OFF WITH HIS HEAD

This article was written at that time when UP Cabinet had taken a decision to set up a bench of Allahabad High Court for the western region in 1981. The Allahabad lawyers had gone on strike, the longest in its history. This was to place the correct perspective before the people and mobilise public support.

The U.P. Cabinets decision to set up a bench of the Allahabad High Court in the western region reminds one of the Queen of heart’s decision. ‘Off with his head’ in ‘Alice in Wonderland’.

The Chief Minister expressed his ignorance about the recommendation of the Law Commission and the correspondence on the subject. The Law Commission in its fourth report rejected the view that splitting of the high court was necessary in order to take justice to the door of the litigant.

MC Seetalvad, the then Chairman of Law Commission, says (My life, Law and other things page 247),

‘lawyers who appeared on behalf of the Lucknow Bar Association conceded in private that the Lucknow bench should be abolished. Similar views were expressed by advocates practising before different benches of the M.P High Court and the Rajasthan High Court.'

Chief Justice B Dayal of the MP High Court wrote a letter to the then Law Minister seeking abolition of benches in Madhya Pradesh. Sri HR Gokhale agreed but could not do it because of political reasons. In a conference of Chief Justices in 1979 it was said that if the High Court benches were created, in no time benches of the Supreme Court would be created not only in the south but also in east and west.

There can’t be benches of a High Court. Lucknow Bench was created due to historical necessity. The creation of benches does not improve the administration of justice. It undermines it. The difference in expense due to distance is so insignificant that merely for its sake proper administration of justice cannot be sacrificed. If there are arrears at Allahabad it is not because of the High Court is situated at Allahabad but because there are not enough judges and other staff. Experience shows, splitting of the Courts: increases arrears, reduces the uniformity a,amongst the judges, and diminishes the independence not only of the bar but also of the bench. There is no justification for creation of any bench nor should one be created. A State may be divided if need be.

STRIKES

Tarts and lawyers are the two oldest professions in the world. And both aim to please. But to please whom- Opinions may differ and notwithstanding legal semantics. We lawyers, like tarts, must please our clients, customers. By boycotting the courts we fail in our primary objective - getting relief for them. Besides one must consider the morality of members of a noble (if it is still noble) and one might say essential (certainly true of tarts, but debatable for lawyers) professions going on strike. It undoubtedly interferes and obstructs the course of justice. Well in the legal world when someone does that, he commits a contempt of the Court.

If history serves me right, strikes were unheard of in the pre-independence era. Apart from the calls given during the freedom struggle to boycott all institutions, including the courts, it was never resorted to. In independent India the first one was when Justice AN Ray superseded his three colleagues, after Keshvanand Bharti case, to become the Chief Justice of India. Since then strikes have never looked back. They are on the rise. It is not only the Indian population, which is on the rise.

We go on a strike, for every conceivable issue, irrespective of any issue being conceived. Are they proper? Do we achieve anything? I can't think of any reason for which a strike should be resorted to. We all know what was the impact of the first landmark strike of independent India when Indira Gandhi superseded Justice H.R. Khanna (due to the Habeas Corpus case decision), a judge in whose honour, according to the New York Times, a monument should be erected in every city. We, the lawyers, wanted to constitute an Independent Judiciary but instead of that laid down a sound foundation for strikes.

YV Chandrachud (Retd. Chief Justice of India) has occasion to say that legal system is on

'the verge of collapse.'

RS Pathak (Retd. Chief Justice of India) took some bite out of it,

‘... [It is] merely in a state of crisis.'

Two eminent judges may debate about it but the fact remains that the system, given the present state of affairs, if it has not done so already, will wither away. In Allen Vs Alfred McAlpine ,1968 (I) AllER 543, Denning rightly remarked,

‘Law’s delays have been intolerable. They have lasted so long as to turn the justice sour.’

True, neither strikes are the sole reason for delays nor will their abolition clear off the delays, but the first and foremost question is of the right mental attitude to tackle the problem. And we must begin with what we the lawyers can do- stop strikes.

I began this note with tarts. Let me end up with them. I am quite charmed by them. They never claim to belong to a noble profession. They are not hypocrites. If history is any witness then tarts do have gone on strikes, then why should we also.

FOR THE LOVE OF THEMIS

This article describes the conditions of the law courts in the country. Themis is the Greek goddess of justice. She is blindfolded and has a pair of scales in one hand and a sword in the other.

What films are to Bombay, law is to Allahabad. Despite the University’s reputation for churning out civil servants, law is Allahabad’s best industry. It has produced some of the best legal minds in the country. Allahabad has a High Court, Board of Revenue, a District Court, Labour Courts, a Sales Tax Tribunal, and Income Tax Tribunal, and a Services Tribunal. You think of a court and Allahabad has got it. I still wonder how come the Supreme Court was established in Delhi.1

Every alternate house in Allahabad is a house of a lawyer or a judge. The ‘legal’ ethos is omnipresent. But alas- it is conservative. Despite giving Amitabh Bachchan to the nation, one never sees a boy and a girl walking hand in hand. What a pity - Love affairs are still regarded as scandalous. And as far fashion? Allahabad is still a village. Nothing new happens here. It was and it still is a sleeping town. But one place in Allahabad never slept: the law courts. If you went to the courts, you heard the best; juniors better than the seniors. The activity was brisk. But all that is now gone. Something is amiss. There is a crowd, but nothing seems to happens.

The High Court is busy doing admission and order cases. There is no time for final hearing. One has even forgotten its spelling. I hope I got it right. If one has a fresh case then one is busy. May be the fresh case will take only two minutes, but one has to wait at least for two hours.

Lawyers are not idle. They are busy. But busy with what? Almost all the lawyers spend their time from ten to four without uttering a word. What a waste! Imagine lawyers spending all their time not in arguing, but just waiting for the case to be taken up. And seldom are they taken up.

It is not that the High Court does not function. It does. Yet the net result is zero. It is frustrating. Well, maddening too. If one side has a stay, it is difficult to get it vacated. You spend a lifetime getting a case listed and another getting the matter taken up. The stay order is invariably left to the final hearing, which rarely happens.

There are insufficient chambers for the lawyers. There is no place to sit and work. One has to roam in the corridors. Soon that will also end. There will be no place in the corridors. The population explosion has hit the High court also.

The Lawyers are in courts from ten to four. But they do nothing. Yet they cannot leave the court, because they have to watch their ‘sleeping cases’ No lawyer can afford to take the risk of leaving the courts, for if the case is left out, it is passed over for years. This is true not only for the courts in Allahabad, but for all the courts of the country.

It was Charles Dickens in Bleak House who had said ,

‘This is a court of Chancery-which so exhausts finances, patience, hope.'

In this century it has been repeated by Lord Denning, ‘Law’s delays... have lasted so long as to turn justice sour' (Allen Vs Alfred McAlpine 1968(1) AllER 543) This is so true for our courts.

The lawyers earn good money, but they have to spend a lifetime in the courts. Is this the way to serve ‘Themis’? Is this the purpose of life? Does anyone have any other suggestions except the one, to fill-up at least all vacancies that were never filled for all these years except for a short time when the Janata Party was in power?

I often wonder if the solution is that simple. If it is so, then why the hell does it strike everyone except the government. And secondly all lawyers should go to hell and so should the judges. In any case that is the place where they all finally land up. At least all the lawyers do. I being one can vouch for it.2



1Many narrate a story. One does not know if it is true or mere fancy. According to it the Supreme Court was to be established in Allahabad. Pandit Nehru wanted it. But Mrs Kania preferred Delhi. Nehru reluctantly agreed. After all her husband was the 1st Chief Justice of India.

2This piece was written many years ago when I was a lawyer. Since the publication of the 1st edition, I have become the permanent Judge of the Allahabad High Court.

COMMENTS

This section contains articles on different incidents and topics of immediate interest- some controversial, some debatable.

Note:

The articles For The Love Of Themis and Strike are satirical and are in a lighter vein and address related problems. Justice OP Jain after the 1st edition sent a letter saying,

'Two main problems facing the judiciary are overcrowding and strikes as you have rightly pointed out in chapter VI of your book. I hope some day you will find time to give suggestion to cope with both these problems'.

Frankly I must confess, there are no short – term solutions. Control of population, increase in the strength of judges, greater emphasis in the written submission in contrast to the oral advocacy, better code management (applications of computers and management techniques), more unfortunately among the judges and most importantly cultivating a work culture seem to be the only long term solutions.

GAY RIGHTS, PARITY CONSERVATION; AND MIRROR IMAGES-λ

This article is an inter disciplinary study. It connects gay rights with conservation of parity and Right-Left Symmetry. It also deals with the Wolfendem Committee; its recommendation for decriminalisation of Homosexual behaviour; similar laws in other parts of the world; and Romer Vs Evans (1996) 517 US 620 where the US Supreme Court voided the Colorado’s Constitutional amendment that barred any legislation protecting homosexuals from discrimination.1

‘The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race’. (Holmes; The path of law)

The law is not morally neutral. It should not be. But the question is which moral values should it adopt. Should the law be a peeping tom? Is bedroom a private place or is it subject to the presence of law. Should law govern the private morality of consenting adults?

SEXUAL MORALITY
Indian sexual morality is governed by section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short IPC). It: deals with unnatural offence; denies among others sexual relations with the same sex and fundamentally differs from rape. Consent, relevant for rape, is immaterial for unnatural offence under Section 377 of the IPC. It deals with private morality of consenting adults apart from other things. There is no decision in India where consenting adults were involved. At least none is reported but this is irrelevant. It still makes it an offence for the consenting adults. We, at least, have two that have been reported in England.

Alan Mathison Turing, mathematician extraordinary, pioneer in computer science, a key force in breaking the Nazis famous Enigma cipher, was arrested in Manchester, England, in 1952 for the crime of ‘Gross Indecency’ contrary to Section 11 of The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.’ Turing’s home had recently been burgled by an acquaintance of Arnold Murray, with whom Turing had sexual relations. When Turing reported the burglary to the police, he told them about his affair with Murray, naively believing that a royal commission was about to legalise homosexuality. Two months later, Turing was tried for six sexual offences, and was convicted of all six. He was not sent to prison, but was given a year’s probation on the condition that he underwent Organo-Therapic treatment, a program of regular doses of Androgynizing female hormones. Instead of taking it, took his life by eating half of an apple dipped in cyanide solution. This was in 1954. He was forty-one. (For details, kindly see Alan Turing: The Enigma; Andrew Hodges; Simon & Schuster, New York)

Oscar Wilde is the other one. Though he did not commit suicide. He had close relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas. This infuriated the Marquees of Queensberry, Douglas' father. He accused him of being a sodomite. Wilde, urged by Douglas, sued for criminal libel. However, when the evidence went against him, his case collapsed and he dropped the suit. Wilde refused the suggestions of his friends to flee to France. He could not believe that his world was at an end. He was arrested and ordered to stand trial. Wilde testified brilliantly, but the jury failed to reach a verdict. In the retrial he was found guilty and sentenced to two years of hard labour in May 1895. (For details, kindly see Oscar Wilde; R. Ellmann; Penguin International)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says,

‘Sodomy is ‘noncoital carnal copulation. The term is understood in history, literature, and law in several senses:

• as denoting any homosexual practices between men, in allusion to the story of Sodom in Genesis 18:19;
• as denoting anal intercourse;
• as synonymous with bestiality or zoophilia, i.e., sexual relations between human beings and animals, and
• as comprehending a number of other sexual activities, ranging from sexual contacts with minors to mouth-genital contacts and oral intercourse between adults.

Section 377 of IPC punishes all this. The language is not so explicit. It has been worded vaguely. It punishes those who have carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or anima. Any intercourse without consent or with a minor or with an animal or with some one incapable of giving consent is wrong and should be punished but is it against the order of nature even if it is between consenting adults? What is the meaning of the word against the order of nature even if it is between consenting adults? What is the meaning of the word against the order of the nature? Some answers are provided by Khannu versus Emperor, AIR 1925 Sind 286,

‘The natural object of carnal intercourse is that there should be a possibility of conception of human beings’.

But is it, in modern times, still true; still accepted? This was clarified in Lohia Vajant Lal versus Dev Chand, AIR 1968 Gujarat 252,

‘Mr. Mehta advanced an argument that this theory that the sexual intercourse is only meant for the purpose of conception is an out dated theory. It may be true. But at the same time it could be said without any hesitation that the orifice of mouth is not according to the nature meant for sexual or carnal knowledge’.

It is a common thread that runs almost in all cultures and religions. Is there something more fundamental to it?

CONSERVATION OF PARITY
Let’s see it from another angle. God has created human beings into two different groups: men and women. It we take one each from different groups they produce a child. But two of the same group cannot produce one. Such relationships between two mutually exclusive groups, namely to produce one result when two from the same group are taken and other result when one each from different group is taken, is in abundance in nature. So much so that we take it for granted.

There are two poles of a magnet- South and North. You take one of each of different groups; they attract. Take two of the same group; they repel. It is equally true for electric charges.

There are even numbers. And there are odd numbers. Take two numbers of different groups and add you will always get an odd number and numbers of the same group when added produce an even number. So is the case with the multiplication of positive and negative numbers.

This is a special relationship. It is so fundamental fundamental that Physicists have given it a name, define it as a law - that too conservation law. If such relationship or condition exists it is said that parity is conserved.2

CONSERVATION LAWS
Law of conservation of parity is not the only law of conservation. There are others. We know about the law of conservation of energy; modified by Albert Einstein to the law of conservation of mass and energy. In short it means given any isolated system its mass and energy will always be the same. This is the reason for the destructive power of atom bomb or heat/light of the Sun.

There is also the law of conservation of momentum i.e. mass (inertia) multiplied by velocity (linear or angular) of a system remains constant. It you ask any billiards player he will explain the mechanics of ball movement. It is governed by conservation of linear momentum. Have you ever seen an ice skater rotating about her legs with her hands stretched and suddenly she closes her hands and behold she is rotating faster. The conservation of angular momentum is at play. You know moon is inching away from us. The reason is that the earth is slowing down due to tides. If angular momentum of the earth and the moon is to remain constant, distance between the earth and the moon should increase.

SYMMETRY
Conservation laws are amazing. Aren’t they? What an influence they have on our daily lives! Imagine life without the Sun, without the law of conservation of energy. But nature has other mysteries in her bosom. ‘Symmetry’ is one of them. The two are somehow related - For each and every symmetry there is a law of conservation and vice versa.

We know that time is symmetrical. When we say that we mean the laws of nature do not vary with time. The Law, which governs the motion of the earth round the sun today, will govern it tomorrow. It will not change merely because the time has changed. If it does, then time becomes asymmetrical. This has not happened as yet. The Law of conservation of mass and energy is connected with it. Both have to be true or both false. It is not possible that the law of conservation of mass and energy be true and time to become asymmetrical. If time becomes asymmetrical then the law of conservation of mass and energy also breaks.

Similarly the law of conservation of momentum is connected with the symmetry about space. Laws do not vary with space. Whatever is true on earth will be true at any other place. Let’s say on the Moon or on the Mars. They have different gravity but then the same gravitational law determines that as on earth.

RIGHT-LEFT SYMMETRY AND PARITY
There is another symmetry. We will talk in some details about it. It is A symmetry of Right and Left. The laws of nature have no reason to prefer the right direction to the left. No one can distinguish what is real and what is its mirror image merely by observing any physical law. Nature has no Right-Left bias. This does not mean that Right-Left asymmetry cannot exist in nature. It only means that what it can do in a left- handed way, it can do in a right-handed way. The Sun rises in the East. Reason; the earth rotates from west to east. This is undoubtedly asymmetrical. This is an accident and not due to the fact that God prefers it that way. We know, Venus rotates in retrograde from east to west. The Sun rises in the west there.

Right-Left symmetry does not mean that mirror images of asymmetrical object or moving system must exist in equal quantities. It merely says that there is nothing in nature to prohibit the possible existence of both types of handedness. In 1927, the Hungarian physicist Eugene P. Wigner showed that conservation of party is equivalent to Right-Left symmetry. If Right-Left symmetry is true then conservation of parity is true. If one of them is false then so is the other.

Right-Left symmetry is the most beautiful of all symmetries. Truly, it is ‘the order of nature’- And with it, conservation of parity. So fundamental is it that we insist that it be conserved in all relationships. In the case of childbirth parity is conserved. We call it the order of nature. But in case of sexual attraction- two belonging different groups do attract, and in case two of the same also attract then parity will not be conserved. So is the case with marriage. We punish it.

Section 377 of the IPC is ‘conservation of parity’ translated into legislative language.

THE OZMA PROBLEM
Let’s look at Right-Left symmetry in another form- a puzzle. Suppose there is life on another planet in another galaxy and we are able to make contact with them. We want to see their picture. We ask them to televise it. We view from left to right and wish to tell them to scan from left to right, for if they scan right to left, we shall see their mirror images. How do we tell them which side is left and which is right?

Right-left symmetry says that if these two words are inter-changed in every text overnight we shall not be able to distinguish it by means of any law. Is there a way?3 This problem has been named the Ozma problem. 4If there is Right-left symmetry then there is no solution to the Ozma problem. And if there is one then there is no Right-left symmetry, no conservation of parity.

THETA-TAU PUZZLE
The Ozma problem has been solved. In order to understand it we must briefly acquaint ourselves with the Theta-Tau puzzle and four5 fundamental forces governing our Universe.
They are known as

• Strong Nuclear force.
• Electromagnetic force.
• Gravitational force.
• Weak interaction force.

Parity is conserved so far as Strong Nuclear force and Electromagnetic forces are concerned. So is Right-Left symmetry.

The gravitational force is so feeble that gravitational interaction of atomic article is impossible to measure and it is not known if there is any gravitational repulsion. The question of parity in gravitational force cannot be checked. This leaves weak interaction force.

There was no reason to believe that here parity would not be conserved. It was always assumed that Right-Left symmetry existed so far as weak interaction force was concerned. But, in middle of the twentieth century it all changed. It is at that time that physicists started talking about what is known as the Theta-Tau Puzzle.

There is a subatomic particle called K-mesons. Sometimes it would decay into two Pi mesons; Sometimes to three Pi mesons. One was not sure why it would do so. Were they different particles or was there some other reason? Physicist started calling them Theta mesons and Tau mesons. Except for this they appeared to be the same. Even stranger was the fact when they would break into two Pi mesons. They would have an even parity. But when they break into three Pi mesons, they would have an odd parity. This meant either initially these two types of K-mesons were in fact different or parity was not conserved. Apart from this there was no other reason to distinguish between them.

FALL OF PARITY
It happened in April 1956. There was a conference on nuclear physics in University of Rochester, New York. There was a discussion about the Theta-Tau Puzzle.

It is at this time that Richard P. Feynman, reckoned by many as the greatest scientist of the second half of the twentieth century posed a question,

‘Is it possible that Theta and Tau mesons would be one and the same and it is parity that is not conserved’ and he added ‘I am not asking the question for myself but on behalf of Martin Block’.

He explained it later The idea that the parity was not conserved or that Right-Left symmetry did not exist was so wild that I was afraid to be associated with such idea.

Chen Ning Yang and Tsung Dao Lee, two young Chinese living in USA were also present at the meeting. One of them got up and gave a lengthy reply. Block, on whose behalf Feynman had spoken, asked him what he had said. Feynman replied,

‘I could not understand.’

Feynman was so confident that, if any experiment was designed to see if parity was conserved then the experiment would fail, he was willing to bet 50 dollars. He was not the only one. Wolfgang Pauli, one of the world’s greatest theoretical physicists wrote a letter to his friend,

‘I do not believe that the Lord is a weak left hander. I am ready to bet a very high sum that experiments will give a symmetrical result.’

Both of them lost Experiments did not give symmetrical results. It was found that there was no conservation of parity, no Right-Left symmetry.6 God has shown that he is left-handed at least as far as weak interactions are concerned. He is not ambidextrous. No one ever that the experiment would overthrow parity.

What does it mean in simple language? You remember Polyphemus in the land of Cyclops. The one eyed giants in Odyssey. He had kept Odysseus and his men captive. Odysseus was on his way back to Ithacca, his rocky kingdom after commanding the building of the wooden horse, which had led to the fall of Troy. Before we talk about the position of one-eyed giants, let's consider the third eye of Lord Shiva.

Of course who does not know the Lord `Shiva’: the destroyer and restorer and his third eye bestowing inward vision but capable of causing destruction when opened. And we know what happened to KAMDEO, the God of love. He was destroyed by Lord Shiva’s third eye. He had dared to disturb him in his meditation, even though for a good cause.

It is said that Cyclops had their eye in the middle of their forehead. So is Lord Shiva's third eye. But what this breakthrough figuratively means is that if nature were Polyphemus, then his ( Polyuphemus's) eye and in case of the Lord Shiva the nature himself his third eye, is skewed. May be towards left or may be towards right- but certainly not in the middle. Pakistani Physicist Abdus Salamputs it succinctly,

‘In my view what we have found is that space is a weak left eyed giant.' (Elementary Particles: Endeavor April 1958)

WOLFENDEN COMMITTEE
It was about the same time that physicists were discussing the Theta-tau puzzle that Wolfenden Committee was appointed to consider sodomy laws. It gave its recommendation in 1957, same time as ‘fall of parity’, on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution in Great Britain. Using the findings of psychoanalysis and social science. The report urged that public statutes avoid the attempt to legislate morality and that they concern themselves only with the sexual acts that offend public decency or disrupt order. The committee therefore recommended that private homosexual liaisons between consenting adults be removed from the domain of criminal law. It accepted what Mill had said,

'The only purpose for which power can be right to live exercise over any member or a civilise community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good either physical or oral, is not a sufficient warrant.' (John Stuart Mill; On Liberty)

The recommendations of the Wolfenden committee were accepted.7 The result was the Sexual Offences Act, 1967.

LAW IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Sodomy is a crime in many countries including India and is condemned as a mark of abnormality. Some laws provide penalties as severe as life imprisonment for homosexual intercourse, even if the relations are voluntary and between legally consenting adults. So-called sodomy laws, apply even to married couples not only in India but also in some other countries. No such penalties are found in the laws of Denmark, France, Italy, Sweden, or Switzerland. Like the Wolfenden committee in England, the American Law Institute in the United States recommended abolition of criminal provisions in this area, except in cases involving violence, children, or public solicitation to commercial vice. Thirteen States in USA have prohibited sodomy between same or opposite sex. Six more have prohibited sodomy between same sex. Rest of the States do not have sodomy laws.

Supreme Court of USA in Bowers Vs Harwick, 478 US 186 upheld sodomy laws, enacted by the State of Georgia saying,

‘There is no fundamental right to commit sodomy.’

But then In Romer Vs Evans (1996) the American Supreme Court. the court voided Colorado’s Constitutional amendments that barred any legislation protecting homosexuals from discrimination. The Majority said,

'[State cannot] deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.’

This may not be much. Local/Public body to enact laws in support of gays if they want to. It does not mandate them to enact such a law; without which no protection can be given. Yet, it is something.

The Hawai State Supreme Court in 1993 hinted that the Hawai State appears to be discriminating against the Gay Couples by denying them marriage licences. Thereafter a Judge in Hawai has lifted the ban on the same sex marriages. Other troubling areas concerning gay rights are child custody cases and employment discrimination. Are gay parents fit for child custody?

Pro gay right cases have their reaction too. Nine other States in USA have already passed laws prohibiting the same sex marriage. In seven of the states, bills to ban same sex marriages are pending. You never know there may be a move to impeach the six Judges who formed the majority in Romer Vs Evans or Anti-gay right amendment in the US Constitution may come about. (See Post Sript)λ

CONCLUSION-ASYMMETRY
Nature is symmetrical. It transcends human relations too. But if we look closely we find it nearly symmetrical. It is not perfect. Why is it so? Some answers were provided by Feynman,

‘So our problem is to explain where symmetry comes from. Why is nature so nearly symmetrical? None has any idea why. The only thing we might suggest is something like this: There is a gate in Japan, a gate in Neiko, which is sometimes called by the Japanese the most beautiful gate in all Japan. .... This gate is very elaborate ... But when one looks closely one sees that in the elaborate and complex design along one of the pillars, one of the small design elements is carved upside down; otherwise the thing is completely symmetrical. If one asks why this is so, the story is that it was carved upside down so that the gods will not be jealous of the perfection of man. So they purposely put an error in there, so that the gods would not be jealous and get angry at human beings.

We might like to turn the idea around and think that the true explanation of near symmetry of nature is this: the God made the laws only nearly symmetrical so that we should not be jealous of his perfection.’ (Feynman; Lectures on Physics Vol. 1 Chapter 52-9)

So, the God has left little asymmetry for we may not be jealous. Should we be angry? Should we still insist on what is not there. Asymmetry is God’s will: his command, in nature. We may not be happy but have to accept it. Symmetry cannot be or rather should not be enforced if it is not there in the first place.

λPost Script

Since writing of this article, the US Supreme Court has decided Lawrence Vs. Texas 539 US 558. In this case, there were reports of weapon disturbance in Lawrence’s apartment. The police entered t and saw him and another adult man, engaged in a private consensual sexual act. They were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. The US Supreme Court held the statute, making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct, to be violative of 14th amendment to the US Constitution, namely the due process clause.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition 7455 of 2001 on 2.9.2004 challenging section 377 of the IPC on the ground that there was no cause of action. However, our Supreme Court has issued notices on this point.

1The Greek letter lambda (λ) is the international homosexual symbol. The article deals with Law as well as physics. Not many are interested in detail about both fields. But in case you are, in any one or both of them then the details are in the footnotes.

2Of course parity was first used by mathematicians to distinguish between odd and even numbers. If two integers are either even or both odd they are said to have same parity. If one is even and the other odd, they are said to have opposite parity. Soon the term came to be applied in many different ways to any situation in which things fall into two mutually exclusive classes as above.

3Martin Gardner has named it the Ozma problem. He states it more precisely, ‘Is there any way to communicate the meaning of left by a language transmitted in the form of pulsating signals? By the terms of the problem we may say anything we please to our listeners, ask them to perform any experiment whatever, with one proviso: there is to be no asymmetric object or structure that we and they can observe in common’. He says, ‘it is a puzzling question. Although an old problem, it has not yet been given a name. I propose to call it the Ozma problem.’ (Martin Gardner; The Ambidextrous Universe. Left, Right, and the Fall of Parity: Pelican Books).

4This is what Martin Gardner has to say for naming it Ozma problem. ‘A powerful radio telescope at Green Bank, West Verginia, was pointed toward various stars in the galaxy in a systematic search for radio messages from another world. Frank D. Drake, the radio astronomer who directed the project, is a long-time admirer of L. Frank Baum’s and his Oz books. He named the project for Ozma, the ruler of Baum’s mythical utopia. It is an appropriate name. The location of Oz is unknown. Its inhabitants are humanoid but not necessarily 'meat people’ like us (witness the Tin Woodman and the Scarecrow.) Moreover, Oz is surrounded on all sides by the impassable deadly desert. Which destroys anyone who so much as touches one grain of its sand. One of Baum’s characters, the Nome King, has a servant called the Long Eared Hearer. The ears of this ‘nome’ are several feet across. By placing one of them on the ground he can hear sounds thousands of miles away. Frank Drake’s radio telescope is his Long Eared Hearer.’ (Martin Gardner; The Ambidextrous Universe. Left, Right, and the Fall of Parity: Pelican Books).

5The ultimate aim of physics is to unite these forces together. TOE Theory of Everything. But will it ever unite, is a question troubling all. Einstein worked on it but could not succeed. Many say his limitation was that he never believed that God plays dice. Stephen Hawking in 1980 in a paper, Is The End In Sight For Theoretical Physics, discussed ‘the possibility that the goal of Theoretical Physics might be achieved in the not too distant future: Say by the end of the century.’ And ended up by saying, ‘It would seem quite possible that they [computers] will take over altogether in theoretical physics. So may be the end is in sight for theoretical physicist, if not for theoretical physics.’ (Stephen Hawking; Black Holes And Baby Universes And Other Essays: Bantam Books).

6The two young Chinese scientists Chen Ning Yang and Tsung Dao Lee went on to study the data of all the experiments, which included weak interaction. And they found that parity was not conserved in almost all of them. It is then that they came out with a paper, ‘Question Of Parity Conservation In Weak Interaction’. They also suggested some experiments to confirm it. But no one conducted any experiments. Everyone always thought that parity would never be violated and Right-Left symmetry will always exist. Then it fell upon another Chinese, Shiung Wu, Professor of Physics at Columbia University to conduct an experiment with Cobalt-60, a particle emitter. It was cooled to near absolute zero in order to reduce the vibration of molecules. Then a powerful electromagnetic field was applied. If law of conservation of parity was to hold good electrons, a subatomic particle should come out from both the sides equally. Unfortunately it did not happen. Majority of the electrons came out from the south end. The reason for this was that electrons coming out had a particular spin i.e. a left handed one, as if nature preferred the left handed electrons. This was confirmed by other experiments. If electrons had a both sided spin they would have come out in about the same numbers from both ends. This also solved the Theta-Tau Puzzle. They were one and the same particle. It was parity that was no longer conserved i.e. Right-Left symmetry does not exist. It also solved the Ozma problem that was discussed earlier. We could ask the inhabitants of the distant planets to perform the same experiment; find out from which side the electrons are coming out and name it south. With its help label the poles of magnetic needle. If it is placed over an electric wire in which current is moving away from him then the north pole of the needle will point towards the direction we call left.
There is a postscript to the Ozma problem and its solution. There are particles and anti particles. There is matter and anti matter, when they meet they are converted into pure energy. Matter and their mirror images do not behave in the same manner. But the mirror image of antimatter and matter behave in the same way. Suppose we are able to establish a link and communicate with the inhabitants of the distant planets; and we tell them our manners; how we shake our hands. Suppose both of us go out and meet in open space and we take out our hand to shake, but in case the person from distant planet takes out his left hand as we understand it to be then beware. You know what will happen, if we shake our hands : We will be converted to pure energy, be one with almighty one, the ultimate aim according to Hinduism.

7This is how the Wolfenden commitee put it, ‘Criminal law is to preserve public order and decency to protect the citizens from what is offensive or injurious and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and aggravation of others, particularly those who are specially vulnerable because they are young, weak in body or mind, inexperienced, or in a state of special physical, official or economic dependence. It is not, in our view, the function of the law to intervene in the private lives of citizens’.
‘The importance which society and the law ought to give to individual freedom of choice and action in matters of private morality. Unless a deliberate attempt is to be made by society, acting through the agency of the law, to equate the sphere of crime with that of sin, there must remain a realm of private morality which is, in brief and crude terms, not the law’s business’.

IN THE MATTER OF ‘EPIMENIDES’

Paradoxes are self-contradictory statements; only careful scrutiny reveals their meaning.  They have function in poetry, their function goes beyond mere wit or getting attention.  Logical paradoxes are highly amusing and often tantalising and generally lead to searching discussions on the foundations of mathematics. 

The most talked about paradox of all times is Epimenides or the liar’s paradox. Epimenides was a Greek poet who lived in Crete in 6th century BC. He remarked, ‘All Cretans are liars.’ It is self-contradictory for Epimenides was a Cretan himself.  If you take it to be true, it turns out to be false.  If you treat it false, then it turns out to be true. 

An English mathematician, PEB Jourdain gave a similar dilemma, in 1913, when he proposed the card paradox.  On one side of the card, it was printed that ‘The sentence on the other side of this card is TRUE'.  The print on the other side of the card was, ‘The sentence on the other side of this card is FALSE'.  

The same is true of the barber paradox, proposed by Bertrand Russell. It is also known as the Russel's paradox.  It goes like this.  There was one barber in a village.  He declared that he shaved everyone in the village, who did not shave himself. On the face of it, this is a perfectly innocent remark until it is asked ‘Who shaves the barber?’ 

Russell’s paradox hinges on the distinction between classes that are members of themselves and those that are not members of themselves. Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead attempted to resolve the paradox in Principia Mathematica (1912) by introducing the concept of a hierarchy of logical types but were not successful.

Kurt Gödel 

Kurt Gödel was an Austrian-born U.S. Mathematician and logician. He ultimately resolved it in 1931.  He proved that these paradoxes cannot be solved. According to him one may start with any set of axioms and yet there will be propositions (or questions) which can neither be proved nor disproved on the basis of the axioms within that system and therefore, the basic axioms of arithmetic will give rise to contradictions. His proof ended nearly a century of attempts to establish axioms that would provide a rigorous basis for all mathematics. This proof has become a hallmark of 20th-century mathematics, and its repercussions still continue to be felt and debated. 

Gödel's proof was written in German. The English translation of the title of his proof was 'On formally Undecidable Proposition of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems'. It first appeared in an article, in German in the Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, vol.  38 (1931) Pg. 173-98.

There is a parallel in law. It is commonly assumed that all judicial decisions are taken on the basis of reason. Well, it is not true, at least not for most important decisions.  Justice Holmes rightly points out that ‘The life of law is not logic’.  Just as all problems of Mathematics cannot be solved by logic, so is the case in Law; not all cases are decided on reason.  Often decisions are taken first, reasons are found later.

The article below, an inter disciplinary study, is written in the form of judgement of a Court. Here a senior lawyer sued his junior for his ‘Guru Dakshina’ (a fee given by the student to the teacher) and difficulties faced by the judges due to the peculiar terms of the contract governing its payment. The junior was to pay the fee only when he won a case and he had not won any. 

The article examines the connection between liar's or Epimenides' paradox' and the decision-making process.  It also explains the paradox and its impact in the field of Mathematics, Literature, and Philosophy as well as on jurisprudence. It is an extension of the earlier article ‘Decisions Are From Heart Rather Than the Head’. 

‘These are old fond Paradoxes to make fools laugh in the alehouse’. Unfaithfully faithful Desdemona in Othello Act-I Scene-I

‘Let the jury consider their verdict’, the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

‘No, no!’, said the Queen. ‘Sentence first—verdict afterwards.’

(From Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carrol)

THE MORALITY OF FRANKESTEIN’S CLONE

This article deals with Legal and ethical questions raised by cloning

‘Human Cloning had been achieved early in the twenty-first century. Even when the technology had been perfected, it had never become widespread, partly because of ethical objections and partly because there were few circumstances that could ever justify it.’
Arthur C. Clarke; Imperial Earth

FRANKESTEIN

It was a bright cold day in spring of 1814 when Shelley, the great romantic poet eloped for the second time1 With Mary Godwin first to France, then to Switzerland. There he was to meet Lord Byron his friend, another great poet of that era.

It was the time when the fundamentals of electricity were taking shape. Galvani had discovered that frog muscles could respond to two different metals. He thought, muscles had animal electricity. Volta soon disproved it by showing that two different metals could produce electricity. Volta had made the first electric battery. And then Humphrey Davy made a more powerful battery and carried other experiments. This happened in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Life and electricity were in every one’s mind.

One day, Shelly, Byron and Mary Selley together discussed, what was in everybody’s mind. They thought about writing a story. Mary encouraged by Shelly and Byron went on to write it. Frankestein is the name of that story. It is about Frankestein, a young scientist of Anatomy. He puts life into an eight foot tall creature through electricity. The creature, not accepted by the society, kills every one close to Frankestein including his bride and then Frankestein himself.

The story for the first time raised a fear of the unknown and of moral questions about scientific experiments. Creating life is God’s domain, who are we to tread there. The book is one of the most talked about and later inspired many movies. Frankestein’s monster has gone from realm of fiction to become a part of the English language. Shelly and Byron were not only great but rightly imagined themselves to be great. Imagine their plight; the dent to their ego, if they were to be transported in time. More people have read and debated Frankestein than all the works of Shelly and Byron put together. Frankestein was not the first time when moral and ethical questions about scientific experiments were asked. Rather, it was the first fiction to do so. It was not to end there. These questions arise: when principles conflict, facts are ambiguous and result uncertain. These questions are being raised at present more fiercely than at any other time. Cloning is the reason.

CLONE
Clone, also spelled Clon, means producing genetically identical organisms derived from a single individual by asexual methods. Amphibians were cloned in 1950’s but died before reaching adulthood. No mammals had ever been cloned. It fell to the Roslyn Institute near Edinburg; Scotland to clone first mammal in 1997. The present euphoria is all about that. The scientists at the Rosalyn Institute took cells from the udder of a female sheep and placed it in a culture of low concentration of nutrients. We know, cells divide and multiply; by this process the cells stopped dividing. They switched off their active genes and stopped multiplying. An unfertilised egg was taken from another female sheep. Its DNA was sucked out so that the egg was empty, then the cell taken from the first female sheep was placed in it with gentle push of electric pulses. This was now placed in the uterus of a female sheep, which gave birth to a sheep identical to the first one. Simple isn’t it. But the questions it raises are not simple.

SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD
Cloning has again raised questions of surrogate motherhood. Is xeroxing oneself proper? Will it produce better individuals? Who can clone? Will prostitutes be allowed to clone? Should gays be allowed? And we have had same sex marriages. Should they be permitted?

The dilemma of Surrogacy is not new. It was raised in 1979, the year the first test tube baby was born. Soon a committee chaired by Mary Warnock was appointed to look into the issues involved. Many of its recommendations were implemented by The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Not every one is happy with it. It is yet to be answered satisfactorily. Many find the idea of surrogate motherhood to be settle. Houses, rooms are taken on rent; but then will we permit wombs to be taken on rent?

SHOULD WE
Notwithstanding Howard Hughes’ In his Image: The Cloning of a Man2 , no human has been cloned as yet. At least there is no authentic proof. It has not happened since God performed that delicate surgery on Adams to create Eve. Well, if God could why can’t we.? May be precisely for that reason only can do it, we can’t. In fact it is the fear of the unknown. We might do something that we may have to repent for later. When will it come about? It is banned in England. If other countries do not ban it then do not encourage it either. Yet the first human clone may come about by the end of this century. And perfected as Arthur C. Clark says, in his science fiction ‘Imperial Earth’, in the early twenty first century:’ A sexual reproduction is not unknown. It does happen in nature; but only in the lower species. It does not occur in higher species. We have evolved from a sexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. There is no point in turning the clock back. We mix, we evolve, and otherwise stagnation, malfunction are the result.

ELIGIBILITY
The most troubling of all issues is who should be entitled to clone? What would be the criteria? Human body does not accept transplant of human organs from every one. Will a person, who needs human organs for a transplant, be entitled to clone. Surely his own body, his own carbon copy will be able to supply acceptable human organ.

Infertile couples who cannot even have test tube baby may be permitted. But then what about: unmarried couples, or common law Husbands and wives, or a single person? There is no prohibition for a single person to adopt. Who better to adopt than oneself - whom one can understand well.

Will we permit a prostitute to clone? Then will gay or lesbian couple be left behind? It was with this in mind that Section 13 (5) of The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in England provides, a woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father)

No two humans are the same. Clones will not be either. A carbon copy does not mean an exact replica, mentally or physically. Nurture does play an important role. Not only when child is in the womb but also when it is outside the womb. But the basic instinct will be the same. The world would be happy to have another Einstein But then what happens if he is Hitler or Jack the ripper!

'Cloning was neither good nor bad; only its purpose was important. And that purpose should not be one that was trivial or selfish’ (Imperial Earth; Arthur C. Clarke).

But there is no guarantee that cloning will not be trivial or selfish. One selfish clone may cost us heavily. The world that we know, as we understand, may have cloning for precisely those reasons - trivial or selfish.3

Should we ban human cloning? Fankestein was fiction. But the fears that it raised are real. Yet the world has progressed. Science has not stopped the world. It will not stop even if cloning is permitted. For if we do not permit it, surely it will flourish in ‘The Island of Dr. Moreau ’ (A book written by HG Wells).

1Shelly had earlier eloped in 1811 at the age of 19 with Harriet.

2In this book he has claimed to have made a human clone. This was latter found to be false.

3Sometimes I wish, I was wrong.