Barbarian law goes beyond civil law in Afghanistan



Indeed, people are bewildered by the “dramatic” developments in Afghanistan during the week. Although the fall of the democratically elected government of Ashraf Ghani was imminent sooner or later after the withdrawal of American troops, the magical speed with which the turn of events occurred in the Pashtun country speaks volumes about the plot. and behind the set of curtains.

That’s right, the self-proclaimed guardian and liberator of the Afghans, the United States had had enough of its two decades of sojourn in this troubled land called Afghanistan. But, what is more surprising is the complete failure of the Doha fabrications between the stakeholders, namely the United States, the elected government and the Taliban. Other stakeholders such as India, Pakistan, China and Russia were also hopefully awaiting political developments. At one point, it was said that the Taliban made sure to adopt peaceful methods of governance if the ruling government agreed to the changing of the guard.

However, hopes for a peaceful transition of power were dashed. What is even worse are the large-scale bloodshed, looting, bombing and the imposition of strict restrictions on the liberty of people, especially women. Amid the soft surrender of over 3.5 lakh by Afghanistan’s well-equipped defense forces to just 45,000 barbarian Taliban, confusion was confused after President Ashraf’s lock, stock and cannon leaked Ghani. Like the American forces who deliberately offered the “farewell gift” of arms, tanks and transport vehicles to the barbarian barefoot Taliban, the then president, who had a duty to defend the Constitution, left the country leaving the unfortunate people lurching.

There is nothing to be gained by saying that US President Joe Biden took this unfortunate step of withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan because what he did is what his predecessor Trump decided in January 2019. Donald Trump officially threw a “crocodile”. ‘tears for US soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, when other neighboring countries like Pakistan, India, China and Russia had done nothing significant to confront the Taliban. This belated realization was supported by the argument of a colossal financial loss of the superpower. Well, 20 years ago no one, including the Afghans themselves, had “invited” foreigners, including the United States, to their country. If the United States chose to invade Afghanistan, it had its own reasons for doing so, of course some valid ones. But to blame other nations for not doing their best in Afghanistan seems like asking too much. The United States must blame itself for creating the monster, called the Taliban, in order to tackle the dreaded Al Qaeda.

The Indian government’s position has been fairly consistent since the 9/11 incident, although its intensity has varied from one elected regime to another. Today, as the United Nations, the Commission on Human Rights and other NGOs championing the cause of freedom, human rights, women’s empowerment, children’s health and safety , the well-being of people with disabilities, etc. certainly a cause for concern.

Obviously, all nations including India, USA, Pakistan, Russia, China, France, Japan, etc. are blamed for their inaction, lack of unity and harmony in solving the problem and focus only on their own individual interests. Although much noise is made time and time again by world leaders and powerful nations, the bum with the Taliban and their terrorist forces behind the curtain has canceled out all the positive effects.

Therefore, even now, it is not too late for the World Committee to realize that terrorism is a global phenomenon and that no peaceful treatment of this issue could generate the desired results, namely peace and peace. harmony in the world. Civil laws are meant to create and support civil society and violence has no place on earth because it is the result of barbaric laws.

SC on article 170 of the CrPC

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Koul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that personal freedom was an important aspect of the constitutional mandate. Disagreeing with the view of the court of first instance that unless a person is taken into custody the indictment cannot be registered, the judiciary observed that Article 170 of the CrPC does not require the responsible officer to arrest each accused at the time of the filing of the indictment. The opportunity to arrest an accused during the investigation arises when a detention investigation becomes necessary or in a heinous crime or when there was a possibility that the accused influenced witnesses or that the accused might be involved. flee, the court added.

Stressing the importance of personal freedom, the Supreme Court added: “If the arrest is routine, it can cause untold damage to a person’s reputation and self-esteem. If the investigator has no reason to believe that the accused will run away or disobey the summons… why should the police be forced to arrest the accused? ”

Supreme Council to Young Lawyers

In all cases, a lawyer should be prepared to argue the case in court; although he or she may request the adjournment of the case due to the unavailability of the lead counsel, said Judge DY Chandrachud, while reacting to an oral prayer from a young lawyer for the adjourning of a case on the grounds that the lead lawyer was unable to address the court that day and the said junior lawyer did not go through the case file.

The judiciary composed of Judge Chandrachud and Mr. R. Shah offered this useful advice to all young lawyers in the country. The court said his advice was without malice against any particular lawyer, but it was sort of aged advice to the young legal fraternity.


Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.