AALI’s Advocacy & Networking programme engages with key stakeholders, including civil society organizations, the media and government authorities, to further awareness and understanding of the law and press for state accountability for the realization of women’s human rights. AALI’s advocacy efforts include the development of a broad range of linkages, strategic alliances, and responses at several levels. Moreover, the Advocacy & Networking programme has played a critical role in clarifying the link between violence and women’s rights and raising the visibility of the right to choice issue among the state and media.
AALI’s Advocacy & Networking team engages with individuals and organizations at the grassroots while simultaneously seeking to build partnerships and influence actors operating within state, national, and international forums. In this way, in its advocacy and networking efforts AALI acts as a go-between for local organizations and individuals, which often lack the capacity to influence policy and decision-making at the governmental level. In addition, the Advocacy & Networking team organizes and supports media campaigns and negotiates with stakeholders for greater implementation of women’s human rights.
At the international level, AALI has carried out lobbying efforts for the effective development and implementation of human rights instruments in protecting women’s rights. To this end, AALI has formed part of the advocacy team for International Women’s Rights Action Watch – Asia Pacific, and in the past aided IWRAW-AP in drafting the Optional Protocols to CEDAW and ICESCR. AALI additionally completed a research report on the rights of women in relation to marriage for the years 1998 to 2003, carried out in conjunction with IWRAW-AP.
Statewide and locally, AALI has focused on advocacy with human rights institutions, the judiciary, and the police, often drafting likeminded organizations, the media, educational institutions, and professional lawyers to raise visibility for issues important to women. Such interventions occur on a continuing basis and form an integral part of AALI’s professional vision. The efforts of the Advocacy & Networking team have enabled AALI to collectively challenge the state and present the organization’s demands within an evidence-based rights framework.
Primary activities undertaken by the Advocacy & Networking programme include:
To contact the Advocacy and Networking team, please click here.
A girl who has attained the age of discretion and was on the verge of attaining majority and is capable of knowing what was good and what was bad for her, cannot be said to be a victim of inducement. … In such circumstances, desire of the girl/victim is required to be seen.
An act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the Respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 including monetary relief Under Section 20, Child Custody Under Section 21, Compensation Under Section 22 and interim or ex parte order Under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The core aspect of democracy is the freedom of an individual to be able to freely operate, within the framework of the laws enacted by the Parliament. The individual should be able to order his or her life any way he or she pleases, as long as it is not violative of the law or constitutes an infraction of any order or direction of a duly constituted court, tribunal or any statutory authority for that matter. Amongst the varied freedoms conferred on an individual (i.e., the citizen), is the right of free speech and expression, which necessarily includes the right to criticise and dissent. Criticism, by an individual, may not be palatable; even so, it cannot be muzzled. Many civil right activists believe that they have the right, as citizens, to bring to the notice of the State the incongruity in the developmental policies of the State. The State may not accept the views of the civil right activists, but that by itself, cannot be a good enough reason to do away with dissent.
It is well-settled law that a minor cannot be confined in Nari Niketan against her wishes. … In the case in hand, the question of the applicant being a minor is irrelevant as even a minor cannot be kept in protective home against her will.
On the first blush it may appear quite jarring to certain quarters of the society that by enacting the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the legislature has invested a ‘right of residence’ in favour of wives qua premises in which they or their husband admittedly have no right, title or interest and such premises are in fact owned by the relatives of the husband. …[T]he Act does not confer any title or proprietary rights in favour of the aggrieved person as misunderstood by most, but merely secures a ‘right of residence’ in the ‘shared household’. Section 17(2) clarifies that the aggrieved person may be evicted from the ‘shared household’ but only in accordance with the procedure established by law. The legislature has taken care to calibrate and balance the interests of the family members of the respondent.
We sometimes hear of “honour” killings of such persons who undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of their own free will. There is nothing honourable in such killings, and in fact they are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons who deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism.
We are of the opinion that the liberty to move, mix, mingle, talk, share through company cannot be substantially curtailed and the action taken was totally violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. …[W]e are of the opinion that the action of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not only arbitrary but there was total deprivation of the personal liberty of the petitioner, which was issued without any authority of law.
Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and casts scars forever … The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded desired result. … Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically.
Before I attended AALI’s trainings on human rights and law, whenever I visited the police station, I used to provide a written complaint to the officers unaware that merely submitting an application is not considered a FIR. Even though I did case work, I never had faith in the police as I got no relief. Then I learnt there is a standard process to lodge an FIR. A number is issued for instance and obtaining a free copy of the FIR is a legal right of the informant. Now when I do casework, I ensure that the complaint gets registered officially and we receive a copy of it. I also now ensure that whenever I visit the police station, it is always entered in the station’s “Visitor Register”, specially in cases where the police do not cooperate in filing a FIR as per her duty.
Testimonial content here.