Lawfully Yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | Elected representatives can’t be defended for irresponsible acts

Elected representatives can’t be defended for irresponsible acts

Q: On one hand, we hear about the arrest of an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) staff for collecting bribes to release drone cameras used to photograph a protected site, on the other we come across how a sitting Chief Minister openly proclaimed demolition of a centuries-old protected site. Can the provisions of the Act apply to oral demands for demolition of a site protected by ASI, even if such people are sitting CMs or legislators of a State? Can such statements be defended under the freedom of speech and expression, claiming that they have just orally made comments hiding behind ifs and buts, especially in the backdrop of how hatred is spread among communities, leading to riots after elected representatives make such remarks?

-- S Mahendran, Medavakkam, Chennai 

A: The Supreme Court had rejected a case demanding that political party leaders and ministers be held responsible to bear collective responsibility in the matter of hate speeches delivered by them. In essence, the court held they would be treated like any other individuals who make such speeches and the laws as applicable to them will also apply to ministers /leaders. It refused the plea for any special procedure or separate treatment. No one can defend them for their conduct. It is just that the court doesn’t want to make any special law for them and wants to leave it to respective political parties to regulate and control the actions of its functionaries. 

Unless the will is forged or written by insane person, it will be held valid

Q: Are senior citizens entitled to cancel the settlement deeds executed in favour of their children without citing any reason? In this case, we just don't want the issue to be discussed in court or in public. Also, enlighten whether the property can be passed on to the niece (in this case) even when two sons are alive. Do they still have the right to move the court if I am writing a proper will on judicial stamp paper denying them any share in property?

-- Ramamurthy, Kovilpalayam, Coimbatore

A: Last week a division bench of the Madras High Court upheld an order passed by an RDO, an authority under the Maintenance of Parents Act cancelling a settlement deed in favour of their child. It went to the extent of holding that even though the deed did not express a pre-condition of maintaining the parents still it was an implied condition and that document earlier executed can be cancelled.

As regards diverting the near ones from any bequest, one must know that it is a self-earned property and it can be given to anyone. There were instances where properties were bequeathed to pets to the exclusion of children. Unless the will is found to be forged or the person who wrote was not having proper mind they will be held to be valid.