DELAYED JUSTICE - Goa's Chidren's Court yet to dispose 56 cases

DELAYED JUSTICE - Chidren's Court yet to dispose 56 cases
by Preetu Nair

PANJIM: First the figures: Of the 83 cases in the Children's Court, only 27 have been disposed off, while 56 cases are still pending. Of the 27 cases which were disposed off, 11 persons were acquitted, 5 convicted, 7 discharged due to lack of evidence and 4 transferred as it had happened much before the Goa Children's Act 2003 came into force.

Now the fact: More than two years after the Children's Court started functioning for the speedy trial and disposal of cases where children are victims, paedophiles, rapists, child killers and kidnappers still roam scot-free.

Though the state government under pressure from media and NGOs had started the Children's Court in December 10, 2004 to ensure that every child has his/her childhood, it has not ensured that everything is in place in the Children's Court.

"The problem of delayed justice continues even now. The whole aim of fast justice in the Children's Court is far from achieved. The whole process is time consuming and it is a torture for the child, who is expected to come after two years before the Court and recollect everything and depose," observed Arun Pandey, Director, ARZ, an NGO working with trafficked victims.

Arun is not talking without reason. He has three cases wherein minors have been abused pending in the Children's Court since last 3 years. Two cases are of rape and one is of child labour. "Till now the victim have not been called for deposition nor have the witnesses statement taken by the Court. Witnesses are going to the Court, only to get a new date for deposition," said Pandey.

Everyone agrees that so far there had been delay in delivering judgment as the cases were heard just once a week. But now with the Court sitting for three days a week instead of just one week, one just hopes that the Children's Court becomes a decisive tool to protect the life and dignity of our children.

Even Advocate and Child activist Albertina Almeida said that it is better to have the Children's Court thrice a week rather than just once a week. "But what I am more concerned about is the Court ambience, which is yet not sensitive enough or child friendly", she said.

"Attention also needs to be given to the provisions in the Goa Children's Act requiring a capacity development strategy for the training of judiciary so that they can be abreast with the developments in the Child rights law nationally and internationally," added Albertina.


Total cases in the Children's Court: 83
Cases disposed off: 27
Cases pending: 56
Persons acquitted: 11
Persons convicted: 5
Cases discharged: 7
Cases transferred: 4

(Article appeared in Gomantak Times, Panaji, 23 June 2007)

Right to Information Act - Blame Game in Goa

PANJIM: When faced with an adversity, blame the
juniors! The superiors in Goa police had so far
triumphed over the problems by either passing the buck
on their inefficient juniors or the system.


Again the same trick was adopted when the South Goa
police failed to provide information under Right to
Information Act to one Samiro Pereira for more than
five months. South Goa SP Shekhar Prabhudesai who is
also the Public Information Officer (PIO) blamed his
juniors, SDPO Margao Tony Fernandes and SDPO Vasco
Dinraj Govekar for the delay. In turn, Fernandes
contended that Colva PI, his own subordinate had
delayed the submission of information, while Govekar
contended that there was no delay from his side.


However, State Chief Information Commissioner A
Venkataratnam and State Information Commissioner G G
Kambli were not impressed by the blame game and made
it clear that they can't accept the pleas of the of
the police officials that their subordinates and not
they themselves are directly responsible for the delay
in furnishing the information as the Police department
is a uniformed department based on hierarchy.

Criticizing the manner in which they pleaded
helplessness in the matter, the Information
Commissioners said, "If we accept this situation as
beyond the control of the PIO, we will be setting a
wrong precedent in the matter of implementation of the
RTI Act" and imposed a penalty of Rs 5000 each on the
PIO and Fernandes, while Govekar was exempted.


"We hold both the SP South (also PIO) and SDPO
Fernandes responsible together and jointly for the
delay caused in providing the information," they
stated in their order.

The Information Commissioners observed that the PIO
has to make efforts to get the information from his
colleagues/subordinates in the department however big
the department is. "It is the personal responsibility
of the PIO to get information requested for by the
citizen and to supply to him. Nowhere have been found
such inordinate delay as in a present case and such
casual approach of entering into correspondence as in
the present case of the Police department," they
added.

Pereira had submitted a request on August 17, 2006 and
as he didn't get any information, he finally
approached the Commission in second appeal to get the
information also take penal action against the SP.

Interestingly, once notice was issued to the SP
(South) and SDPOs, the appellant Pereira submitted
that he is not interested in pursuing the matter.
However, it was not entertained as he had moved the
appeal after the Commission after the order. "In all
probability there might be some pressure on him to say
so. There is no way of finding out one way or the
other," the Information Commissioners added.

(Article appeared in Gomantak Times, Panaji. 22 June 2007)
BY PREETU NAIR
preetu_nair@gomantaktimes.com