The Indian courts and their hypocrisies
Recently, while travelling with my grandpa he told me of how a
construction company which was started by a very popular actress was
pulled up by the municipal authorities in Chennai. They wanted to
demolish the illegal addition to the building made by the company
without prior approval from the municipal authorities. The builders as
usual went to the court and was granted a stay.
You may ask what's new or unusual about that. Well, I am not going to
discuss the merits or demerits of granting the stay. My intention is
not at all that. What befuddles me is that when there is proof that
the builder had built an addition to the original structure without
getting prior approval from the authorities as laid down by law. I
agree that it would not have been correct for the court to have
allowed the municipal authorities to go ahead with the demolition as
it would have affected a number of people who had invested their hard
earned money in buying the flats ( no one had occupied in that
extended portion of the building )
What I think would have been prudent is that the court should have
arrested the builder for violation of the law or atleast punished in
monetary terms .. neither of which happened. The people who had
invested their money have now approached the same court with an
request to get their money back from the builder, which I beleive is
the right thing to do. The courts should have ordered the builder to
either pay back the money to the flat owners or shut down their
business. I think this threat should have been more than enough for
the builder to cough up the money.
I am not blaming the actress. She had no role to play in the day to
day administration or the design of the building. It seems she also
came to know about this via the media which has been covering this
with earnest due to the glamour as well the sympathy factor.
This is not just one example. I will give you another example.
We all remember the Kareena-Shahid Scandal ( you can call it that - as
it was on tv all day long ). The Supreme court took notice of that and
said that the coverage by the media was in bad taste. I felt that was
another case where the court had no right to tell the media that the
"moment" was in the private domain. My question to the Supreme court
is, Rain is a public place where many people come and go. The star
couple obviously knew where they were and they knew what they were
doing. We all saw them do what they claim they did not do and Kareena
came up with the most hypocritical answer, " I am a girl from a very
respectable family, I would never do such a thing in public." as if
she is the sati savitri of Bollywood. She has smooched on screen, how
does doing it in front of camera seen by millions is respectable,
whereas a moment with your loved one in which you actually kiss that
person with affection and love be not respectable?
The Supreme court claims it was a private moment. How can the moment
be private when it is in a public place. The star couple are adults
and they should have been aware of the consequences of their actions (
not just the pleasurable consequences ) If the Supreme court thinks
that when a couple is making out in a public place is a private
moment, why are not the by-standers in Bandstand who stand near rocks
to watch couples make out and stuff be arrested? A case of
misinterpretation of the law might we say?
No comments:
Post a Comment