Monday 18 July 2016

Honor killings

Honor killing is a term used for the murder committed by the family or society of a person who acts against the norm and thus brings 'dishonor' to the family or community. Generally, the acts that bring about such a dishonor are marrying a person of their own choice maybe one belonging to a different caste or religion, homosexuality, eloping, dressing, working or behaving in non traditional fashion. Killing because of having an affair or marrying someone of a different caste or religion or living with any such person is the most common of the honor killings.
Honor killings are nothing more than brutal cold blooded murders and there is nothing honorable about them. They have premeditation, preparation as well as opportunity. Often they are committed by a group of members of a particular family or community, forming an unlawful assembly.
In Bhagwan Das v State of Delhi (2011), the Supreme Court observed that there is nothing honorable about honor killings and they fall within the category of rarest of rare case to ensure capital punishment. Similar observation was held in Lata Singh v State of UP (2006)SC, that honor killings are brutal and barbaric acts committed by persons of bigoted minds.
Similarly, in Nathu v State of UP, (2014), the Allahabad High Court, expressed its anguish over the khap panchayats ordering honor killing. The court urged for administrative action against the khap panchayats that have become kangaroo courts and ordering such murders.
Honor killings are brutal acts committed by people with bigoted thinking often having the notion of possessing the life and choice of other members of his family or community. It is in direct conflict with the right of choice of an individual. It comes from false notion of pride in family or caste and an attempt to control the lives of other members. Honor killings are becoming widespread, more so as the young people are trying to exercise their right of choice. They require actions to be taken both at the government as well as public level. Speaking out at the ground level is important so as to prevent further loss of innocent lives.

Tuesday 12 July 2016

Farmer in possession of leased property cannot be evicted

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that a farmer that remains in possession of leased property with the consent of the owner after the expiry of the lease period is as a statutory tenant. In such condition, he shall be same as a statutory tenant. Being a statutory tenant, he shall have the protection of section 116 of the transfer of property Act and cannot be evicted even after the expiry of the lease term. The operation of section 116 grants legitimacy to the possession of the tenant even after the expiration or termination of the term of lease period.
Section 116 of the transfer of property Act states that when the lessee or sub lessee continues to pay the rent even after the expiry of the lease term and the lessor or his legal representative accepts it or in other ways gives his consent, the lease shall in the absence of an agreement to the contrary shall be renewed year to year or month to month as the case maybe. Thus, on the expiry of the lease term, if the owner continues to take rent from the tenant or gives consent for the occupation of the leased property, the tenant cannot be evicted.