If a movie runs for many days it is a super hit work of the movie cast and crew. But if a case runs for many years! (counting just on days is out of question!) it is a big flop show by ???? (WHOM). Thats the question. The first answer comes to the mind is COURT..Is it totally true. I don't believe, this every case like any other movie has crew... India's judicial set up is totally based on so much evidence and paper work that a man's conscience is given least priority (I could so no use!)... It is just not the judge or an advocate or a police man who is responsible for delay of disposing of cases which eventually results in piling up of the cases.
"Justice delayed is Justice denied" is an old wise saying!(I don't know who exactly said that)... Indian Judicial System is a set example for this saying...But very optimistically we discuss this issue....There have been many reforms that were recommended result of which were fast track courts etc. But the causes to this problem are not being totally uprooted. In a recent judgement (In June 2009), of the Supreme Court the two judges(Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Harjeet Singh Bedi) pointed out that this practice by high courts to entertain a second appeal is one of the main reasons of delay in the administration of justice in civil matters. Infact as per Section 100 of the Civil Procedure code if the judgement by an appeal court is similar to the judgement by a lower court, a second appeal should be admitted only if a "substantial question of law" is involved. If this is at the appeal stage, even at the lower level there is an absolute need for a speedy trial. There have been plethora of cases where the cases were just not getting disposed...Uphar cinema case, jessica lal case, Kasab (talk about the royal treatment)....
Anyways...
To address this need, the new UPA Law minister, Veerappa Moiley is on his mission for judicial reforms which he announced at the beginning of this week. The father of the nation (Mahatma Gandhi!) must be happy to know that this mission is gonna start from his birthday. As he believed, villages as the backbone of country, this judicial reform is gonna start with 'Grama Nyayalayas', a catalyst for the dispense(reaction) of cases.
The law minister has an ambitious figure to reduce the time span of a case from 15 years to 0ne year!(Alas! Touch wood)...For this purposes they plan to utilize the services of retired judges too... It is proposed to have an increase in number of Courts and in the number of sessions of the Court. Oh! It is worth noting that the Law minister proposes to make our courts technical savvy! He realized the importance of technology!
One thing that has to be remembered is that speedy justice takes place only when there is competency in the judges. I personally don't agree with the idea of giving judicial magistrate exams immediately after finishing the law course. Experience in the practical field must be compulsory!
Also competency from everyone, police, litigants, court staff is necessary to achieve the positive aim if this mission.
Lets keep our fingers crossed for this "Sooper Mission" to get into implementation stage and work (if possible wonders!...We are very optimistic...Aren't we???
Friday, September 25, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Godavari
Godavari! Gosh I just love the movie. It was released on May 19th, 2006. I just love the movie. It is a beautiful romantic musical movie. I watched this movie over 50 times and now may be I know the dialogs by-heart! .Ram(Sumanth) is the name of the hero in the movie who complemented the heroin Seeta (Kamalini mukherlee) in the movie. Its a beautiful simple love story between Ram an aspiring young wannabe politician and Sita, a designer with hell lot of individualism. The attitude of the actors portray the attitude of "wanna be be different from the crowd". (I like it that way!) The backdrop of the movie is the beauty of Godavari river."Nee dokku moham, nee chetta tea, nee sutti invitation naaku nachale", "nenu seetamaalakshmi ni dokku maalakshmi ni kaadu", "nakku sorry cheppali"... every part of the movie is just so near to naturality. Pullatu pullamma, ammamagaru...suprabhatam types amma...everything that you hear everyday!...I just dint understand the need for Veerayya story though even after watching it for these many times...Thats ok! Sekhar Kammula, the director...nothing more to say than a Hats Off!... The director I love after K.Viswanath Garu. Infact i liked 'Anand' after I watched 'Godavari'.
I have to go to a good Coastal Andhra Trip now!..ALONE...that needs no objection certificate from Amma Nanna though!
Godavari waters is shown in a very elegant manner...Sad when I actually went there it was very dirty! To go to Bhadrachalam was my dream since the time I saw the movie and I finally could go 2 weeks back!...Its the movie me and my room mate enjoy watching! This movie so inspired me to go for Godavari trip that I gave up my Novice Moot Court in my college and went for the trip. Though I so wanted to find "The Ram". It is from this movie that I wanted to be a dubbing artist too one day!(Thanks to Sunitha..) Expressing the emotion of someone else's heart in your voice is a challenging task!
Do watch it!...Like it or leave it!
Section 377 vis-a-vis "Right to Love"
I have co-authored this article with my friend Lakshmi Ratna. It was published in our college magazine last year.! Wanted to post it long time back but din't do it!..The judgement on NAZ foundation was delivered in July. Will post my comments on that too!
This article is our work so would like to post it!While copying this from the document, the references are deleted!
“Who would give a law to lovers? Love is unto itself a higher law.”
- Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, A.D. 524.
Introduction
“Jayanthi Malar and Rukmani, two married women who were in relation with each other in the southern city of Chennai ended their lives when they were being forced apart by their families”.
“Lesbian couple in Uttar Pradesh who eloped were arrested and handed back to their parents, despite the fact that both women were above the age of consent.”
“In January 2006, four men were arrested by the police in a public park in Lucknow where they had gathered to socialise. According to the police accusations these four men had earlier met on an internet website for gays and then met in one of Lucknow’s parks”. The basis for their arrest rests on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
Of late, Hindi cinema depicted instances of homosexuality in various movies like Page 3, Life in a Metro, Fashion and Dostana. As early as 1998 Deepa Mehta’s ‘Fire’ also portrayed lesbianism. These movies depicted nothing but a true reflection of prevailing practices in the Indian society. The above instances show that the consensual love between individuals of the same sex is neither permissible by law nor is it tolerated by the society.
The issue of homosexuality is delicate and sensitive because, over the time it involved human rights and public morality as two sides of the debatable coin. A deliberation on the same is intended in this article.
‘Unnatural’ Perception
Homosexuality can be described as a tendency to be sexually and romantically attracted to members of one’s own sex. Homosexual behaviour is perceived to be deviant and unnatural, barring it from achieving social and legal recognition. The so called majority has never considered homosexuals as human beings worthy of the same respect as ‘normal individuals’. In short, they are considered sexual minorities with no human rights.
Legal Perspective
Homosexuality is considered ‘unnatural’ as presumed under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code. This section was enacted by Lord Macaulay in 1860 upon the traditional Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Section 377 reads that whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse ‘against the order of nature’ with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for the term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. The section seems to be ambiguous on what is ‘unnatural’ and what is ‘against the order of nature’ because the body of the section does not mention “unnatural” except for the title. Hence the interpretation of the same is left to the discretion of the Courts. Over the years, since the inception of this section, the interpretation of the courts it has led to a leading controversy and has attracted criticisms from various institutions like Naz Foundation India Trust, . In Khanu v. Emperor , which is perhaps the earliest judicial interpretation of section 377 the Court has laid down that, “ the natural object of sexual intercourse is that there should be the possibility of conception of human beings, which in the case of coitus per os (oral intercourse) is impossible”. From then the courts have been considering all the sexual activities among homosexuals and heterosexuals which are non-procreative as against the ‘order of nature’ within the ambit of section 377. However, it is to be noted that instances have been proving that what is punished in India is both sexual behaviour as well as sexual identity. For instance, seven school girls in Kerala were expelled in 1992 for forming a Martina Club and were penalised for declaring their identity but not for any sexual behaviour.
The irony is that what is punished under Section 377 is something that cannot be wiped out. This is to say that homosexuality is a mere personal and a private manifestation of an individual’s personality. Homosexuality is not a characteristic that can be changed neither by any medical assistance nor by any punishment. It might be interesting to note that in a complaint filed with the National Human Rights Commission of India, a patient at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences was forced to receive almost four years of treatment aimed at the conversion of his homosexuality. The Supreme Court defined the right of personal liberty within Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as a right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person. Hence, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code should be interpreted not to include consensual acts between individuals of the same sex as it invades their right to privacy as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
To sum up, by criminalising consensual acts between individuals of the same sex, they are prevented from asserting their fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
At this juncture, it is the opinion of the authors that this section should not criminalize the acts of homosexuals.
What the past has to say?
History reveals that homosexuality was prevalent since time immemorial almost in all cultures. Ramayana has a narrative of two queens who conceived a child together named Ashtavakra. In the “Jayamangala” of Yashodhara, an important twelfth century commentary on Kamasutra talks about homosexual inclination of women. Anthropological research has found homosexual sub cultures in Native American cultures, ancient Greece, Chinese Traditions, sub-Saharan Africa and Samurai Traditions of Japan. Acts of sodomy have been depicted in the carvings of the Khajuraho temples. It is interestingly noted that people who have made a significant contribution in their respective fields like Leonardo Da Vinci, Socrates, Oscar Wilde, and Michelangelo were all homosexuals!
International scenario
It is a known fact, that no society is left untouched by the evils of discrimination like race, language, gender etc. This discrimination has now extended to include ‘sexual orientation’. The stigma attached to people of ‘not straight’ orientation is on par in almost all the nations of the world. However, the notion of homosexuality has been dynamic in the international front and has been gaining both social and legal acceptance. Many countries around the globe have decriminalised the practice of homosexuality. South Africa is the first nation to add the word “sexual orientation” in their Constitution thereby recognising the rights of gays and lesbians. The United Nations Human Rights Committee monitors the compliance of the States to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In the case of Toonen v. Australia , it was held by the United Nations Human Rights Commission that the criminalisation of same-sex relations between consenting adults relations violates Article 2 which talks about equal protection to all and Article 17 which provides for right to privacy of the ICCPR. The Committee has ruled that ‘sex’ in Article 2 is to be taken to include the term ‘sexual orientation’. India is a signatory to the ICCPR and this pronouncement is now a precedent and has the force of international human rights. The Brazilian delegation, in the 59th session of the UN introduced, “A Resolution on Human Rights and Sexual Orientation”, which though didn’t achieve the desired result yet had great significance. The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, has held in its comment to Article 14 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights that ‘sexual orientation’ is a prohibited category of discrimination.
It is aptly recommended that it is now time for the word ‘sexual orientation’ to find a place in the Indian Constitution
Indian Scenario
At present, these sexual minorities are regularly harassed by the police, goondas, health care providers and other state and non-state agencies. Moreover, since their right to family is not recognised, various benefits under the labour laws, right to inheritance and property are also denied. Their present status even hampers the HIV/AIDS prevention efforts carried on by various non- governmental organisations thereby denying their basic right to health. This denial triggered PILs filed by AIDS Bhedbhav Virodh Andolan in 1992 and Naz Foundation (India) Trust in 2001(the case is now in the Supreme Court of India) both in the High Court of Delhi questioning the constitutionality of Section 377 of IPC.
The irony is that the present section which is on similar lines as one in Common Law since the colonial era though has decriminalised certain homosexual practices in specified circumstances there, it still continues to exist in India . The 172nd Report of the Law Commission, Government of India has recommended that this section be deleted . The Planning Commission of India in its 11th Five Year Plan also recommended the same. It is hence suggested that homosexuality be legalised keeping in mind the changing trends in the society. Moreover, the Supreme Court in relation to IPC pointed out that the Courts should as far as the language of the Code permits, construe it with reference to the modern needs of the society and not with reference to the notions of criminal jurisprudence prevailing at the time when the Code was enacted.
Recommendations
Keeping in mind the need of the hour, a few steps have been enumerated below to deal with the legal aspects of this problem.
• The first step towards this would be to include the word ‘sexual orientation’ in Article 15 of the Indian Constitution. By doing so the homosexuals would be brought on par with the rest in relation to all facets of their life and law.
• However, to address their present condition, for the time being an explanation to the Section 377 of IPC is to be added to bring a change in the interpretation by the Courts. That is to say that this section should from its ambit exclude consensual acts between homosexuals. The text of this section after amendment with improvisation by the law makers may read as follows-
377. Offences of Sodomy and bestiality._
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation._ 1. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.
2. Penetration is inclusive of oral, anal, vaginal, and other forms of penetrative intercourse, including insertion of foreign objects without consent.
Exception: Sexual intercourse, both oral and anal between any two consenting adults of the same sex shall not be an offence under this section.
Provided the consent for sexual intercourse is not obtained through coercion or fraud, or when the person is of unsound mind, or when in intoxication, or under the influence of all narcotic drugs.
For the purpose of this section,
1. “any two consenting adults” shall include adults of any sexual orientation.
2. “narcotic drugs” shall mean as defined under Section 2(xiv) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
• The legalisation of consenting same sex acts would require an amendment in marriage and divorce laws and they can be under the umbrella of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the only secular law available under the family laws.
Section 4 of the said Act contemplates marriage ‘between any two persons’ and the same should now be in consonance with the basic principles of interpretation. It is a general principle of interpretation of statute that if there is a reasonable interpretation which will avoid the penalty in any particular case we must adopt that construction. If there are two reasonable constructions possible, we must give the more lenient one. It has been held that the constitutionality of a provision will have to be judged keeping in view the interpretative changes of the statute affected by passage of time.
• Now, issues related to adoption, custody and inheritance of the children of such unions need to be dealt with. An amendment in the existing laws is difficult as it would need an extensive change in the wording of the related Acts. So it is recommended that law called “The Homosexuals Act” be enacted which can deal with the issues of all the other areas of family law such as custody, guardianship, adoption and inheritance. The whole idea of special legislation mooted by the authors is on the premise that the liberal idea of the homosexuality would not require or would not want to take the shadows of religion as is in the other cases. Such a bold entry in terms of so called societal norms would gain recognition slowly with the advent of this Act.
Conclusion
Legal reform in any field is just one way to bring a social change with respect to any problem. But such a reform will have a greater impact if it tackles the issue of uprooting the stigma attached to the problem from the society.
“Justice is not settled by legislatures and laws. It is in the soul. It cannot be varied by statutes than love, pride and attraction of gravity can. It is immutable. It does not depend upon majorities.”
-Walt Whitman (American Poet)
This article is our work so would like to post it!While copying this from the document, the references are deleted!
“Who would give a law to lovers? Love is unto itself a higher law.”
- Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, A.D. 524.
Introduction
“Jayanthi Malar and Rukmani, two married women who were in relation with each other in the southern city of Chennai ended their lives when they were being forced apart by their families”.
“Lesbian couple in Uttar Pradesh who eloped were arrested and handed back to their parents, despite the fact that both women were above the age of consent.”
“In January 2006, four men were arrested by the police in a public park in Lucknow where they had gathered to socialise. According to the police accusations these four men had earlier met on an internet website for gays and then met in one of Lucknow’s parks”. The basis for their arrest rests on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
Of late, Hindi cinema depicted instances of homosexuality in various movies like Page 3, Life in a Metro, Fashion and Dostana. As early as 1998 Deepa Mehta’s ‘Fire’ also portrayed lesbianism. These movies depicted nothing but a true reflection of prevailing practices in the Indian society. The above instances show that the consensual love between individuals of the same sex is neither permissible by law nor is it tolerated by the society.
The issue of homosexuality is delicate and sensitive because, over the time it involved human rights and public morality as two sides of the debatable coin. A deliberation on the same is intended in this article.
‘Unnatural’ Perception
Homosexuality can be described as a tendency to be sexually and romantically attracted to members of one’s own sex. Homosexual behaviour is perceived to be deviant and unnatural, barring it from achieving social and legal recognition. The so called majority has never considered homosexuals as human beings worthy of the same respect as ‘normal individuals’. In short, they are considered sexual minorities with no human rights.
Legal Perspective
Homosexuality is considered ‘unnatural’ as presumed under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code. This section was enacted by Lord Macaulay in 1860 upon the traditional Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Section 377 reads that whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse ‘against the order of nature’ with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for the term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. The section seems to be ambiguous on what is ‘unnatural’ and what is ‘against the order of nature’ because the body of the section does not mention “unnatural” except for the title. Hence the interpretation of the same is left to the discretion of the Courts. Over the years, since the inception of this section, the interpretation of the courts it has led to a leading controversy and has attracted criticisms from various institutions like Naz Foundation India Trust, . In Khanu v. Emperor , which is perhaps the earliest judicial interpretation of section 377 the Court has laid down that, “ the natural object of sexual intercourse is that there should be the possibility of conception of human beings, which in the case of coitus per os (oral intercourse) is impossible”. From then the courts have been considering all the sexual activities among homosexuals and heterosexuals which are non-procreative as against the ‘order of nature’ within the ambit of section 377. However, it is to be noted that instances have been proving that what is punished in India is both sexual behaviour as well as sexual identity. For instance, seven school girls in Kerala were expelled in 1992 for forming a Martina Club and were penalised for declaring their identity but not for any sexual behaviour.
The irony is that what is punished under Section 377 is something that cannot be wiped out. This is to say that homosexuality is a mere personal and a private manifestation of an individual’s personality. Homosexuality is not a characteristic that can be changed neither by any medical assistance nor by any punishment. It might be interesting to note that in a complaint filed with the National Human Rights Commission of India, a patient at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences was forced to receive almost four years of treatment aimed at the conversion of his homosexuality. The Supreme Court defined the right of personal liberty within Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as a right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person. Hence, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code should be interpreted not to include consensual acts between individuals of the same sex as it invades their right to privacy as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
To sum up, by criminalising consensual acts between individuals of the same sex, they are prevented from asserting their fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
At this juncture, it is the opinion of the authors that this section should not criminalize the acts of homosexuals.
What the past has to say?
History reveals that homosexuality was prevalent since time immemorial almost in all cultures. Ramayana has a narrative of two queens who conceived a child together named Ashtavakra. In the “Jayamangala” of Yashodhara, an important twelfth century commentary on Kamasutra talks about homosexual inclination of women. Anthropological research has found homosexual sub cultures in Native American cultures, ancient Greece, Chinese Traditions, sub-Saharan Africa and Samurai Traditions of Japan. Acts of sodomy have been depicted in the carvings of the Khajuraho temples. It is interestingly noted that people who have made a significant contribution in their respective fields like Leonardo Da Vinci, Socrates, Oscar Wilde, and Michelangelo were all homosexuals!
International scenario
It is a known fact, that no society is left untouched by the evils of discrimination like race, language, gender etc. This discrimination has now extended to include ‘sexual orientation’. The stigma attached to people of ‘not straight’ orientation is on par in almost all the nations of the world. However, the notion of homosexuality has been dynamic in the international front and has been gaining both social and legal acceptance. Many countries around the globe have decriminalised the practice of homosexuality. South Africa is the first nation to add the word “sexual orientation” in their Constitution thereby recognising the rights of gays and lesbians. The United Nations Human Rights Committee monitors the compliance of the States to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In the case of Toonen v. Australia , it was held by the United Nations Human Rights Commission that the criminalisation of same-sex relations between consenting adults relations violates Article 2 which talks about equal protection to all and Article 17 which provides for right to privacy of the ICCPR. The Committee has ruled that ‘sex’ in Article 2 is to be taken to include the term ‘sexual orientation’. India is a signatory to the ICCPR and this pronouncement is now a precedent and has the force of international human rights. The Brazilian delegation, in the 59th session of the UN introduced, “A Resolution on Human Rights and Sexual Orientation”, which though didn’t achieve the desired result yet had great significance. The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, has held in its comment to Article 14 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights that ‘sexual orientation’ is a prohibited category of discrimination.
It is aptly recommended that it is now time for the word ‘sexual orientation’ to find a place in the Indian Constitution
Indian Scenario
At present, these sexual minorities are regularly harassed by the police, goondas, health care providers and other state and non-state agencies. Moreover, since their right to family is not recognised, various benefits under the labour laws, right to inheritance and property are also denied. Their present status even hampers the HIV/AIDS prevention efforts carried on by various non- governmental organisations thereby denying their basic right to health. This denial triggered PILs filed by AIDS Bhedbhav Virodh Andolan in 1992 and Naz Foundation (India) Trust in 2001(the case is now in the Supreme Court of India) both in the High Court of Delhi questioning the constitutionality of Section 377 of IPC.
The irony is that the present section which is on similar lines as one in Common Law since the colonial era though has decriminalised certain homosexual practices in specified circumstances there, it still continues to exist in India . The 172nd Report of the Law Commission, Government of India has recommended that this section be deleted . The Planning Commission of India in its 11th Five Year Plan also recommended the same. It is hence suggested that homosexuality be legalised keeping in mind the changing trends in the society. Moreover, the Supreme Court in relation to IPC pointed out that the Courts should as far as the language of the Code permits, construe it with reference to the modern needs of the society and not with reference to the notions of criminal jurisprudence prevailing at the time when the Code was enacted.
Recommendations
Keeping in mind the need of the hour, a few steps have been enumerated below to deal with the legal aspects of this problem.
• The first step towards this would be to include the word ‘sexual orientation’ in Article 15 of the Indian Constitution. By doing so the homosexuals would be brought on par with the rest in relation to all facets of their life and law.
• However, to address their present condition, for the time being an explanation to the Section 377 of IPC is to be added to bring a change in the interpretation by the Courts. That is to say that this section should from its ambit exclude consensual acts between homosexuals. The text of this section after amendment with improvisation by the law makers may read as follows-
377. Offences of Sodomy and bestiality._
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation._ 1. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.
2. Penetration is inclusive of oral, anal, vaginal, and other forms of penetrative intercourse, including insertion of foreign objects without consent.
Exception: Sexual intercourse, both oral and anal between any two consenting adults of the same sex shall not be an offence under this section.
Provided the consent for sexual intercourse is not obtained through coercion or fraud, or when the person is of unsound mind, or when in intoxication, or under the influence of all narcotic drugs.
For the purpose of this section,
1. “any two consenting adults” shall include adults of any sexual orientation.
2. “narcotic drugs” shall mean as defined under Section 2(xiv) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
• The legalisation of consenting same sex acts would require an amendment in marriage and divorce laws and they can be under the umbrella of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the only secular law available under the family laws.
Section 4 of the said Act contemplates marriage ‘between any two persons’ and the same should now be in consonance with the basic principles of interpretation. It is a general principle of interpretation of statute that if there is a reasonable interpretation which will avoid the penalty in any particular case we must adopt that construction. If there are two reasonable constructions possible, we must give the more lenient one. It has been held that the constitutionality of a provision will have to be judged keeping in view the interpretative changes of the statute affected by passage of time.
• Now, issues related to adoption, custody and inheritance of the children of such unions need to be dealt with. An amendment in the existing laws is difficult as it would need an extensive change in the wording of the related Acts. So it is recommended that law called “The Homosexuals Act” be enacted which can deal with the issues of all the other areas of family law such as custody, guardianship, adoption and inheritance. The whole idea of special legislation mooted by the authors is on the premise that the liberal idea of the homosexuality would not require or would not want to take the shadows of religion as is in the other cases. Such a bold entry in terms of so called societal norms would gain recognition slowly with the advent of this Act.
Conclusion
Legal reform in any field is just one way to bring a social change with respect to any problem. But such a reform will have a greater impact if it tackles the issue of uprooting the stigma attached to the problem from the society.
“Justice is not settled by legislatures and laws. It is in the soul. It cannot be varied by statutes than love, pride and attraction of gravity can. It is immutable. It does not depend upon majorities.”
-Walt Whitman (American Poet)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
