The Mind has no skin, what pigmentation is God’s skin? Punjab and Haryana HC enquires to highlight on racial discrimination

Justice Rajiv Narain Raina set down the oratorical inquiry in an order declared to accentuate that people should not be differentiated on the grounds of skin colour or race. The judge was prompted to take up the issue after an African national involved in an NDPS case was mentioned to by a disparaging term in police records in the case of Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab . The Court was later well informed that the word was used by a witness and not the police, and that it was noted in a witness statement. The Judge, however, focussed that even witnesses must be warmed against using such terms.


Abiding by the Court’s command, the Director General of Police, Punjab declared a circular on June 16 based on the usage of proper terms for acknowledging people from different spheres and nationalities in all official aspects. This circular debar the usage of the word ‘Nigro’ or ‘Negro’ or any such words, including ‘kala’ and other ‘racist’ words possessing any sort bigoted implication in any official case record .

The circular even apprised that any sort of infringement would be considered on a serious note and as delinquency engages disciplinary action. The usage of such racially coloured terms is a matter of high concern. Keeping up with the observations, the Court approached to discharge this matter.

(BY- VASUNDHARA DHAR)

Registered owner would be liable if a mobile number is used in commission of an offence : Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that if a mobile phone number is used for the commission of an alleged offence, the first in line of liability is the registered owner of that “mobile number”. The owner cannot shun the liability by simply stating that the phone was not in his possession.

Present petition was filed for grant of pre-arrest bail with regard to FIR under Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 66 of IT Act, 2000. Bench stated that once the mobile phone which has been used in the commission of the offence is registered in the name of the petitioner and the said number had been issued after bio-metric verification of KYC of the petitioner, it is the petitioner who has to explain as to how the said number was used for the commission of the offence.

However, the court rejected the pre- arrest bail application on the ground that the alleged phone is yet to be recovered hence until then the registered owner’s judicial custody is mandatory for smooth investigation.