Editor,
The front page of the Shillong Times, June 3, 2023, carried a news item on the “KHADC directive against change of clan, surname”. According to the news report, a statement issued by the Executive Committee quoted the Khasi Social Custom of Lineage Act 1997, which prohibits change of surname without the consent of the KHADC.
On June 2, 2023, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the right to keep a name of choice or change it according to personal preference comes within the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
The court referred to Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution of India.
In allowing the petition the High Court quashed an order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Board of High School and Intermediate Education that refused an application of the petitioner to change his name. The judge ordered the UP Board to re-issue fresh high school and intermediate certificates incorporating the name change.
In its judgement, the Court observed that the human name is an inalienable part of an individual life.
The court added that the importance of an individual name is experienced in all aspects of life, including social interfaces, and that the power and glory of the human name transcends time and is not fenced by boundaries.
In the name change by the petitioner before the court, the old and new names are names generally connected with different religions. Apparently cultural or religious norms and traditions do not in any way restrict the fundamental right to change one’s name according to the individual’s wish.
Hence any law or Act, such as the Khasi Social Custom of Lineage Act, which infringes on fundamental rights is untenable, and liable to be struck down by the courts, if challenged.
Yours etc.,
Glenn C. Kharkongor,
Via email
Why halt recruitment to government posts?
Editor
The Meghalaya Government has recently kept in abeyance all stages of recruitment and deferred the declaration of results of recruitment to various posts until further orders, thereby causing extreme anxiety for job aspirants as well as parents as no timeline has been indicated on the matter. I do not want to go into the circumstances that led to this move but the present situation could have been avoided had the government handled the reservation roster issue in a more pragmatic manner. Now the government has to address two issues namely the review of the job reservation policy and the Reservation Roster. Whereas diverse views have emerged in respect of the former, there appears to be near unanimity as far as the Roster system is concerned as prospective implementation would not only be fair but also practicable. There is also a concern expressed by students who would want to pursue higher studies in different disciplines through State Quota as to whether selection will be done based on the old policy or otherwise. In my opinion, review of the job reservation policy which will be dealt with by an Expert Committee is not possible within a short period as the views of all stakeholders have to be taken into account. Further, there has to be a proper scrutiny from legal, constitutional and other angles so as to ensure smooth implementation of the policy.
It is not clear as to how long the present ban on recruitment process will continue. My suggestion is to deal with the Roster issue and review the job reservation policy separately. Once the Roster problem is resolved, the ban may be lifted and the present reservation policy may be followed until the time the new policy comes into force. This will be in the interest of the youth whose careers have already been impacted by the Covid -19 pandemic and in view of the age limit for government jobs.
Yours etc.,
J. Lyngdoh,
Via email
India is robust enough to scrap the Sedition law
Editor,
The judgment of the Allahabad High Court needs careful examination before any comment on the sedition law:
The Court says, “India’s unity is not made of bamboo reeds which will bend to passing winds of empty slogans.” These remarks were made by the Court while granting bail to three Kashmiri students who raised some slogans and they were booked under section 124A . The Court quoted three lines from poet Alama Iqbal’s song, “Saare jahan se achha Hindustan hamara,” to stress the constancy of Indian values and the strength of the Indian polity.
IPC Sections 124 A (sedition), 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 505 (1)(B) (with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public), and 66-F of the Information Technology Act have been arbitrarily used in recent times. The Supreme Court too had delivered its judgement on the unnecessary use of Section 124 A and had commented that it is not seditious to have views different from that of the government’s. This was in respect to the former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir expressing his views on Article 370 which were different from that of the government’s.
Earlier too the Supreme Court had held that only a violent revolution against the Government would attract the charge of sedition. This judgement was passed in 1962 in the case of Kedar Nath Singh which says, “Someone’s statement criticising the Government does not invoke an offence of sedition or defamation.” The Supreme Court has recognised dissent as a ‘symbol of a vibrant democracy.’ Individuals who assert causes which may be unpopular for those in power are yet entitled to the freedoms which are guaranteed by the Constitution. Voices in opposition cannot be muzzled by persecuting those who take up unpopular causes. Unfortunately, the colonial-era law which says that, ‘whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation or otherwise brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government shall be punished with imprisonment for life,’ still remains as Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. It is expected that such a draconian provision should be removed from the statute books.
The Law Commission had given its views recently on sedition. It comes at a time when Prime Minister Modi is visiting several countries. Moreover, the G20 conference is being held in India and such recommendations by the Law Commission will question the liberal nature of Indian democracy. Even Pakistan has annulled Sec 124A. India is the world’s largest democracy, hence there should be no place for such regressive laws. The law panel’s stand contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Favouring the retention of Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code, the Law Commission argued that repealing this law can have ‘serious adverse ramifications for the security and integrity of the country,” The panel, however, has made recommendations regarding amendments in the provisions, such as mandatory preliminary investigation, procedural safeguards and revision in punishment, in order to curb misuse of Section 124A.The Commission’s report comes almost a year after the Centre had told the Supreme Court that it would re-examine and reconsider the sedition law. Following this assurance, the apex court had directed the Centre and all state governments to refrain from registering any FIR under Section 124A while suspending all ongoing cases. The law panel’s stand on the regressive legislation goes against the spirit of the Supreme Court’s rulings and observations when there are other laws to deal with such cases. Its continuance in the statute book is undermining India’s democratic credentials and imposing unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. It is a well- known fact that the sedition law is largely a tool used by the State to commit excesses. It should definitely be scrapped before it inflicts more damage on our constitutional framework.
In the recent past even the United Nation Human Rights Commission took up matters of violations of human rights by the Indian government particularly related to the various violations by security forces in Kashmir after removal of Section 370 in the state.
Yours etc.,
Yash Pal Ralhan,
Via email