Wrong 1: committee constitution

The act practically means : The committee at parliament who will look into sexual harresment at parliament will have 3 members all of them women, out of this 1 will be women's rights activist from outside the parliament. Similarly district level commitee in all courts will have 3 members all women, 1 of then women's rights activist. Chartered Accountants will have at every state or the union territory level, a similar commitee, comprising of 3 members all women, 1 of them women's rights activists. Similarly for Bar councils. Similarly for Orphanages and other Charitable Homes Supervision and control, also for Children’s Homes

Objection: Why can not men be allowed to be made part of this very powerful legal commitee(s). Are we saying that all of the men in parliament are incompetent enough to be judges, but women members are competent. Additional District and Sessions Judges men are incompetent to be part of this committe but women judges are competent, of all the highly educated Charted accountants men in India not even 1 is good enough to be part of this very powerful Judicial commitee(s).

Reason : I think there are 2 persons involved, one is male and one is female. Sometimes man may find it easy to express themselves to men, and women may find it easy to express themselves to women. We should have both man and women in the committe, equality for men, if not in laws at least minimum in this very powerful judges commitee. The committe should have 50% men and 50% women. There should not be a bar that maximum only 3 persons can be in these commitee, this should be left to the establishment, if they want to have more members. The commitee should be headed by 2 members 1 man and 1 women.

Wrong 2: The act practically means :For most companies with more then 50 persons, medical hospitals, prison, public establishments etc. The commitee should be headed by a women and should have more then 50% women members. One women member must be a women's rights activist selected by the women protection officer for sexual harressment act, of that district.

Reason : The aim should not be to add a few men in the commitee, but keep more then 50% women and to top this all powers are with the head of commitee which is a women. There is no provision that if not all members agree they can voice this is writen, and even if done so, there is no way this will make a difference to the defendents case. So all powers look to be with the women head .This way the men are there just to make fun off by feminists ( no powers to commitee members), to make men feal inferior, to abuse the men commitee members. This constitution of commitee is simply wrong is unacceptable. The above suggested commitee constitution i.e. headed by 2 members 1 man and 1 women and 50% man and 50% women should be followed.

Lighter Note : A good way to find the truth in Laws made by "women and child development" and NCW feminists, is start reading near the bottom, they want to put the main objectionable point near the end, then put so much confusion at top and middle by wordings use, that may be parliament member deciding to pass the law or not, will not read with full concentration till the end in details. So you know as expected Additional District and Sessions Judges commitee constitution, parliaments' commitee etc are at the last of the law. Chears..

Wrong 3 : Law proposed practically means : Local officer will be a women, minimum asst. Labour Commissioner in post, in every district. she will select (r) Group of Experts" consisting of persons who have worked for / in the field of women’s rights. One of these experts as far as possible women will be a part of different company commitees.

Reason : The group of experts should be selected such that they are familiar with and have worked for both a man's rights and women's rights. Making it compulsory by law that group of experts all should be just women's rights activists is totally unfair to men. To get balanced views this is a must to have mens rights activists experience. A women who has seen just worst of women cases can not make a sound judgement unless the person has also seen the worst of mens cases also. Also by this same logic ministry of women and child development who has no court room experience of matrimonial and other gender problems , even NCW is just seeing the false complaints by women, and till now even have no experience of practical cases also, is actually drafting (making ) laws for marriage and gender issues at fast pace. This should be a cause of concern for all due to wrong laws getting made, and old laws changed, there is absolutely no say of men's right activists or for drafting the Law.. Also Gender issues are not just women issues, these are men issues as well equally. So half the local officers should also be men.

Wrong 2: (5) As and when deemed necessary, the Local officer may appoint Special officers at district / block level to receive complaints and to perform all others tasks .

Reason : More employment for wome's rights activists. It should be added that about 50% of those employed should be men. And effort should be made to get 50% mens rights activists, or preferable persons who have worked in both fields of mens rights and womens rights. Why can not the existing CAW cells handle these also.