music and meet their just dessert for what they have done?

It is to be noted that on January 13, 2016 on a similar plea by SCWLA, the Supreme Court had refused to direct the Centre to consider castration as an additional punishment and termed it as "unacceptable". Nevertheless, it asked the Centre to consider re-defining the term "child" considering that nowadays children between the ages of two and ten are increasingly becoming victims of sexual abuse. Supreme Court had concluded stating that a law cannot be "based on emotions or sentiments" and thus, castration cannot be recommended.
Let me be direct in saying that much water has flown under the bridge since January 13, 2016. Two and a half years have elapsed since then! Centre has itself brought an Ordinance seeking death penalty for child rapists! This alone explains why SCWLA has made a fresh plea to the Centre seeking chemical castration of child rapists.

As it turned out, the representation by SCWLA seeks introduction of new legislative provisions by the Parliament in addition to the recently introduced death penalty and other existing penal provisions in view of the alarming increase in sexual abuse of small girls and boys. It also rightly pointed out that, "The cases of child abuse and rape are increasing at an alarming speed and appropriate legislation in this regard is, therefore, urgently required. The law-making is in the domain and wisdom of the Legislature. We pray that Parliament may kindly give serious attention to the points highlighted above and make an appropriate legislation at the earliest including chemical castration apart from Death Penalty".There can be no denying or disputing it!

This alone explains why in October 2015, Madras High Court too had asked the Centre to mull castration as a punishment for those who rape children in order to deter sexual assaults on minors. Justice N Kirubakaran of the Madras High Court had also acknowledged that its recommendation could seem "barbaric, retrograde, stone-aged and inhuman," but said traditional laws were not enough to cope with such crimes. Why should those who resort to the horrendous and ghastly crime of child rape be shown undue leniency?

It must be revealed here that the Madras High Court was not the first to demand castration. In 2011, Delhi Sessions Court Judge Kamini Lau while suggesting chemical castration as punishment for rape had called for a nationwide debate on the issue. The Judge had suggested the measure as an alternative sentence to imprisonment.

It is beyond a straw of doubt that now the time has come when chemical castration must be meted out as an additional punishment apart from the death penalty which has been recently brought in by the Centre by an Ordinance! When death penalty can be given to child rapists by amending law then why not chemical castration in addition as punishment be also given by similarly amending law? All citizens who respect children and who strongly feel that the strongest possible punishment must be meted out to those dirty devils who indulge in child rape for which there can be no justification whatsoever must come out in unconditional and unstinted complete support for death penalty and chemical castration as punishment for child rapists! It brooks no more delay now!

Before winding up, let me be upfront in saying that the punishment for chemical castration for child rapists must be implemented not later than few months at the most from the date of crime incident. Just recently, a court in Indore in Madhya Pradesh presided over by Judge Varsha Sharma in a landmark and laudable judgment worth emulating by all Judges in Indiaawarded death penalty to be hanged till death after terming the case as "rarest of rare" for raping a 4 month old girl on 23rdday itself after hearing the case daily for 7 hours! When she can do this then why can't other Judges also follow her similarly? The real tragedy comes when this very same case will keep pending for many decades or for many years in High Court and Supreme Court! It is the victim and the family who is worst affected in this disgraceful delay!This must end now! Punishment can act as an effective deterrent to others only if it is implemented very quickly and not after many years or decades by which time in most cases the accused dies a natural death! Chemical castration too as punishment can be effective only if it is awarded in time and implemented as soon as possible not more than few months or an year at the most! Cases involving rape of minor must be fast-tracked and given priority over all other cases so that the offenders are punished at the earliest and there should be no bail for them till the case is finally decided!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In the light of the latest judgment provided by the SC for commuting the death penalty of former pm Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins to life imprisonment on the ground of excessive wait on govt and President’s part to decide their whim pleas
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India.
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v Union of India has upheld the validity of Aadhaar for availing government subsidies and benefits and for filing income tax returns! The lone dissenting Judge in this landmark case is Justice Dr DY Chandrachud. He differed entirely from the majority and struck down Section 139AA.
It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal.
Judgement by the Supreme Court about energy conservation and infrastructure laws in the state of Himachal Pradesh.
In a major and significant development, the Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has for the second time designated 37 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
On 17th October 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and Canada became the largest country in the world with a legal marijuana marketplace.
Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians? Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians? Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?
Finally Hindus Get The Right To Worship At Entire Disputed Land And Muslims Get 5 Acre In Ayodhya
I am a student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University studying LLB. I am currently majoring in 3 yrs LLB Course from New Law College, and have started with my last year from July 2019.
230th report of Law Commission of India, it will certainly produce more diamonds like the Chief Justice of India designate Sharad Arvind Bobde who is most invaluable and even Kohinoor diamond stands just nowhere near him
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act
Sections 126 to l29 deal with the privilege that is attached to Professional Communications between the legal advisors and their clients. Section 126 and 128 mention the circumstances under which the legal advisor can give evidence of such professional communication.
National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. UOI Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks.. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.
Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.
Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others.
upheld the Shebait rights of the erstwhile royals of Travancore in the administration, maintenance and management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
Judges cannot speak out even if they are humiliated. How long can the Supreme Court and the Judges suffer the humiliation heaped regularly?
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers.
Jugut Ram vs. Chhattisgarh the fact that a lathi is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.
Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd the said order extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute
the legendary Kesavananda Bharati whose plea to the Apex Court is considered the real reason behind the much acclaimed Basic Structure doctrine propounded in 1973
Amar Singh vs NCT Of Delhi conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulalthe governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed.
the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami
Indian Olympics Association vs. Kerala Olympic Association civil original jurisdiction dismissed Indian Olympics Association's (IOA) plea seeking transfer of a writ petition before Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court.
In Arnab's case, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud had minced no words to say that: There has to be a message to High Courts – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty
It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again
Parveen vs. State of Haryana while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India that exclusion of advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members is contrary to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Inderjeet Singh Sodhi vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board the dismissal of special leave petition is of no consequence on the question of law. We all must bear it in mind from now on
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu Xie the practice of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments.
It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of Sab Chalta Hain attitude of the governments in India.
Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since age
Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Bhagat Singh in exercise of itsextraordinary appellate jurisdiction that a statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs Odisha refused the plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case.
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. Maharashtra in page 386 of the citation that: The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act. Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed to introduce the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.The new proposal would amend the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to grant the Centre "revisionary powers" and allow it to "re-examine" films that have already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother
Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v/s Karnataka barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India has made it clear that State won't get a free pass by mere mention of national security.
State of MP vs Ghisilal the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers
Top