THX_1138 Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Detention by police must have prompted a detailed background check by Infosys. The cannot be faulted for this. If during the course of the check they found out that this employee had lied about his claims in the resume then they are justified in terminating his services. This fellow goes for the hackneyed religious card and people are falling over each other to slate Infosys. As Khota said, it's for the court to decide. Narayan Murthy has no business interfering in established by-laws of the company. It's a publicly owned company, not his personal fiefdom. But can't expect anything better from someone who asks players to be "shot" for losing a match. well if he takes the matter to court, i think the details will be established, at the moment it is all heresy... there is little to substantiate his claim of discrimination, and little to substantiate the organization's claim of termination on the grounds of misinformation...
kumble_rocks Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 there is nothing such as legal detention. if you are indeed taken into police custody' date=' the constitution determines your rights and it states that unless you are charged with a crime and arrested on a warrant, you may not be detained by the police [b']for a period of more than 24 hours. furthermore, if you are arrested, you are required to be made aware of the charges against you, and be provided access to legal opinion at the earliest. he was detained without a warrant and for an abnormally long period... thus the illegal detention. Spot on ! Section 160 of CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code, India) reads that a written notice must be served against anybody called to the police station for interrogation. The detention of the victim is also a clear violation of Art 22 (1) and (2) of the Indian Constitution. The Criminal Law of the country also calls for the arresting officer to produce the detainee before a Magistrate within 24 hrs of arrest.
THX_1138 Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Spot on ! Section 160 of CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code' date=' India) reads that a written notice must be served against anybody called to the police station for interrogation. The detention of the victim is also a clear violation of Art 22 (1) and (2) of the Indian Constitution. The Criminal Law of the country also calls for the arresting officer to produce the detainee before a Magistrate within 24 hrs of arrest.[/quote'] it is even more rigid here... you cannot even detain a person for more than an instant if he or she is not charged with a crime.
fineleg Posted August 20, 2008 Author Posted August 20, 2008 it is even more rigid here... you cannot even detain a person for more than an instant if he or she is not charged with a crime. Yes, and all those others commenting here, are conveniently ignoring he was detained illegally for 9 or 10 days!!! PS: Yes, THX it is the javelin athlete.
punjabi_khota Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Yes, and all those others commenting here, are conveniently ignoring he was detained illegally for 9 or 10 days!!! PS: Yes, THX it is the javelin athlete. Haha, that does not change anything w.r.t job. He might (<1% probabilty, considering this is India) get some compensation for being illegaly detained. Infy doesn't have to do anything with it. If he falsified his CV, he is gone. End of the story.
Guest dada_rocks Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Without charging anyone you can take people into extended judicial custody for questioning .. if police has not followed this rule they will be in big soup.. Yes provided it's not maharashtra police whihc has powers to do these for questioning in matter of terrorist related case....... Since the gentleman in question is not talking about this then in all probabality he is just making noise.. official detention has to be sancitoned by court if not then either he is lying or he can;t prove he was detained because if he can then police is in trouble.. once agin since the gentleman is not even talking about this issue and he seems to be educated so most probabaly he is making empty noise..
THX_1138 Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Without charging anyone you can take people into extended judicial custody for questioning .. if police has not followed this rule they will be in big soup.. Yes provided it's not maharashtra police whihc has powers to do these for questioning in matter of terrorist related case....... Since the gentleman in question is not talking about this then in all probabality he is just making noise.. official detention has to be sancitoned by court if not then either he is lying or he can;t prove he was detained because if he can then police is in trouble.. once agin since the gentleman is not even talking about this issue and he seems to be educated so most probabaly he is making empty noise.. Well for a start... no you cannot. and if the Maharashtra police has such an overwhelming, non consitutional power, it only need be brought to the attention of the supreme court which would abolish this law. Terrorism or not, any attempt to undermine our constitution, democracy and personal freedom is as abhorrent an act as any.
dial_100 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 These are two different issues here. He lost his employment on some technical ground. And he was detained longer than 24 hours might be a mistake by police. But tell you the truth, If police start to take legal route to interogate everyone then they will need 10 years to finish just interogation alone. It is unfortuate that a good guy (now that he has left SIMI) got a stick.
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 These are two different issues here. He lost his employment on some technical ground. And he was detained longer than 24 hours might be a mistake by police. But tell you the truth, If police start to take legal route to interogate everyone then they will need 10 years to finish just interogation alone. It is unfortuate that a good guy (now that he has left SIMI) got a stick. That remains to be determined. And no, the police did not make a mistake... it was an intentional action on part of the law enforcement. You dont just detain a person without charging him or her for a period of 9 days due to a communication breakdown or administrative goof up. You suppose he was the only one detained by the police? If we want to contain terrorism, then we must build cases... its a laborious task and it is requires an adherence to the procedural requirements and it demands that the investigators be patient but diligent in their job. This is not a unique request, its simply their job. And if they perform their job well, they deserve to be rewarded with better pay and benefits.
Ram Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Brilliant. It takes an unbelievable amount of ingenuity to somehow start religion bashing in almost every thread, unfailingly. Bravo!
punjabi_khota Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 LOL @ the derailment of this thread. Absolutely genius work.
fineleg Posted August 21, 2008 Author Posted August 21, 2008 sarc, Infy clearly is not doing background checks all over again for all employees. they wanted to fire this guy, and are finding flimsy reasons to do so. The guy gave the explanation for the 'technicalities' that infy found. what did u beat hollow?
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Hah, look at the amount of shyte I've quoted above! Here's a surprise for you "experts". Police CAN detain an individual, whether in peacetime, non-emergency situations or otherwise. The Constitution expressly ALLOWS an individual to be detained - without charge or trial - for up to three months and denies detainees the rights to legal representation, cross-examination, timely or periodic review, access to the courts or compensation for unlawful arrest or detention. It's called preventive detention. Besides, illegal detention (someone vomited there's nothing like lawful detention :hysterical:) is NOT the issue that OP highlighted. It was another joke alleging "racial profiling" by Infosys. :hysterical: ah no... the constitution does not permit any such measure. if it does, you would have to provide a source.
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Did I not say the CONSTITUTION provides that? Or you want me to read it out for you? :hysterical: yes, i do. point out the section of the constitution that provides such an overarching power to the law enforcement
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Did I not say the CONSTITUTION provides that? Or you want me to read it out for you? :hysterical: my uninformed friend... the constitution forbids a person to be held for longer than 24 hours before informed of the charges on which the person is held, and he or she must be brought before a magistrate and given access to legal counsel. however, our bird brain leaders introduced the "preventive detention act" in 1950 which thereby makes india one amongst a total three democracies where the prolonged detention of citizens for a period of three months is somehow permitted... the other two being united states and costa rica. but hold your horses, preventive detention in united states applies to a person awaiting trial (and if he or she is considered a flight risk, they may be held in prison for upto 120 days, thereafter they must face trial or be released). here read this: In the normal course of things preventive detention laws should have lapsed after India attained Independence; but perhaps as the Republic of India had its birth amidst the ravages of civil commotion involving huge loss of lives and property, the framers of our Constitution decided to retain preventive detention as a means to curb anti-national activity. Thus, the Preventive Detention Act was passed by Parliament in 1950. After the expiry of this Act in 1969, the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) was enacted in 1971, followed by its economic adjunct the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) in 1974 and the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) in 1985. Though MISA and TADA have been repealed, COFEPOSA continues to be operative along with other similar laws such as the National Security Act (NSA) 1980, the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Essential Commodities Act 1980 and the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) 2002; not to mention laws with similar provisions enacted by the State governments. the origin of the preventive detention act was from the time of the british raj, and that too was permitted only during a time of war. however, we somehow deemed it acceptable to pass the law in 1950...
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 US laws are not at all necessary for the purposes of this thread. I saw you take a self-righteous stance and lecture DR and BossBhai about how detention is not allowed under Indian constitution. This was coming from you who has clearly NEVER opened the Constitution and read it's provision and looks for "sections" in it. Not to mention your gem that "there's nothing like lawful detention". Now, admit that you were horsesh1tting, as usual. Don't go around spinning the arguement, the Constitution expressly allows preventive detention for three months, without any rights being granted to the detainee. What's more, that three month period is extendible in certain circumstances. Who's uninformed here? true i have never opened the indian constitution, my knowledge of the indian constitution is limited to perfunctory lectures in civics and public policy. and yes, you may continue to beat on the improper use of one word, as shall i. and finally, the provision of "preventive detention" is not an element of the constitution or rather must i say, it is not a "section" of the constitution; it is an additional law passed in addition to the constitution has come under considerable scrutiny and critique.
cowboysfan Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 illegally detained?-lol.I dont know what that means.As far as i am concerned they can detain anybody they want if he is a suspected terrorist.
fineleg Posted August 21, 2008 Author Posted August 21, 2008 You're getting personal again' date= . *you* are accusing someone of getting personal :hysterical: Thats rich! Read through above posts - specifically conversation between you and me. Look who got personal. Did I ever get personal with you (read through the full thread if you want)...check who got personal? And now *you* accuse others (THX) here of getting personal :haha:
punjabi_khota Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Oh' date=' but i am absolutely fine with that. I don't go [b']private messaging mods about it. PS: I take it that you have nothing substantial to add on the thread started by you. Not that I ever thought you could. Except when it comes to shooting players. So you are saying, that someone is PMsing ?
mhr123 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 I think its neither profiling nor racism , they are firing him not because he a muslim but because he has been accused of being a terrorist. which is wrong as well cuz he is innocent until proven guilty. So stop calling this racism , its a case where employer wants to stay away from controversy. AGREED Paji...
Recommended Posts