Bigamy offence comes within the meaning of moral turpitude

More so, when he became the member - he accepted to go by the conduct specified by the body.

Let me comment on this.  What I am saying is the professional body has no business to discipline on the issues of moral conduct.  Its job is to ensure that he puts the skill imparted to him the best way possible for the cause of creation of wealth.  Whether he accepted or not is not the issue.  The issue is the body should not be allowed to do moral policing on him because there is no definition of morality.

Courts for instance accept live in relationships.  Society does not accept it yet.  If you go to villages where 70 percent of our population lives, they will not accept that conduct as anything that befits into the framework of "morality".  If you conduct a survey you will know that they will call it "moral turpitude" on the part of both man and woman. What is morality to courts may not be morality to society.   Courts also accept consensual s*x between male and female.  Even that will not be acceptable to society there in villages.  What is morality to you is not morality to me.  What is morality to courts is not morality to villages.  That being the case how do you define what is "moral turpitude"?

Why don't courts say, livein relationship is a moral turpitude?  Why don't courts say consensual s*x between two adults is a moral turpitude?  If an employer can accept an employee in live in relationship and an employee who had consensual s*x with a hundred females what business he has to deny someone who indulged in bigamy and what business the courts have to call it moral turpitude while declaring that consensual s*x and live in relationships are not acts of moral turpitude?

It is very simple to understand.  Did the professional body called ICAI taught Vedas and Upanishads to him so that it has control over his moral conduct?  It is a professional body imparting professional education aimed at contributing to the creation of wealth.  It has not imparted any moral education to him to exercise control over his moral conduct..  Hence it has no business to worry about his moral conduct. 

This is purely Talibanization of Education and Professionalism.  We are not running Madrsas.  These are professional bodies aimed at creating skillful individuals who are supposed to contribute to creation of wealth of nation.

u dnt understand what is being told to u ..

1. If you are not sure what you are trying to convey OR if you do not have any other point to put forward then please do not bubble on anyother person's response; Better thing for you is to keep quite. It's not me who has not gone through the case details. First go through the case details (read from top-to-bottom, line-by-line) and then start reading "yours" as well as "mine" comments to logically conclude, who is not clear here. Bringing non-related case details does not make any sense to me. This case is of three words - "Mortal Turpitude", "Bigamy" and "Professional Body". If you are a lawyer then it's really hard for me to digest the fact that how can you bring non-related case details in a realtime case. If you were doing this in court maybe judge would have explained you better i.e. "what to say and what not to say".

and jumping on comments shared with others.

2. Not too sure what you are trying to say here. Who is "others"? Chandrashekar?

DIMWITTED

3. Well, I don't want to pass comment on this as I know, a kid learns the thing mostly from his/her parents.

Mango

A person before doing a crime shld think twice, thrice or may be 100 times..there are consequences and he has to face it.

In legal parlance this is called deterrant.  Employer creates a rule book so that his employees deter from indulging in acts of moral turpitude.  Employee fears that if he commits an offence he may be punished by courts and imprisoned and he may lose his job even.  I am saying, the fear that he may be imprisoned is deterrant enough.  The deterrant imposed by Employer is unnecessary. 

You see, when a person is stripped of his professional qualification like this or employer dismisses him for an act of moral turpitude, he has ways to live.  He can labor or do business.  Imagine he does business.  He creates a big empire.  Like Ambani or Tata.  He becomes an employer.  He employs HR professionals who create a rule book of Conduct rules and Discipline and Appeal Regulations for employees of his companies.  For that matter any employer would have these rule books prepared for his employees. 

Then the question is, what if the employer is imprisoned for bigamy?  How does this moral turpitude affect him?  If employee commits an act of bigamy the employer has right to throw him away saying my rule book does not accept someone who indulged in act of moral turpitude.  If employer himself commits the offence involving moral turpitude what will be the consequence?  To put it other way, if Mukesh Ambani is imprisoned for the offence of bigamy what happens to his position in Companies that he owns?  Who can disturb it?

Does it mean the businessmen who are owners of firms and companies are beyond ambit of punishment meted out under the garb of "moral turpitude"?  If that is the case whether it stands the test of Article 14 of Constitution.  As a citizen can you accept that the rule books say one thing for employees and set different standards for employers?

if ur classifying BIGAMY as a mere matrimonial dispute, with that logic - i asked u how u want to classify a dowry death as?

One should NOT forget "how" the events has been taken place. It started with a matrimonial dispute which later-on converted into a bigamy case. Root cause should be ignored while taking the final decision. If someone says forget how it started and just remember that it happend then it looks completely stupid. I truly believe that the reason for mentioning this at "first" place is to logically conclude that it was merely a matrimonial dispute not more than that. I hope you are not expecting that the reason for giving this info at "first" place is to start describing the case!

(b) In the year 1984 matrimonial dispute arose between the appellant and his wife, which resulted in granting of divorce decree by the first Additional Family Court, Chennai on 13.11.2003, and the said divorce decree was confirmed by this Court in C.M.A.No.816 of 2005, judgment dated 7.9.2007.

(c) Before the said divorce decree was passed by the Family Court, the appellant’s estranged wife filed a complaint in the year 1990 before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, under section 494 IPC alleging bigamy. The learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, tried the said complaint in C.C.No.8575 of 1990 and convicted the appellant and imposed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year by judgment dated 10.5.1999.

"Dowry Death" - Dowry death is a heinous crime and should be classified according to the law defined for the this BUT again, this is NOT a case of dowry death case and should be excluded from this.

i wrote to chandrasekhar couple of times about his comment on Straus Kahn which he conveniently decided nt to response. again u missed the point why i was asking about this particular gentleman. in previous post, i asked him about Clinton, and chandrasekhar unabashedly made a comment that being a politician he is supposed to follow conduct, bt not as a professional.

Quite obviously, a lawyer who has head over his shoulder would NOT response to a "novice" question like you asked i.e. where one is trying to pull a different country, different background case into the main case.

Anyway, it does NOT make any sense to me to talk to you on this matter now. I would like to see a professional response from some professional lawyer to understand the more shortcoming of this case than arguing on a completely different matter. 

Sorry dude, I canNOT beat a ignorant like you in the arguments... :o)

Mango

@ chandrasekhar.7203@ gmail.com ji

my application u/s 11 HMA r/w sec. 5 (i) allowed.

marriage declared null and void.

but I didnt win.

infact i lost,

inspite of getting married, i do not have a wife !

POOR ME !

Amit, All the best for next innings, hope i do get a judgement like yours

Mani