Ramps for all
The article by G Pawaskar, Goa’s State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), pertaining to the need for ramps for everyone is apt (NT August 9). Ramps are necessary not only for PwDs, but can also assist the aged, pregnant women, people carrying children or pushing prams and trollies, people temporarily incapacitated due to fractures, sprains etc. It is not an embarrassment nor below one’s dignity to use ramps, even by able-bodied people, who may be tired to climb stairs or may be carrying bags and luggage. Though the government has mandated the construction of ramps, not many offices or buildings (government or private), malls, theatres, railway and bus stations etc. have them, either in Goa or in the other states. Government needs to specify the ramp dimensions and slope so that wheelchairs and prams can be accommodated. Similarly, handrails are necessary to help people. These issues need to be addressed soon.
Sridhar D Iyer, Caranzalem
Early detection
This relates to the news report ‘Saliva and swab can help in early detection of oral cancer’ (NT August 14). Cancer now seems to have become commonplace, with numerous cases affecting various organs coming to light. The treatment for cancer is an expensive affair, made worse by the accompanying trauma. Although cancer has been around for so many years, it is intriguing that man has not been able to overcome the disease despite years of research. Awareness and early detection may help in controlling it, so it is good to note this new technique developed at the Indian Institute of Technology, Indore, for detecting early signs of oral cancer using saliva and swabs. Moving forward, we need to focus on how to prevent cancer from attacking the human body. Scientists must work on developing a vaccine. Since we were able to find a vaccine for Covid-19 within a few months, it is time we worked on something similar for cancer.
Melville X D’Souza, Mumbai
Dignity upheld
The Delhi High Court has overturned a man’s acquittal in a 2013 sexual harassment case, observing that a woman wearing jeans does not justify harassing her and that her clothing choice is no one’s concern. The court remarked that the suggestion that a woman wearing jeans could ‘corrupt young boys’ reflects a “deeply troubling and unacceptable mindset”. The incident dates back to July 17, 2013, when the complainant was allegedly 17 years old and claimed that the man had been stalking her, making sexually coloured remarks and touching her cheeks and hips. However, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish her age to invoke charges under the POCSO Act. Additionally, the judge noted that an advocate cannot use the privilege of cross-examination “as a licence to humiliate a witness or attack her dignity”. The court firmly rejected the notion that the complainant’s clothing could impact the reliability of her evidence, stating, “The complainant may be wearing clothes not palatable or approved by the accused or the other residents. That is no ground to disbelieve or discard her testimony.”
Yash Pal Ralhan, Jalandhar
Proportional enforcement
The regulation of foreign contributions is undoubtedly necessary. No organisation should be permitted to misuse foreign funds, engage in unlawful activities or divert money for purposes contrary to the law. The State has every right and indeed a duty to ensure transparency and accountability in the receipt and utilisation of foreign contributions. However, regulation must not become a mechanism by which legitimate organisations and religious institutions are treated in the same manner as organisations that have been found to have committed serious violations. This distinction assumes particular importance in the context of the proposed amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). A fundamental question needs to be asked: Should the severe consequences contemplated under the law apply automatically to every organisation whose FCRA registration ceases, or should such consequences be reserved for organisations against which there is a legally established violation or prohibited activity? There is a substantial difference between an organisation being banned for unlawful conduct and an otherwise legitimate organisation losing or failing to renew its FCRA registration because of an administrative or regulatory issue. A religious institution, charitable organisation or a social service body that has functioned lawfully for decades cannot simply be equated with an organisation that has been found guilty of misusing foreign contributions. The law should recognise this distinction. The principle of proportionality is fundamental to a constitutional democracy. The punishment or consequence imposed by the State should bear a reasonable relationship to the nature and gravity of the violation. If an institution has committed no offence involving misuse of foreign contribution, why should its legitimately acquired assets automatically become vulnerable to permanent vesting merely because its FCRA registration has ceased?
Paul Pereira, Majorda
