The link between child abuse and animal cruelty, highlighting the need for further investigation in the Indian context. It presents studies from other countries that have shown a strong correlation between the two, emphasizing the importance of early identification and reporting of animal abuse as a means to protect potential human victims.
A study conducted in 2007 by the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development found that child abuse is prevalent in India, with two out of every three children experiencing physical abuse, over half experiencing sexual abuse, and every second child facing emotional abuse.
Factors contributing to child abuse in India include the structure and size of the family, lack of effective implementation of laws, poverty, illiteracy, and cultural factors.
The link between animal cruelty and child abuse has been overlooked in discussions on child protection in India.
Studies have shown a clear link between animal cruelty and human violence, with households that abuse their family pet being at a higher risk of child abuse or neglect.
A pilot study in England found that 83% of families with a history of animal abuse were identified as having children at risk of abuse or neglect.
A study in New Jersey found that animal abuse and child abuse co-occurred in 88% of cases where child abuse had occurred.
A 2019 study in the U.S. found that threats and violence towards animals are used to coerce children into compliance in cases of interpersonal violence.
Animal abuse is easier to detect than child abuse and victims of domestic violence, including children, are more likely to report it.
Early identification of homes with animal abuse can help save other human victims of abuse.
Animal cruelty is strongly linked to child abuse and further investigation is needed in the Indian context.
The National Crime Records Bureau in India does not collect data on offences registered and prosecuted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Collecting and aggregating data on animal cruelty can help law enforcement agencies understand the overlap of dif
ferent crimes and prevent their occurrence.
Poor enforcement of anti-cruelty laws harms both animals and human victims of violence
Reporting animal abuse and enforcing anti-cruelty laws can deter further acts of violence against animals and humans
It is important to report, register, and prosecute cases involving animal cruelty
Human and animal victims of crime are often victimized by the same perpetrator
Collaboration between child protection and animal protection movements can help reduce abuse
Reporting and prosecuting animal abuse is not just about saving animals, but also about protecting children from violence and securing a brighter future for them
Understanding the link between animal abuse and violence can help stop the cycle of violence and make children safer.
The concerns raised about the conduct of some Governors and their misuse of power in granting assent to Bills. It highlights the need for a clear enunciation of the law regarding the role of Governors and the power to withhold assent.
Ongoing proceedings before the Supreme Court raise concerns about the conduct of some Governors.
State governments have approached the court due to the misuse of the absence of a time frame for granting assent to Bills by incumbents in Raj Bhavan.
The Tamil Nadu Governor, R.N. Ravi, disposed of pending Bills only after the court's observations about the delay in an earlier hearing.
The Governor's reluctance to act until an aggrieved government approached the court seems deliberate.
The court's preliminary observations suggest that Article 200 of the Constitution, which deals with the presentation of Bills to the Governor for assent, will come under scrutiny.
The court notes that the Governor cannot refuse assent to re-enacted Bills.
The matter should not end with the Governor's action, and further action may be required.
The Supreme Court needs to provide a clear decision on the power of Governors to grant or withhold assent to Bills.
Many Governors have acted on their own, reserving Bills for the President's consideration.
It needs to be clarified whether 'withholding assent' is a final rejection of a Bill or if it requires a follow-up action of returning the Bill for reconsideration.
The issue has highlighted constitutional ambiguities on the role of Governors.
The 'aid and advice' clause of parliamentary democracy is undermined by provisions that give Governors discretion they were not meant to have.
A recent order by Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court, which tasks the State government with working out a "Deed of Familial Association" to provide legal status to relationships between same-sex couples and other LGBTQIA+ couples.
Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court has ordered the State government to create a "Deed of Familial Association" to provide legal status to relationships between same-sex couples and other LGBTQIA+ couples.
This order is significant in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Supriyo vs Union of India, where the Supreme Court refused to recognize the right to marry or have civil unions for same-sex couples.
The minority opinion in the Supreme Court case endorsed recognition of entitlements for queer couples but did not provide specific rights or directions.
The majority opinion in the Supreme Court case abandoned the issue and left same-sex couples at the mercy of the government and legislature.
The article questions how a supposedly liberal and progressive Court can become retrograde in its stance on LGBTQIA+ rights.
Justice Venkatesh has introduced the concept of a Deed of Familial Association, which includes rights and protections against harassment, violence, and discrimination for queer couples.
The State government has been directed to implement this concept.
Civil unions, recognized in several countries, provide legal and social validity to same-sex couples and protect them from interference.
Civil unions also serve as proof of the relationship, allowing couples to access benefits and entitlements that were previously unavailable.
The Tamil Nadu Government should establish a framework to recognize same-sex relationships through registrations of deeds.
The State government could enact legislation to create the institution of Civil Unions and provide legal status to same-sex couples.
The State has the power to legislate on laws relating to marriage, divorce, inheritance, succession, minors, adoption, etc.
The Governor of Tamil Nadu, R.N. Ravi, has a conservative view, but the Supreme Court is expected to address this issue.
Tamil Nadu has a reputation for being progressive and can set an example by respecting and recognizing self-respect, equality, and social justice.
A High Court Judge has issued an order that brings hope for equality and equal treatment before the law for the LGBTQIA community.
The order is remarkable considering a recent Supreme Court judgement that had negative implications for the community.
The High Court Judge has worked change into the interstices of law and arrived at a principled legal conclusion and enforceable order.
The judge deserves congratulations for his efforts.
High Courts in India have frequently come to the rescue in the country's troubled judicial history.
The order is heartwarming and shows that High Court judges continue to meet the challenge.
The controversy surrounding the Cabinet decision to allow tribals to transfer their land to non-tribals in Odisha. It explores the implications of this decision on tribal rights and the potential impact on the demographic landscape of Scheduled Areas.
The Naveen Patnaik Government in Orissa put a decision on hold to allow tribals to transfer their land to non-tribals.
The decision was made on November 14 and stated that tribals could transfer their land for various purposes with written permission.
The permission came with the condition that the tribal seller or mortgagor should not be left landless or homestead-less.
The OSATIP Act prohibits the transfer of tribal lands and criminalizes forced alienation, with provisions for eviction and restoration of tribal land.
Previous attempts to amend the OSATIP Act to allow tribal land transfer have been rejected in the past.
The Cabinet decision faced strong resistance from tribal communities and activists working on tribal rights.
The OSATIP 1956 is a legislation aimed at protecting tribal interests and preventing the appropriation of tribal lands in Scheduled Areas.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India found that land held by tribals in Odisha decreased by 12% between 2005-06 and 2015-16, despite the OSATIP Act being in force.
Activists are concerned that the proposed amendment to the OSATIP Act could lead to an attack on tribal identity and eliminate the essential fallback option for tribals.
The amendment could potentially allow non-tribals to purchase tribal lands, altering the demographic landscape of Scheduled Areas.
There are class divisions within tribal communities, with a smaller segment aiming to monetize their land parcels for financial progress, while the majority wants to retain ownership of their land.
The proposed amendment aims to prevent tribal sellers or mortgagors from being left without land or a homestead.
The terms 'landless' or 'homestead-less' are not clearly defined in the amendment.
This lack of clarity could potentially allow a tribal individual to sell all of their land while retaining a small token piece to avoid being classified as landless.
The government has put the amendment on hold.
Opposition political parties are demanding a complete withdrawal of the amendment.