Indian courts might have been able to solve everything from rampaging monkeys in Delhi’s streets to crime in politics, but it has thrown its hands up at the daunting task of having to stop Indian men from urinating all over the place.
This frank admission comes in the form of an order in response to a writ petition in the Delhi High Court about offended sentiments. A little while ago, creative Indians — concerned about the sheer volume of urine that makes its way onto walls in this country — began to put photos of gods and goddesses on those walls to stop men answering nature’s call wherever they please.
Apparently, this hasn’t worked. "In spite thereof," the court order says, "the photographs evidence [show] that the pressure on the bladder is blatantly relieved by virtually peeing on the photographs of one's God."
Manoj Sharma, the petitioner whose sentiments had been hurt, decided to ask the court to get housing complexes and residents to stop putting photos of deities on walls — which it concluded it simply could not do. Furthermore, the bench of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Deepa Sharma, decided the problem lay not with the people putting the photos of gods up but with the zipper-happy men. The order then goes on to consider how to fix this:
"The writ petition raises an issue which this Court, if at all it can solve could do so in a clumsy way," the order said, adding that the court cannot order for every man who walks out of his house to ensure that his "zip" be "locked."
Having made its way through the potential fixes and concluded none of them are feasible, the court admits defeat at the hands of those who pull out their privates in public. Dismissing the order, the bench insists this is a serious issue but it simply doesn’t have a way to address it.
"Nobody can prevent a person from affixing photographs of deities on the walls of his house or on the walls of a Group Housing Complex," it said. "The direction sought to be issued against the residents that photographs of Gods be directed to be removed cannot be issued by us. The menace of urinating in public has to be solved elsewhere."
Read the full order below:
1. The writ petition raises an issue which this Court, if at all it can solve could do so in a clumsy way. The petitioner has filed photographs showing that residents of buildings and especially Group Housing Complex, fed up with the Indian habit of relieving the pressure on the bladder by unzipping and peeing on the first wall seen by the person is sought to be curtailed, if not at all prohibited, by affixing photographs deities on the walls. The hope would be that man, the greatest creation of the infinite artist, would not dare his privies in front of his lord and would not urinate on the road.
2. In spite thereof, the photographs evidence that the pressure on the bladder is blatantly relieved by virtually peeing on the photographs of once God.
3. Not only that the photographs at page 26 would reveal that to shame the offender the owners of the complex have written graffiti that "Look here a dog and a donkey is peeing". In spite thereof, a man is seen peeing on the wall.
4. Now, nobody can prevent a person from affixing photographs of deities on the walls of his house or on the walls of a Group Housing Complex. The direction sought to be issued against the residents that photographs of Gods be directed to be removed cannot be issued by us. The menace of urinating in public has to be solved elsewhere.
5. Surely this Court cannot makes a man walks out of his house his zip should be locked.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
This frank admission comes in the form of an order in response to a writ petition in the Delhi High Court about offended sentiments. A little while ago, creative Indians — concerned about the sheer volume of urine that makes its way onto walls in this country — began to put photos of gods and goddesses on those walls to stop men answering nature’s call wherever they please.
Apparently, this hasn’t worked. "In spite thereof," the court order says, "the photographs evidence [show] that the pressure on the bladder is blatantly relieved by virtually peeing on the photographs of one's God."
Manoj Sharma, the petitioner whose sentiments had been hurt, decided to ask the court to get housing complexes and residents to stop putting photos of deities on walls — which it concluded it simply could not do. Furthermore, the bench of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Deepa Sharma, decided the problem lay not with the people putting the photos of gods up but with the zipper-happy men. The order then goes on to consider how to fix this:
"The writ petition raises an issue which this Court, if at all it can solve could do so in a clumsy way," the order said, adding that the court cannot order for every man who walks out of his house to ensure that his "zip" be "locked."
Having made its way through the potential fixes and concluded none of them are feasible, the court admits defeat at the hands of those who pull out their privates in public. Dismissing the order, the bench insists this is a serious issue but it simply doesn’t have a way to address it.
"Nobody can prevent a person from affixing photographs of deities on the walls of his house or on the walls of a Group Housing Complex," it said. "The direction sought to be issued against the residents that photographs of Gods be directed to be removed cannot be issued by us. The menace of urinating in public has to be solved elsewhere."
Read the full order below:
1. The writ petition raises an issue which this Court, if at all it can solve could do so in a clumsy way. The petitioner has filed photographs showing that residents of buildings and especially Group Housing Complex, fed up with the Indian habit of relieving the pressure on the bladder by unzipping and peeing on the first wall seen by the person is sought to be curtailed, if not at all prohibited, by affixing photographs deities on the walls. The hope would be that man, the greatest creation of the infinite artist, would not dare his privies in front of his lord and would not urinate on the road.
2. In spite thereof, the photographs evidence that the pressure on the bladder is blatantly relieved by virtually peeing on the photographs of once God.
3. Not only that the photographs at page 26 would reveal that to shame the offender the owners of the complex have written graffiti that "Look here a dog and a donkey is peeing". In spite thereof, a man is seen peeing on the wall.
4. Now, nobody can prevent a person from affixing photographs of deities on the walls of his house or on the walls of a Group Housing Complex. The direction sought to be issued against the residents that photographs of Gods be directed to be removed cannot be issued by us. The menace of urinating in public has to be solved elsewhere.
5. Surely this Court cannot makes a man walks out of his house his zip should be locked.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of.
