|
Good response, Ram!
Thanks
RB
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 3:52
PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] From ToI/ SC the New
Desi DIKTATOR ?
If I am not mistaken, this article 47 came directly from the British
Constitution. In fact, similar articles exist in most constitutions (regarding
public health). Remember, this was 1951 or when this was done.
Now, if the legislators don't like the article, they can pass an
amendment.
>This is irreligious
Law
What has religion got to do with
it?
>Why the 'desi's will
have to think conservative?
>Why we make Laws
knowing fully well that we cannot adopt it?
Why point only to Desis? Was the US conservative in
1919 - a prohibition amendment which lasted for nearly 15 years?
When they repealed it, can we ask the question as to
why they made laws which they cannot adopt? (they found that out only after 15
years)
IMHO: There are many laws that are NOT good (in
all constitutions). Before the Mitakshara law, property could only be
inherited by sons and not daughters.
The point I am making is that laws are usually made
taking into consideration of the times and customs at the time they were
enacted. Only the test of time reverses these things.
A good example is the famous case of a gay couple
from Texas who broke Texas' sodomy laws. The US Supreme Court last month
struck it down and declared that the Texas law was unconstitutional (as
piercing the veil of privacy - not sodomy). That Texas law (stupid as it was)
existed as a Texas law ever since Texas was a state.
So, unjust and stupid laws change as times change -
when people see them as not relevant any more or just plain
unjust.
--Ram
On 5/3/06, Rajen
Barua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Article 47--Duty of
the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to
improve public health
The State shall regard the raising of the level
of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of
public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State
shall endeavour to bring about
prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes
of intoxicating drinks and of
drugs which are injurious to health
This is irreligious
Law.
Is Xaj Pani (Rice Beer)
injurious to health?
Is wine injurious to
health?
Why the 'desi's will have
to think conservative?
Why we make Laws knowing
fully well that we cannot adopt it?
Why the 'desis' have to
prove that they are hypocites?
What is in the 'desi'
mind?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 1:12
PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] From ToI/ SC the
New Desi DIKTATOR ?
This is democracy at work. Why are we blaming the SC?
The people elect their representatives, who in turn enact laws. The
Indian Supreme Court ONLY interprets the constitution. If people (read
legislators) don't want it, they can always pass an amendment.
BTW: In the US, prohibition was passed into law thru an amendment,
and upheld by the US Supreme Court in (around) 1919. Another amendment to
the constitution repealed it and passed scrutinity of the Court.
So, lets not blame the SC for doing what they are supposed to be
doing.
Here is Article 47 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 47--Duty of
the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and
to improve public health
The State shall regard the raising of the
level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the
improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in
particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the
consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of
drugs which are injurious to health .
--Ram
On 5/3/06, Rajen
Barua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>The Supreme Court has asked the central
and state
>governments to take steps to achieve the goal of total
prohibition of
>liquor as enshrined in Article
47 of the constitution under the
>Directive Principles
of State Policy.
I think the power comes
from above.
What is Article
47?
Who makes these
articles?
I think people should stand
up for their right.
Other wise someone will
make an Article tomorrow to make India a vegetrarain country
gradually or "at least reduce the consumption of liquor (read meat) in
the state, gradually leading to prohibition itself."
The problem
is not 'desi democracy', the problem is the 'desi'.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 11:06
AM
Subject: [Assam] From ToI/ SC the New Desi
DIKTATOR ?
> While it is disturbing to see uncontrolled
proliferation of alcohol
> peddling and consumption in India,
where does the SC derive its
> mandate to ASK ( read
order)
> even in desi-demokrasy? Is the SC the SUPREME elected
body of the country?
>
> cm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Time has come for total
prohibition: SC
> [ Wednesday, May 03, 2006 06:20:31 pmIANS
]
>
>
>
> NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court
has asked the central and state
> governments to take steps to
achieve the goal of total prohibition of
> liquor as enshrined in
Article 47 of the constitution under the
> Directive Principles
of State Policy.
>
> Expressing serious concern on
the ill effects of liquor, a bench of
> Justice S.B. Sinha and
Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan said: "Article 47
> of the
constitution clearly casts a duty on the state at least to
>
reduce the consumption of liquor in the state, gradually leading to
> prohibition itself."
>
> The judges said:
"It appears to be right to point out that the time
> has come for
the states and the union government to seriously think
> of
taking steps to achieve the goal set by Article 47 of the
>
constitution."
>
> Writing the judgment, Justice
Balasubramanyan said: "It is a
> notorious fact, of which we can
take judicial notice, that more and
> more of the younger
generation in this country is getting addicted to
>
liquor.
>
> It has not only become a fashion to
consume it but it has also
> become an obsession with very many.
Surely, we do not need an
> indolent nation.
>
>
"Why the state in the face of Article 47 of the constitution
should
> encourage, that too practically unrestrictedly, the
trade in liquor
> is something that is difficult to appreciate,"
the bench asked.
>
> "The only excuse for the state
for not following the mandate of
> Article 47 of the constitution
is that huge revenue is generated by
> this trade and such
revenue is being used for meeting the financial
> needs of the
state.
>
> What is more relevant here is to notice
that the monopoly in the
> trade is with the state and it is only
a privilege that a licencee
> has in the matter of manufacturing
and vending liquor," the bench
> noted.
>
>
The bench passed this order while disposing of an appeal filed by
> the Maharashtra government against an interim order passed by
the
> Bombay High Court on the issue of payment of requisite fee
by
> distilleries under the Bombay Rectified Spirit (Transport in
Bond)
> Rules, 1951.
>
>
_______________________________________________
> assam mailing
list
> assam@assamnet.org
>
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>
_______________________________________________
assam
mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
|
