Somasekhar Sundaresan’s article, “Failure to read the difference” (December 7), makes one think about the need for distinguishing the purpose of law — including administrative and judicial orders — and the desired outcome.
When the causes of a problem are many and the law aims at eliminating one of them, it should be judged only by the outcome about that part of the problem and not the whole. The ban on the entry of a certain category of vehicles into New Delhi was aimed at reducing pollution, not eliminating it, there being other contributory factors. The question is whether the intensity of the fog would have been more if the ban were not imposed and also whether it was implemented faithfully.
Second, a delay in implementing a punitive law defeats its purpose to serve as a deterrent for future violators. Our legal process is too slow — the Nirbhaya case is still with the Supreme Court. Moreover, crimes are committed out of ignorance about law, too. The Mumbai Shakti Mills rape case could be the result of either of the two factors or both.
Besides, when the objective of a law is laudable, protests by those opposed to it should be ignored. The Supreme Court’s decision about singing the National Anthem in cinema halls as an indicator of patriotic spirit is beyond reproach. If some people find it inconvenient to stand for a minute to sing it or see it as a fruitless exercise, it does not matter. The question is how many can recite it fully and understand its meaning.
Also, there are hardly any laws that serve their objective fully. This is because upbringing, social influences and certain personality traits foster a criminal tendency, so that laws and rules become ineffective.
The success of enactments and administrative and judicial orders also depends on their clarity and ease of understanding by society. Thus, lawmakers need to be replaced, not the laws.
Y G Chouksey Pune
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number
When the causes of a problem are many and the law aims at eliminating one of them, it should be judged only by the outcome about that part of the problem and not the whole. The ban on the entry of a certain category of vehicles into New Delhi was aimed at reducing pollution, not eliminating it, there being other contributory factors. The question is whether the intensity of the fog would have been more if the ban were not imposed and also whether it was implemented faithfully.
Second, a delay in implementing a punitive law defeats its purpose to serve as a deterrent for future violators. Our legal process is too slow — the Nirbhaya case is still with the Supreme Court. Moreover, crimes are committed out of ignorance about law, too. The Mumbai Shakti Mills rape case could be the result of either of the two factors or both.
Besides, when the objective of a law is laudable, protests by those opposed to it should be ignored. The Supreme Court’s decision about singing the National Anthem in cinema halls as an indicator of patriotic spirit is beyond reproach. If some people find it inconvenient to stand for a minute to sing it or see it as a fruitless exercise, it does not matter. The question is how many can recite it fully and understand its meaning.
Also, there are hardly any laws that serve their objective fully. This is because upbringing, social influences and certain personality traits foster a criminal tendency, so that laws and rules become ineffective.
The success of enactments and administrative and judicial orders also depends on their clarity and ease of understanding by society. Thus, lawmakers need to be replaced, not the laws.
Y G Chouksey Pune
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201 · E-mail: letters@bsmail.in
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number