ganeshran Posted April 29, 2013 Posted April 29, 2013 Guys' date=' these are dispute resolution courts. Nothing will be in contradiction with the law of the land. Calm down.[/quote'] First, the law should be changed so all citizens are subject to one single law regardless of religion, caste or ethnicity. Second, tiger80 mentioned a very valid point - Decision of these courts might not be legally binding but enforce their rulings through the threat of social boycott and the extremely powerful position of ruling as a representative with divine authority. In conservative circles, this itself is enough to make the decision binding for all intents and purposes. A forum to settle disputes without getting involved in lengthy legal procedures is of course very useful, but these forums should also use the Indian constitution (with a common civil law) as basis for their rulings and not religious/culturally accepted traditions like these shariah courts/khaps use.
ravishingravi Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 oh bhaiyaa .. i never called for it.. and why are u guys jumping the guns. Its just a civil and marital court which would look into Marriages , Divorce , property division etc For e.g. marriage contract done in local Shariah Court which is valid in all Middle-east ... but then this contract is invalid for other countries even though they are recognized by Govt. If people can accept Panchayat system and why should there be an issue with this one. Which people ?
DomainK Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 First, the law should be changed so all citizens are subject to one single law regardless of religion, caste or ethnicity. Second, tiger80 mentioned a very valid point - Decision of these courts might not be legally binding but enforce their rulings through the threat of social boycott and the extremely powerful position of ruling as a representative with divine authority. In conservative circles, this itself is enough to make the decision binding for all intents and purposes. A forum to settle disputes without getting involved in lengthy legal procedures is of course very useful, but these forums should also use the Indian constitution (with a common civil law) as basis for their rulings and not religious/culturally accepted traditions like these shariah courts/khaps use. This is a court for those people who want to settle their disputes through what their religion prescribes only. These are people who want to follow what is dictated in the religion. It's similar to going to an elderly wise man of the religion to play an arbitrator in a dispute resolution. Such dispute resolutions, if done with the proper paperwork, can be legally binding as long as the judgement is not breaking any law of the land. This court is an extension of such dispute resolution. There is nothing alarming in it except that some people are feeling uncomfortable with the word Shariah.
suraj Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 Is Mumbai crowd booing this one??? 1st case; Kohli vs. Mumbai ??
ravishingravi Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 This is a court for those people who want to settle their disputes through what their religion prescribes only. These are people who want to follow what is dictated in the religion. It's similar to going to an elderly wise man of the religion to play an arbitrator in a dispute resolution. Such dispute resolutions, if done with the proper paperwork, can be legally binding as long as the judgement is not breaking any law of the land. This court is an extension of such dispute resolution. But you cannot pick and choose the authority you wish to go for redress based on personal beliefs. I can understand going to an elderly wise for some confession or guidance. But we are talking about institution here. All people being subject to one law. I see no accountability here.
Raghav_12 Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 But you cannot pick and choose the authority you wish to go for redress based on personal beliefs. I can understand going to an elderly wise for some confession or guidance. But we are talking about institution here. All people being subject to one law. I see no accountability here. Nobody is being subjected to new law here. Both parties are going to a person or commitee in which both believe and trust. There is nothing which is going to be contravenous to the law of land. People don't jump to judiciary all the time. Corporates try to resolve employee matters within ambit of organizations, extended families resolve things with advice of elderlies, in villages panchayat's play active roles in resolution of disputes. All of these localized institution should be increased instead of scoffed of. DomainK pointed out correctly that it is wpord sharia which is making people uncomfortable rather than the concept itself.
ganeshran Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 This is a court for those people who want to settle their disputes through what their religion prescribes only. These are people who want to follow what is dictated in the religion. It's similar to going to an elderly wise man of the religion to play an arbitrator in a dispute resolution. Such dispute resolutions, if done with the proper paperwork, can be legally binding as long as the judgement is not breaking any law of the land. This court is an extension of such dispute resolution. There is nothing alarming in it except that some people are feeling uncomfortable with the word Shariah. The word shariah was simply used by the TOIlet paper to sensationalize the news, its usual tactic of gutter journalism. My qualms are with a court which derives its authority from a religious/ traditional framework, be it shariah courts or khap panchayats. The bolded part is where the problem lies. Religion is not a free and fair institution. It has a history of discrimination , be it against women, homosexuals, lower castes and the likelihood of any of these groups getting justice in these courts is very slim. Saying that the decisions are non binding is again not totally true, because these courts are able to get their rulings enforced using threats mentioned in my previous post. If we want community courts, we should have retired judges preside over arbitration committees and perform the same roles as religious courts do. Retired judges are more likely to follow the law of the land over any partisan considerations
jiggo Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 The word shariah was simply used by the TOIlet paper to sensationalize the news, its usual tactic of gutter journalism. My qualms are with a court which derives its authority from a religious/ traditional framework, be it shariah courts or khap panchayats. The bolded part is where the problem lies. Religion is not a free and fair institution. It has a history of discrimination , be it against women, homosexuals, lower castes and the likelihood of any of these groups getting justice in these courts is very slim. Saying that the decisions are non binding is again not totally true, because these courts are able to get their rulings enforced using threats mentioned in my previous post. If we want community courts, we should have retired judges preside over arbitration committees and perform the same roles as religious courts do. Retired judges are more likely to follow the law of the land over any partisan considerations +1
DomainK Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 The word shariah was simply used by the TOIlet paper to sensationalize the news, its usual tactic of gutter journalism. My qualms are with a court which derives its authority from a religious/ traditional framework, be it shariah courts or khap panchayats. The bolded part is where the problem lies. Religion is not a free and fair institution. It has a history of discrimination , be it against women, homosexuals, lower castes and the likelihood of any of these groups getting justice in these courts is very slim. Saying that the decisions are non binding is again not totally true, because these courts are able to get their rulings enforced using threats mentioned in my previous post. If we want community courts, we should have retired judges preside over arbitration committees and perform the same roles as religious courts do. Retired judges are more likely to follow the law of the land over any partisan considerations You are not getting the point. Suppose A and B get into a disagreement. They both agree that they want to do whatever is right according to Islam. They go to this court and ask for a judgement. This court is not allowed to contradict any law of the land. A and B have all the rights under Indian constitution to resolve their disputes the way they want as long as they are not breaking any law.
rahulrulezz Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 wow what hypocrisy... Panchayat system that is used widely ALLL over the country in almost every village in the country is ok but a Sharia court for family and marriage decisions is baddd..
BeautifulGame Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 Jamath has been doing this mediation stuff for years with in their community.Atleast in TN.So dont how is this exactly different
gs Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 The intent should be to get the effin judiciary to dispense justice swiftly and not empower non constitutional institutions, a religious one at that, to deliver justice.
ganeshran Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 You are not getting the point. Suppose A and B get into a disagreement. They both agree that they want to do whatever is right according to Islam. They go to this court and ask for a judgement. This court is not allowed to contradict any law of the land. A and B have all the rights under Indian constitution to resolve their disputes the way they want as long as they are not breaking any law. This is the problem here. The moment you bring divine authority into the picture, law of the land kya cheez hai. When people's disputes are resolved by a judge claiming to speak on the behalf of a holy book they have spent their whole lives believing, what makes you think that they will consider any law higher than this. Lets say a woman and man go to a religious court for solving a marital dispute, and the religion in question (Islam in this case) specifically considers men to have more rights than women and judges according to its law. Now the women is in theory free to appeal, but how would she do that when threatened with the prospect of social ostracization and falling foul of god? The same problem exists with khaps who make up their own random laws and threaten people with social boycott if their orders are not obeyed. Any dispute resolution body must use Indian law as basis for its judgments. The panchayats which do so are perfectly fine
Recommended Posts