How do we formulate and interpret laws?

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a person cannot be convicted for merely demanding dowry unless the demand is followed by mental or physical torture resulting in the death of the victim. The prosecution has to establish convincing evidence that the accused had subjected the victim to torture soon before her death in connection with the demand. "What is punishable under Section 498A or Section 304B of IPC is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband against the woman," the Bench said.

This begs the question - Doesn't the demand for dowry constitute mental torture in itself? How can it not be considered an act of cruelty or harassment? Why do women need to die for culprits to be brought to book?

In another judgement, the Supreme Court held that "A husband and his relatives cannot be prosecuted for "cruelty" towards wife merely because the mother-in-law or other family members had kicked her or for that matter threatened her with divorce". Apparently "kicking may make out some other offence but not the one punishable under Section 498A".

We need judicial reforms and we need them as of yesterday!

Question marks over Adoptive parents

The Law as I understand it presumes the accused to be innocent until proven otherwise.

In India, Adoption is a legal option available to both, couples as well as single men or women desirous of having an offspring. However, the ground reality is that couples are the preferred choice as adopters followed by single women, and finally, single men. This stems from the prevalent social belief that women are the natural nurturers. The Indian Legal System also does not permit homosexuals to adopt. These could well be subjects for debate, but that is not my objective here.

The laws for adoption come with a rider - while a couple or a single woman may adopt a child of either gender, a single male is only allowed to adopt boys. Is this discriminatory?

Paedophilia is defined as the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.While I haven't laid my hands on the relevant statistics, it is generally believed that men far outnumber women as sexual abusers of children. Even if this is true, does that give licence to a Judicial System to be presumptive?

There are two aspects to be considered here:

Firstly, women as well as men could be child abusers. Clearly, it is assumed that the credentials of a prospective adopter will be gone through with a fine tooth comb and the process carried forward only when these are found to pass muster. The path for either gender to be accepted as suitable parental candidates should thus be cleared.

This then brings me to the nub of the issue - both boys and girls could be victims of sexual abuse. In the eventuality that a sexual offender (or a potential one) escapes discovery during the process of scrutiny, what makes boys any less vulnerable than girls to being sexually exploited?

The Law seems to be lopsided - both from the point of view of the single male adopter as well as the adoptee. It also presumes to paint all men with the brush of suspicion - a case of guilty until proven innocent!