High Court condemns the bad old male habit

April 13, 2014 10:07 am | Updated May 21, 2016 11:02 am IST - NEW DELHI:

Dealing with the bad habit of Indian men — of urinating on the nearest wall — the Delhi High Court has found it next to impossible to resolve the issue for want of judicially manageable standards.

The matter came up before the High Court through a writ petition which sought removal of photographs of deities affixed on walls by inhabitants of buildings in an attempt to deter men from urinating publicly. It was found that even that had not deterred men from going about their business. The petition affirmed that public sentiments were hurt by the habit of urination on pictures of deities and sought a direction to the government authorities to remove the photos of deities.

A Division Bench of the High Court, in its recent judgment, observed that nobody could prevent a person from affixing photographs of deities on the walls of his house or outside the boundary walls of their housing complexes.

Unable to comment much, the Bench, comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Deepa Sharma said: “The solution lies elsewhere, probably a hard whack on his body a little below the back.” The petition was moved by a local resident, Manoj Sharma, who named the Delhi Government and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as respondents in the case.

While suggesting a solution, the Court refrained from issuing directions for its enforcement. “The only clumsy way in which this Court can solve the problem is by directing that the zipper of the flies of the pant of every male be locked, with a key kept in his house and a duplicate at his work place,” stated the judgment.

The Judges pointed out that such a direction would constantly require the Court to monitor the placement of keys. “It is settled law that a Court would not issue a [writ of] mandamus or a mandatory injunction which requires constant monitoring.”

The Court dismissed the writ petition not because it did not highlight a problem that needed to be tackled, but because it did not have “judicially manageable standards to solve the problem”.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.