Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

A joke for common People

 

Recently our Indian Government made the anti-hijacking law much tougher by including death sentence as a punishment.

 

Now you asked why this is funny or joke for common people ?

 Because in India we till date our Indian government did not give punishment(death sentences ) to kasab or Mohammad Afzal.They are not hijackers(they are terrorist.) but till date our Indian govt. don’t give death sentences .

 If this anti-hijacking law much tougher by including death sentence as a punishment  did we punish to death sentences?

 Suppose if a terrorist hijack plane and we capture them and passed death sentences  but does our Indian government really punish to death sentences ?If some day the hijacker again hijack the plane and demand to rescue their terrorist. Thus, in India we make the law, making the law easy but implementation is poor.

 The Cabinet was expected to consider the proposal moved by civil aviation ministry to amend Anti-Hijacking Act of 1982 to make it more stringent to deter hijackers from using an aircraft as a missile. 


With enhanced terror threats, a group of ministers headed by home minister P Chidambaram had cleared the "tougher" proposals paving the way for civil aviation ministry to move the amendments for Cabinet approval.

The Cabinet's approval paves the way for amending section 4 of the 1982 Act, which provides for life imprisonment and a fine for hijacking, to include death penalty also.

The government is likely to place the proposed amendments before Parliament in the budget session itself once the House meets again after the recess.

The GoM had also decided to incorporate a new clause to cover the aspect of conspiracy to hijack an aircraft which does not exist in the 1982 Act.

The fresh move to ensure legal sanction to anti-hijacking policy comes almost five year after the Cabinet Committee on Security had cleared it in August, 2005. The policy allows shooting down of a "hostile plane if there is conclusive evidence that it is likely to be used as a missile to blow up strategic establishments".

The policy recognises that hijacked aircraft can be transformed into a "hostile" entity. It also prescribes surrounding of hijacked planes by fighter aircrafts in Indian airspace.

The law will authorise Indian Air Force to take quick steps for scrambling fighters to guard and guide hijacked aircraft and force land it in an Indian airport.

To avoid Kandahar-like situations, the policy also provides that no negotiations whatsoever would be held with hijackers. The policy talks about immobilisation of an aircraft and not allowing it to take off if the hijacking takes place on Indian soil, besides scrambling of IAF fighters if the hijacked plane remains in Indian airspace.

 



Learning

 8 Replies

Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate (Advocacy)     20 October 2010

sir,

ye sacchai hai.

(it is a truth )

where is jok?

P.K.Haridasan (Advocate)     20 October 2010

According to my opinion, we should have made  the amendments long before. Not less than death can be awarded to persons playing with the life of others.

Democratic Indian (n/a)     20 October 2010

Unfortunately there is no book or a subject in this world for common sense. The hijackings have been successful the in the past, not because there was a shortage or weakness in laws. This amendment to the law is correctly considered as a joke as it lacks common sense due to following reasons:

"civil aviation ministry to amend Anti-Hijacking Act of 1982 to make it more stringent to deter hijackers from using an aircraft as a missile."

When person/s who have decided to use the aircraft as a missile at the cost of self destruction of their life, will they be deterred by laws? We can make a million laws to satisfy ourselves and feel mentally secure, but how will that prevent the facts from happening unless we take proactive steps for security? Isrealies keep well armed Sky Marshals in plain clothes on aircraft. They allow all their citizens to keep any number or any type of firearms. They do not disarm their citizens like our government does with help of Arms Act. Who will teach common sense to our bureucrats?

"The policy allows shooting down of a "hostile plane if there is conclusive evidence that it is likely to be used as a missile to blow up strategic establishments"."

If it has been recognized by a sovereign State that a plane has been hijacked and has become hostile to cause imminent death and destruction of people, can't the State act in self defense? Where is the need of law for this fact? What are the Sections 97 & 106 IPC for?

"The policy talks about immobilisation of an aircraft and not allowing it to take off if the hijacking takes place on Indian soil, besides scrambling of IAF fighters if the hijacked plane remains in Indian airspace."

This is pure common sense self defense, have we become so brain dead that we need policies for the acts of self defense?




Democratic Indian (n/a)     21 October 2010

THIS BILL/POLICY IS CERTAINLY A JOKE AS THE FOLLOWING FACTS ALSO EMERGE:

1. LACK OF COMMUNICATION AMONG AUTHOURITIES

2. LACK OF AUTHORITY TO DECIDE

3. SECURITY RISK

4. LOOPHOLES IN THE SYSTEM

5. LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND

IT IS JUST THE GAME OF BUREAUCRATS TO DIVERT THE ATTENTION FROM THEIR INCOMPETENCE AND SHOW ON PAPERS THAT THERE WAS SOME OTHER CAUSE WHICH COULD NOT BE HANDLED DUE TO LACK OF LAWS AND THAT SOMETHING IS BEING DONE AND IS BEING REMEDIED WITH HELP OF AMENDMENT TO THE LAWS.


(Guest)

It is not the gravity of punishment but the certainity of punishment which have a deterent effect. The issue raised is not a joke but the ground reality . In the absence of effective procedural and remedial agency mere amendments in enactments will not change the situation, particularly when there are many groups induldged in the process to nullify the aim and object of  providing justice to citizens by lawful means.- N.C.Dubey 

Democratic Indian (n/a)     21 October 2010

"It is not the gravity of punishment but the certainity of punishment which have a deterent effect."

When terrorists themselves have made certain, to punish themselves by the way of self destruction, by making the aircraft as a missile or a human bomb etc. etc., how can making certainty of punishment by law, make a detterent effect. Law can have a detterrent effect only on those who value their life.


"In the absence of effective procedural and remedial agency mere amendments in enactments will not change the situation, particularly when there are many groups induldged in the process to nullify the aim and object of  providing justice to citizens by lawful means."

Exactly this is what I am also trying to convey. Merely making amendments to existing law, to show that something is being done, is just a joke, an eyewash. When there is a "hostile plane" in Indian airspace, does a sovereign state really need any law to act in self defense? How can any groups have any influence in this scenario of quick decision making? Or is it been contended that the state has withered away to such an extent, it needs support of laws to act in clear cases of self defense also?

1 Like

(Guest)

Laws are meant for civilized society, Criminals are mentally ill persons .They need treatment , sympathy and opportunity to reform themselves. Terrorist may or may not be a member of civilized society. If rulers of the country  feel that some one who contributes unhealthy,and uncivilized envronment , It is the the primary duty of State to check the unlawful activities and to make afforts to get him realized his faults. More over the aiding or abettingof  their illegal acts should be checked by their family members , neibours and social workers coming in contact with them.

Anil Agrawal (CEO)     24 October 2010

Recently there was an opinion, that death penalty is for rarest of rare crimes. So any crime which is done in abundance is not a crime, for which death penalty be can be awarded. I am of the opinion that it is the severity of crime and not its frequency, which should be the criterion.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register