The Supreme Court has asked the Delhi High Court to protect the home buyers’ interest in the Assotech Windsor Court project.

A division bench  headed by Justice Arun Mishra passed the judgment after hearing a bunch of petitions filed against real estate major, Assotech Private Limited by the home buyers.

Winding Up Challenged In PIL 

Around 100 home buyers of Assotech Windsor Court project have filed a PIL challenging the winding up of the real estate company, Assotech Private Limited and sought the Apex Court’s direction and intervention to keep their interests intact.

Supreme Court lawyer and Advocate on Record (AoR) Ashwarya Sinha, the counsel who is representing many of the petitioners, told the top court that the petitioners had invested “their hard earned money” in the Assotech Windsor Court project being developed at Noida Sector – 76.

The counsel submitted that if the company was closed down without the interests of the homebuyers “being secured”, then it “would cause severe hardships” to them.

The petition has been filed in the Apex Court with a view ensure justice for the homebuyers.

The Supreme Court bench passed the ruling  after hearing Sinha ‘s arguments and submissions and stated that the Delhi High Court must “keep in mind the interests of home buyers” before passing any order in the case.

Indian Ambassador to China Gautam Bambawale has said that it is important to not alter the “status quo” at sensitive points at the India-China border adding that the Doklam standoff was blown out of proportion.

Speaking to the state-owned Chinese newspaper Global Times, the ambassador said that post-Doklam, India and China must hold candid talks for resolving contentious issues, such as the $50 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

The standoff at Doklam in Sikkim lasted for 73 days and started when the Chinese military attempted to build a road close to Chicken Neck corridor, sparking tensions. It finally ended after China agreed on August 28 to stop road building.

China has asserted rights on Doklam which is also claimed by Bhutan. According to recent reports however, Chinese troops are building facilities near the standoff area. There are also reports of Chinese military attempts to develop a road inside the Indian Territory in Siang district in Arunachal Pradesh which has since been resolved.

Must Work Together And Be Sensitive To Others’ Concern

Bambawale said that it was important to “talk to each other and not talk past each other”, adding that both countries must be “sensitive to the other side’s concerns” and the interactions must be based “on equality and mutual benefit”.

Bambawale also sought to dispel the notion of India-China rivalry, stating that India and China are “partners in development and progress”, and not rivals.   He said that with better “trust and understanding” there will be “a stronger partnership” between the two countries .

He also asserted that there is no “anti-China mentality” in India, noting that many in India have “great admiration” for China’s achievements in economic development.

Bambawale also referred to the success of Bollywood superstar, Aamir Khan’s Dangal and Secret Superstar in China and asked for China to allow screening of more Indian films as that will enable the Chinese to understand India better.

Trade Deficit And CPEC Issues Must Be Discussed

Bambawale however also took the opportunity to highlight some of the major issues between the two countries:

• The first issue is the “large and growing trade deficit” with China. Bambawale pointed out that the deficit for India in 2017 is likely to be USD 55 billion, and asked why China is not opening its markets to Indian Pharmaceuticals and IT products.
• The second issue highlighted by him was that the CPEC currently passes through “Indian-claimed territory” which violates India’s “territorial integrity”. He said that the two sides must discuss the issue and not “push it under the carpet”.

Bambawale has suggested that India and China work together this year for having more summit-level meetings and official meetings in addition to improving exchanges of military personnel, parliamentarians, business persons, journalists, academicians, students, sportspersons and filmmakers.

More Investments In India

Highlighting the success of Chinese telcom firms in India, Bambawale called for more Chinese investments in the country.  He also suggested exploring the possibility of Chinese companies helping in India’s ‘Smart Cities’ program .

Bambawale observed that India and China have common positions on several international and global issues, one of which is that of climate change.

He said that it was especially important to continue to working together on the issue given the current international situation, and congratulated Beijing city on improving its air quality by reducing pollution.

The Madras High Court recently granted a two-week conjugal visit for the “purpose of procreation” to Siddique Ali, 40, an inmate of Palayamkottai Central Jail who is serving a life term.

A division bench of the high court presided by Justices S Vimala Devi and T Krishna Valli approved the conjugal visit after he filed a habeas corpus petition along with his wife. The court granted the request citing a resolution by the Centre that conjugal visits are a right and not a privilege and that laws in several countries allow such a visit.

A conjugal visit is a scheduled visit in which an inmate can spend time with their legal spouse, with the duration ranging from several hours to several days.

Conjugal Visits Important To Preserve Family Bonds

A modern-day concept, conjugal visit has been adopted by several countries such as Germany, Canada, Russia, Belgium, Spain, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Denmark with some countries like the US,  Brazil and Israel even allowing same-sex conjugal visits.

The idea is being adopted slowly by countries worldwide based on the notion conjugal visits are an important factor in preserving family bonds and helps reduce tendencies in prisoners to commit break prison rules and regulations.

Psychologists, psychiatrists, prison reforms and academics acknowledge that conjugal visits enable an inmate to return to normal life after being released from prison.

Currently, India has no laws expressively allowing conjugal visits to inmates. In 2015, Punjab and Haryana High Court, however allowed conjugal visits and artificial insemination for inmates while hearing a case.

Justice Surya Kant ruled that unless reasonably classified, prison inmates were entitled to the right to procreate even while incarcerated adding that it was a fundamental right. The court stated that it would be the sole prerogative of the state to regulate a legally established procedure for the same.

Jail Manuals Do Not Allow For Conjugal Visits

In the Siddique Ali case, authorities had opposed his petition stating that the jail manuals do not leave for such requests.

The Madras HC however noted that according to Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, the seventh ground for suspension is mentioned as “any other extraordinary reason.”

It ruled that the case came under this scope as there was no law or regulation applicable to it. The court additionally stated that even without the provision, the court can use Article 21 to consider the plea of the wife-petitioner as she is not incarcerated and cannot be denied her legitimate expectation to have a child.

The petition for the leave was sought  by the inmate to assist his wife in her fertility treatment and the court has said that additional leave can be considered if the treatment required so.

While passing the order, the judges stated that conjugal visits help prisoners “maintain relationship with families, reduce recidivism and motivate and an incentive to good prisoners,”  adding that reforming the prisoners was a part of “the correctional mechanism” provided by the criminal justice.

Current Systems Offer Low Contact

In the Sunil Batra ruling of 1978, Justice Krishna Iyer had stated that “Imprisonment does not mean farewell to fundamental rights” as available under the Constitution.

So far several committees have been set up on prison reforms but structural change has been negligible. Even the recommendations contained in the most comprehensive prison reforms report till date, Justice Mulla-chaired All India Committee on Jail Reforms are yet to be implemented.

Current prison framework do not allow for prolonged contact between prisoners and their families. The standard protocol of mulaqat system under which families are allowed to visit inmates last justs around 20 minutes, and are held in noisy and crowded rooms.

Open-air prisons or prisons without bars are more lenient and in prisons such as Sanganer open camp selected convicts can reside with their families.

Lack of conjugal rights was seen by the Madras High Court as a reason for rising cases of HIV/AIDS in prisons, noting that “deprivation of conjugal relationship” had resulted in sexual intercourse between same genders increasing the incidence of HIV cases.

The court has suggested that a committee be setup for address the issue of conjugal visits.

Earlier this week the play for Day 3 of the third Test between India and South Africa in Johannesburg was called off as a result of the pitch’s erratic nature and due to the rains that came towards the end.

Throughout the match, the Wanderers pitch has been drawing criticism from several veteran cricketers like Sunil Gavaskar, Sourav Ganguly,  and Shaun Pollock for it being unfair towards the batsmen.

Play was stopped on Day 3 during South Africa’s second innings during which Dean Elgar was struck several times.

A short pitched delivery bowled by Jasprit Bumrah rose sharply and hit Elgar on the head.

While the batsman was being treated, umpires Aleem Dar and Michael Gough entered into a short discussion, after which they asked the players to go off the field. They next held a discussion with captains Virat Kohli, Faf Du Plessis as well as the Match Referee.

Kohli was not very happy when the umpires informed him that a discussion on the pitch was needed and looked to argue that the Indian team handled similar conditions during the last two innings where they had batted. But with the rains also showing up, the day’s play was abandoned in the end.

ICC Rules Regarding Pitches

The ICC’s basic requirements for a pitch are stated as follows:

1. The objective of a Test pitch shall be to allow all the individual skills of the game to be demonstrated by the players at various stages of the match. If anything, the balance of the contest between bat and ball in a Test match should slightly favour the bowling team,
2. A pitch should be expected to deteriorate as the match progresses, and as a consequence the bounce could become more inconsistent, and the ball could deviate more (seam and spin) off the wearing surface.

In the case the pitch is deemed dangerous:

6.4.1 If the on-field umpires decide that it is dangerous or unreasonable for play to continue on the match pitch, they shall stop play and immediately advise the ICC Match Referee.

6.4.2 The on-field umpires and the ICC Match Referee shall then consult with both captains.

6.4.3 If the captains agree to continue, play shall resume.

6.4.4 If the decision is not to resume play, the on-field umpires together with the ICC Match Referee shall consider whether the existing pitch can be repaired and the match resumed from the point it was stopped. In considering whether to authorise such repairs, the ICC Match Referee must consider whether this would place either side at an unfair advantage, given the play that had already taken place on the dangerous pitch.

6.4.5 If the decision is that the existing pitch cannot be repaired, then the match is to be abandoned as a draw.

The latest incident of mob violence in Gurugram wherein a school bus was targeted during anti-‘Padmaavat’ protests putting children in danger, has highlighted the failure of Haryana Police to yet again maintain law and order in the face of hooliganism.

Here are other such incidents in the recent past where the police did not act effectively:

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Conviction

Mere minutes after the self-styled godman Gurmeet Ram Rahim was found guilty of rape in August 2017, thousands of his supporters who were gathered outside the courtroom in Panchkula erupted in fury. The mob began pelting stones, setting fire to vehicles and public property along with attacking bystanders and police.

Within a couple of hours after the 3 pm verdict, five people were already dead due to the violence. By 7 pm, 29 people were dead along with hundreds wounded. The final death toll was 34. This tragically occurred despite it being widely known for days that thousands of Ram Rahim supporters were making their way to Panchkula for the final hearing on the case.

The monetary loss to Haryana was Rs 126,68,71,700.
Jat Quota Agitation

In February 2016, nearly 30 people were killed and over 300 injured during protests by members of the Jat community demanding quotas in jobs and education.

The loss to nearby states was Rs 34,000 crores as a result of stalled businesses and damage to public property.

According to a committee, led by former Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police Prakash Singh, nearly 90 police and administrative officers had failed to act in controlling the violence.

The report stated that there had been a lack of “the will to act, the determination to prevent riotous mobs” from assembling and managing them, adding that most officers did “not rise to the occasion.”

The report has stated that the police had been “either unequal” to tackle the situation or they “could not mobilise the full strength” of the men under their command, some of whom it said had gone “missing or [had]deserted their duties”.

Self-Styled Godman Rampal’s Arrest

In November 2014, six people died and over 100 were injured during a two-week standoff between Rampal’s supporters and the Haryana police in Barwala, Hisar.

Rampal’s supporters barred the police from entering the premises to arrest the godman, against whom the Punjab and Haryana High Court had released a non-bailable warrant.

Nearly 15,000 Rampal followers many of whom were women and children had been forced to remain within Rampal’s ashram in Barwala, so that they could be used as a human shield for the ‘godman’ against the police.

12 Jat Khap Panchayats’ Rail/Road Blockade

In January 2011, around 12 Jat community khap panchayat members blocked rail and road traffic in Haryana’s Jind district for 11 days.

They were protesting the arrest of some persons belonging to their community in the 2010 Mirchpur caste violence case. The blockade also included large-scale vandalism with buses being stoned and rail tracks being damaged. The loss suffered by the railways alone was estimated at Rs 34 crore.

The protests were against the arrest of “upper caste” persons who had been accused of torching a hamlet in Haryana’s Mirchpur hamlet which killed a 70-year-old Dalit man and his disabled daughter in April 2010.

The main Opposition party Congress seems to be divided on the matter of initiating a motion to remove Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra from office.

While many leaders are in support of the proposal, which may be introduced in the Parliament by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), former law ministers of Congress have opposed such move.

Former Law Ministers Point Out Lack of Evidence

Veerapa Moily, former law minister in the UPA government, has stated that the issue of removing the CJI is not a political issue and any such motion must be supported by concrete evidence.

According to a news report, Moily  said that unless there are “proper grounds” and “evidence is available”, it is not “proper to go for impeachment of the CJI” as it will not “serve the purpose.”

Ashwini Kumar also expressed a similar opinion stating that questions that were raised by the four judges of the apex court in the historic press conference do not merit for such motion.

He further noted that such a move will pit the executive against the judiciary.

Kumar pointed out that given the circumstances, the current case was not suitable for the “extreme remedy of impeachment”  which he said can be resorted to only when “facts constituting moral turpitude are established beyond doubt.”

Executive Intervention Needed

CPM General Secretary Sitaram Yechuri had earlier stated that the party was conferring with other parties on the need for such a move.

He said that as the judiciary crisis was not yet resolved there was a “need to intervene” adding that the party was discussing with others “on the possibility of an impeachment motion against CJI in Budget session.”

The Bombay High Court has set aside the trial court’s gag order banning journalists from both reporting and publishing the court proceedings related to the case of Sohrabuddin Shaikh fake encounter.

Justice Revati Mohite-Dere made it clear in her order that the special CBI court had overreached its powers in issuing the order.

She agreed with the petitioners who are a group of court reporters as well as the Union of Journalists that the Criminal Procedure Code had provided the right to issue such ban orders only to the high courts and the apex court.

According to Justice Mohite-Dere  such an order could be issued only in rare cases and only for limited period of time.  She further added that just a mere apprehension of sensationalism by the accused did not constitute sufficient ground for issuing such gag orders.

Gag Order Flouts Constitutional Right Of Freedom Of Expression

On November 29 last year, the special CBI court prohibited journalists from reporting or publishing the proceedings of the ongoing trial in the fake encounter case.

The CBI court order allowed journalists to attend the proceedings, but stated that they must not make public what had transpired in the courtroom.

Justice Mohite-Dere ruled that such a ban was unjustified and had breached a journalist’s constitutional right of freedom of expression.

In her ruling, she said that the rights of the press “are intrinsic with the constitutional right” guaranteeing freedom of expression. She added that while reporting an open trial, the press is not only availing of “its own right”, but is also serving “the larger purpose” of making available such information to the general public.

The judge also dismissed the objections to such reportage made by the accused in the case, stating that they had failed to prove to the court the existence of any legal provision for a trial court prohibiting the press from reporting.

The Narendra Modi government announced an ambitious target last year of allowing only electric cars in India by 2030.

The decision has been seen as a valiant effort to race ahead of even developed countries in giving prominence to renewable forms of energy.  Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari has in fact warned the auto industry that the government will bulldoze its way through to reach the target .

Government Vehicles Being Replaced

As a measure to start the electric-vehicle (EV) revolution in India, state-owned Energy Efficiency Services (EESL) is replacing government vehicles that run on conventional fuels with EVs.

Last year Tata Motors won the tender of 10,000 electric cars floated by EESL. Although Mahindra initially lost the tender it later matched Tata Motors’ price to sell 150 e-Verito EVs to EESL.

The first phase of the roll out involving 500 cars has already started in Delhi. The second phase will see 9,500 electric cars being leased to government authorities on a pan-India basis.

However a major issue hampering the growth of EVs in the country is a law that bans charging stations from being installed in public spaces, unlike the case of petrol pumps.

The initial contract from the government to provide 250 electric charging stations in the first phase was won by Exicom Tele-systems.  But it has so far installed around 80 and 90 AC (alternating current) facilities only in government buildings like the Shram Shakti Bhawan, which contains the power ministry, according to a local news report.

Current Legislation A Hindrance

The Electricity Act only allows only power distribution companies to sell electricity, Kanv Garg, director for electric mobility at advisory firm, EY pointed out.

Garg stated that under current regulations neither private parties nor government entities can set up charging infrastructure. The entities need to have possess either a deemed license or be set up as “a public-private partnership with the state utilities.”

According to Garg, the clause in the Electricity Act should be amended if the government is looking to roll out an effective national electric vehicles policy.

He has opined that the government must “exempt electric vehicle charging from the Electricity Act,” and consider EV charging as a “sale of service instead of resale of electricity”, which is banned under the Electricity Act.

To meet the  all-electric-car target, India would need ramp up infrastructure in a major way. As the operating range of electric vehicles is currently low, India would require a massive charging infrastructure, creation of which can occur only with a clear-cut policy.

The Yogi Adityanath government in Uttar Pradesh recently passed a legislation that permits the withdrawal of nearly 20,000 cases filed against politicians in the state on the grounds that they are politically motivated.

One of the beneficiaries of this controversial move would be Yogi himself indicating a conflict of interest .

The Constitution expressly lays down a fundamental right “that one cannot be a witness against himself”, which indicates that the converse — one cannot be a judge in one’s own case – is also applicable, but this is being wantonly violated.

Politicians Cannot Be Penalized For Free Speech

The Yogi government’s measure reportedly targets cases related to public protests organized or attended by politicians violating orders pronounced by executive magistrates.

Several politicians in India face criminal cases that relate to unlawful assembly, wantonly giving provocation, rioting, obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, promoting enmity between different groups on grounds, disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant and destruction of public property.

Barring the promoting enmity and destruction of public property charges, all other offences are complicated to deal with as the right to protest is implicit in the right to free speech and assemble.

Political activity would become impossible in case politicians are convicted and jailed for protesting and thereby disqualified from public office. But not penalizing them is also an invitation for disorder, chaos and lawlessness. So far the Indian state has chosen to deal with such cases by keeping them in cold storage.

It is yet not clear how the recent order given by the Supreme Court as well as the central government diktat to set up special courts for dealing with cases involving politicians will affect the situation.

Withdrawal Of Cases Cannot Be Arbitrary

Under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Public Prosecutor has been granted the leeway to withdraw from prosecution of offences with the consent of the court.

Governments have often withdrawn criminal cases on the grounds of public policy or in public interest.  For instance the Gujarat government withdrew the cases filed against Patidar agitators .

However the rationale of Yogi government’s far-reaching Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) (Amendment) Bill, 2017, fails to satisfy the parameters used by earlier government orders like that of Gujarat.

Allahabad HC Ruling On Case Withdrawals

A case precedent exists for this situation. Last year the Allahabad High Court took up three key questions in a case:

• Can a state government use the power of withdrawal under Section 321 in a whimsical or arbitrary manner or should it be exercised for the considerations “just, valid and judicially tenable”?
• Are the decisions taken by the state government for the withdrawal of cases, communicated to the public prosecutor, open to judicial review or not
• Should state government scrutiny various pending criminal cases to find out if they deserve withdrawal in exercise of powers under Section 321 CrPC regardless of the fact that neither the accused nor anyone else has approached the government for this purpose.

The bench answered these questions stating:

• The state government cannot exercise its authority under Section 321 CrPC in a whimsical or arbitrary manner or for extraneous considerations, apart from just and valid reasons.
• The decision taken by the state government for the withdrawal of the case, communicated to the public prosecutor, is open to judicial review.
• The state government is free to make scrutiny of such cases and arrive at parameters to decide which cases can be withdrawn.

This judgement makes it clear that governments can’t proceed whimsically or arbitrarily and must make a case by case scrutiny of each case. Additionally, such decisions can be challenged for constitutionality.

In this case the UP government is free to conduct scrutiny of cases for withdrawal but its parameters for withdrawal must be able to withstand judicial scrutiny and not be arbitrary.

Cases Must Be Scrutinized Against Established Parameters

Several of the 20,000 cases have been pending for decades. Yogi should have taken the initiative to call for a wide ranging consultation on how to deal with political cases, and arrive at robust parameters like presence of hate speech, instigation of violence or nature of charges to decide if the cases can be disposed off or proceed ahead.

In the end, the discretion regarding the fate of the cases must lie entirely with prosecutors and judges. To ensure autonomy of the prosecution, a separate cadre could be created comprising prosecutors who are not political appointees.

Uttar Pradesh currently tops the country in number of under-trial prisoners with 55,000 prisoners or nearly one-fourth of all under-trial prisoners. Also around 13% of cases in UP have been pending for over 10 years while 24% has been for between 5 and 10 years according to the National Judicial Data Grid. Such problems of the common citizen must be the focus of Yogi Adityanath.

A balance needs to be struck between the right to privacy of citizens and the state interest the Supreme Court stated while hearing a plea involving Aadhaar’s constitutional validity.

The apex court stated that the biggest issue with respect to Aadhaar is ensuring that the data collected by the Unique Identification Authority of India is not misused or leaked.  It also stated the data cannot be used to track people’s activities that are considered private but can be used to serve national interest.

Opponents of the scheme have contended that Aadhaar linkage can result in Indians facing a ‘Nazi regime and police raj’ with the government tracking the movements of people. They have demanded that the rights of citizens be protected against pervasive surveillance and violation of “informational privacy”.

Data Cannot Be Used For Surveillance

A Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan called for a balance between the two interests given the need for protecting the country against issues like terrorism and money laundering and the need for government to spend crores on social welfare measures.

The bench also confirmed that like private companies government authorities also cannot use Aadhaar data for surveillance or tracking the movements of citizens since the Centre is bound by the Constitution.

Appearing for social activists, senior advocate Shyam Divan, called the Adhaar Act “ illegal and unconstitutional” adding that the project provided “an architecture for surveillance” and would lead to “an Orwellian state” where the government will be able to track citizens constantly.

Aadhaar Violating Citizens’ Privacy

The lawyer stated that the Aadhaar Act fails to offer any added protection while violating the right to privacy by asking individuals to “part with demographic as well as biometric information to private enrolling agencies”.

He said that allowing private entities to use the Aadhaar authentication platform was the breach of the citizen’s right to informational privacy. This violation was also occurring in the case of the mandatory authorization for availing of a subsidy.

The bench however inquired of the advocate why people would not want to share information under the Adhaar Act when they share information freely with private companies like Google which tracks preferences and choices.

Divan responded stating that it is the government’s duty to protect citizens and enact legislation against private firms for violating fundamental rights.

Indian prince Manvendra Singh Gohil, the only openly gay royal in the world, has made it his personal mission to campaign for reform of India’s anti-LGBT laws.

Hailing from the state of Gujarat, Mr Gohil, who came out in 2006  recently announced plans to open his palace as a community centre for LGBT people.

Currently Indian law criminalises sexual acts between members of the same sex, but the Supreme Court of India has ordered the relevant legislation to be reviewed in 2018.

According to Gohil although social change in India had been slow, things have been improving for young gay, lesbian and transgender people in India, noting that there had been “a huge change” in the 11 years since he came out.

He added that parents were more accepting and media was also reporting positive stories, which said was” a very good thing”.  According to Gohil, such support for the community from society, will help them “win our rights.”

Public Outcry On His Admission

Eleven years ago, Gohil’s admission of homosexuality drew violent public retaliation and media backlash.

Recalling the reactions, he said that the public had “revolted”, with his effigies being burned and demands made for him to be socially boycotted and stripped of his title.  His parents , the king and queen, released public notices stating that they would like to disown him and publicly disinherit him from the ancestral property.

Gohil said that the negative response was not entirely unexpected, and attributed it to ignorance in the country.  He has said that he doesn’t blame Indians for “their lack of understanding” and considers his duty as “an activist” to “educate these people about what is the facts.”

Palace To Be A Community Centre For LGBT

Gohil’s proposed palace community centre intends to offer clinical services along with financial support and skills training for LGBT youth to become financially independent from their families. It also aims to offer free safe-sex seminars to young gay and lesbian Indians around the country.

Gohil hopes that it will become a key part of a campaign to fight for what he calls are “rights” enshrined in the Indian constitution.

In Gohil’s opinion, the anti-LGBT law in India will change primarily because the law was not entirely Indian to begin with. He pointed out that homosexuality existed in the Indian society “since bygone eras.”

According to him institutional anti-LGBT attitudes are the relic of British colonial rule and the influence of other religions like Islam and Christianity.

Mended Relationship With Parents

After over a decade of coming out, Gohil said he had since mended his relationship with his father, the king. His father has expressed support for his son’s plans and was present at the launch of the LGBT community centre to lay a foundation stone.

Gohil noted that his parents had realised their mistake acknowledging that they had threatened disowning him only “under societal pressure.”