Gaikwad deserves a return gift of 15 beatings with slippers

One Arrogant Shiv Sena MP: Unruly Shiv Sena MP Ravindra Gaikwad was on Friday barred from flying by Air India (AI) and five other private airlines, a day after he repeatedly hit a 60-year-old AI staff

One Arrogant Shiv Sena MP: Unruly Shiv Sena MP Ravindra Gaikwad was on Friday barred from flying by Air India (AI) and five other private airlines, a day after he repeatedly hit a 60-year-old AI staffer. The AI flight in question did not have a business class. When this was explained to Gaikwad, he got angry, abused, and worse, hit the on-duty AI officer 15 times with his slippers.

Gaikwad expressed no regret for his disgraceful behaviour. Political leaders cutting across the party lines condemned the incident and sought action. Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan said she cannot take suo moto action and that she would take a call only if the case was brought to her notice in the House.

The general mood was well articulated by the AI staffer Sukumar when he said that police action must be taken. That is most important so that no one takes it as his birthright to assault a person on duty. Gaikwad has tarnished the image of his party, the Shiv Sena. It is hoped that Uddhav Thackeray takes appropriate action against Gaikwad and dispels the impression that Shiv Sena endorses Gaikwad’s ‘goondagiri’. 

Ravindra Gaikwad (L); and Air India staffer Sukumar
Ravindra Gaikwad (L); and Air India staffer Sukumar


It is believed by some that all airlines cannot impose a ban on Gaikwad from travelling in their flights. Why not? The ban is not imposed on prohibited discriminatory grounds of caste or religion or sex. It is imposed to ensure orderly behaviour of passengers and to protect the airlines’ officers in performance of their functions. I feel that the proper punishment the arrogant Gaikwad deserves is being beaten 15 times with slippers. That would be a lesson he would never forget.

Commendable Move to Decriminalise Suicide: The present provision in the Indian Penal Code to make ‘attempt to commit suicide’ a crime is grotesque. I had an occasion to challenge its constitutionality in the Supreme Court, but the attempt was unsuccessful.

In this context, the Mental Health Care Bill, 2013, aimed at decriminalising attempted suicide and defining mental illness in a broader and more inclusive way was tabled in the Lok Sabha. The move is commendable.

The Bill recognises that suicide attempts are a cry for help and not for punitive penal action. A remarkable feature of the bill is that it allows people to choose someone who can take care of them or their method of treatment if they suffer mental illness in future. In other words, people suffering from mental illness will have the right to choose their mode of treatment by nominating representatives who will ensure that their choices are carried out.

The bill is progressive and is patient-centric and empowers the patient to provide for his or her mental healthcare. The purpose is to give treatment at community level. The bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha in August 2016. Seen as a reformist bill, it was hugely applauded on the social media. Once passed in the Lok Sabha, the new bill will replace the outdated Mental Health Act of 1987. This would repeal Section 309 of the IPC, which provided for year-long imprisonment for a failed suicide attempt. This legal notoriety will disappear.

Law Commission Report regarding Hate Speech: In a report on ‘hate crimes’ submitted to the law ministry recently, the Law Commission has recommended introducing more provisions in the IPC and the Code of Criminal Procedure, widening the definition of incitement of violence. In the Law Commission’s view, even speech that does not incite violence has the potential of marginalising a section of the society.

It has, therefore, suggested that the IPC be amended by adding a new provision regarding incitement to hatred. The proposal of the Law Commission deserves deep consideration.

It is essential to ensure that the proposed 
amendment does not fall foul of the Supreme Court’s 1962 judgment in Kedar Nath’s case, which upheld the provisions about sedition by reading them down to cover only speeches or writings which have the tendency to incite violence.

Two basic values are involved. The guarantee of free speech and expression and the requirement of an orderly society free from violence. Both these 
views must be accommodated and a delicate balance struck.
solisorabjee@gmail.com

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com