Where army is police and police is goons

BHRPC submits cases of extra-judicial executions in Barak valley to the UN Special Rapporteur

Guwahati, 28 March: “Ours is a case of doing works of police by the army and using the regular state police by ruling politicians as their personal army” said Waliullah Ahmed Laskar during his oral presentation at the North Eastern regional briefing to the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions held today here at Ashoka Brahmaputra hotel. Mr. Laskar, director of law and legal affairs of the Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC) added, “although there are no terrorist activities and any home grown insurgent groups in Barak valley that can pose a threat to the national integrity and security the Armed Forces (Special Power) Act, 1958 is in force in the valley along with the rest of Assam and parts of some other North East Indian states and Jammu and Kashmir. The Act empowers the army personnel to use lethal force against civilians even to the causing of death on mere suspicion that they may act in breach of any law or any order along with the power to enter into any doweling places by breaking their entrance and search and seize anything without warrant and arrest any person without warrant and keep the arrestees in custody for unspecified times without charge. The AFSPA also places the army above the law, constitution and judiciary for acts claimed to be done under the Act by barring institution of prosecution, suits or any judicial procedure in any court inIndia.” He further added that the state police also operate under a similar draconian law called the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955 and showed how the Assam Police Act, 2007 is a fraud on the people as well as on the Supreme Court of India in so far as it claims to conform with requirements of directives issued by the supreme court in Prakash Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others.

He also submitted a report to the special rapporteur professor Christof Heyns, who is on a fact-finding mission inIndiafrom 19 March to 30 March, containing cases of extra-judicial or arbitrary killing of innocent people both by the state police and armed forces of the central government. Cases that were submitted include 1. killing of one Islamul Hoque Choudhury (of Sonai, Cachar) by police because he became to threat to them as he witnessed how they tortured another person to death, 2 extra-judicial killing of Hashmat Ali (Kalain, Cachar) by police after being bribed by another person to teach him a lesson, 3. death of Motahir Ali (Kalain, Cachar) caused by torture in police custody as his family could not pay the amount of bribe demanded by the police for his release, 4. death of Mr. Moyfor Raja (Katlicherra, Hailakandi) in police custody due to torture, 5. fake encounter killing of Jamir Uddin (Katlicherra, Hailakandi) by central reserve police force personnel, 6. death of Iskandar Ali (Dholai, Cachar) caused by indiscriminate firing of  CRF personnel at a market place, 7. killing of a car driver by police apparently for speeding and 8. extra-judicial execution of Iqbal Hussain Laskar (Algapur, Hailakandi) by army after they picked him up and some other cases.

The BHRPC urged the special rapporteur to recommend to the authorities inIndiato 1. to repeal the Armed Forces (Special Power) Act, 1958; 2. to repeal the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955; 3. to make the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 compatible with international human rights standards by amending the Act; 4. to bring the Assam Police Act, 2007 in conformity with the directives of the Supreme Court of India through amendment; 5. to amend the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to extend the jurisdiction of both the state and national human rights commissions to conduct independent inquiries into cases of alleged human rights violations by the armed forces and to lengthen the limitation period of one year to five years; 6. to constitute an independent commission headed by a retired chief justice of a high court or the supreme eligible to be appointed as the chief justice of India with adequate numbers of members from the civil society to conduct time-bound inquiries into all allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions leading to the initiation of prosecution and provision of adequate reparation; 7. to constitute special courts to conduct trial of all cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions under direct monitoring of the Supreme Court of India; and others.

At the meet presided over by Justice W A Shishak, former chief justice of the Chhattisgarh high court, Mr Babloo Loitongbam of Human Rights Alert (Manipur), Ms. Bubumoni Goswami, chairperson of the Manabadhikar Sangram Samiti (MASS, Assam), Ms Rosanna Lyngdoh of the Impulse NGO Network (Mehgalaya), Taring Mama of the Association for Civil Rights (Arunachal Pradesh), Neingulo Krome of the Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights (Nagaland), Anthony Debbarma of the Borok Peoples Human Rights Organisation (Tripura) and others also made both oral and written submissions.

The special rapporteur who is accompanied by the UN human rights officer Irina Tabirta and other staff said in his concluding remark that he was thankful to the government of India for extending invitation to his mandate to the country and he assured the participants that he would take up the issues raised here with the government of India and is going to have a press conference in Delhi on 30 March where he would share his preliminary recommendations. He is expected to submit his report on the situation of extra-judicial execution inIndiato the UN human rights council and the General Assembly of the UN at the end of this year. Neharul Ahmed Mazumder, secretary general of the BHRPC stated this in a release to media

Read the full submission of the BHRPC to the UN Special Rapporteur on Summary Execution

AFSPA: Legal terror

The non-state armed group (insurgents, extremists or terrorists, whatever you may call them) need to be dealt with and contained because they violate rights of the people to live peacefully, they try to impose their will on the people and the state unlawfully and violently trampling the constitutionalism and the rule of law that are sine qua non for civilised human existence. It is the mandate of the state to maintain the reign of law and constitution and the writ of the government established by law along with ensuring security and safety of the person and property of the citizens. But when the state through its security forces and law enforcement agencies commits more atrocious acts than the acts which it professes it is fighting the difference between the non-state terrorists and the state gets blurred. 

The armed forces of India when operate under the Armed Forces (Special Power) Act, 1958 in North East India or in Jammu and Kashmir (under J&K version) do not act for enforcement of the constitution and the law of the land or for protection of the life and property of the citizens. Because, they operate outside the constitutional and legal system of the land. The AFSPA places them above the constitution, law and human rights obligations. The AFSPA gives them the power to commit atrocities and wreak terror on the citizens which they are supposed to combat and prevent and protect the citizens from, with additional guarantee of immunity from any accountability.The mischief that is addressed in the statute is doubled by its provisions. To purportedly prevent the people from the terror of certain armed groups the sate itself has unleashed its unmatched terror upon the very people under the AFSPA. And it is not only in law but very much in practice.

The inevitable conclusion is that this piece of legislation is not meant for protection of the people and the democratic way of life because it kills both of them. This Act serves to protect the land and its resources from the people who live there. This is in tune with the declaration made by then prime minister Indira Gandhi during the unrest in Mozoram in 1980s that she did not care for the people but the land and cleared the land by bombing from the air.

IS BARAK VALLEY MORE INSURGENCY-AFFECTED THAN JAMMU AND KASHMIR?

Waliullah Ahmed Laskar

Fasting and sit-in demonstration in front of
administrative  headquarters of Cachar at Silchar,
Assam demanding scraping of AFSPA
on 5th November, 2011 

Barak valley, the southern part of Assam comprising of Cachar, Hailakandi and Karimganj districts has also been declared as "disturbed area" under the anti-justice draconian piece of legislation titled the Armed Forces (Special Power) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) and as a result the members of the armed forces have been given the power to use lethal force against civilians even to the causing of death on mere suspicion that they may act in breach of any law or any order along with the power to enter into any doweling places by breaking their entrance and search and seize anything without warrant and arrest any person without warrant and keep the arrestees in custody for unspecified times without charge in the valley along with the rest of Assam and parts of some other North East Indian states and Jammu and Kashmir. AFSPA also places the army above the law, constitution and judiciary for acts claimed to be done under the Act by barring institution of prosecution, suits or any judicial procedure in any court in India. The Act is in force in parts of North East India since 1958 and in Jammu and Kshmir since 1990.

Many say AFSPA is not an instrument of law and order; rather it is a declaration of war by India against some sections of its own people. The government of India and now particularly the army say that this empowerment to kill and torture the civilians and blanket immunity is needed to protect national integrity and national security by fighting insurgents and rebels. The government of India said that it was an extra-ordinary measure to meet an extra-ordinary situation and hence it was temporary. But, after 53 years it still continues in North East and it is in force in Jammu and Kashmir for 21 years. Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare recently remarked that if we were not able to lift AFSPA from some parts then what we were doing these 20 years. He said it while backing Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's move to lift the Act from some parts of his state.

Barak valley is in a way a separate unit in North East India geographically, ethnically, culturally and linguistically. More than 80% people are Bengali and Hindi speaking Hindus and Muslims. People of the rest of North East India belonging to various tribes do not readily accept people of Barak valley as their own. Simply because ethnically, linguistically and culturally the people of Barak valley are more like people of the rest of India. For law and order and other related purposes it can also be treated as a unit.

Nor there has ever been any armed rebellions or insurgencies in Barak valley against the state of India or any governments in India established by law since independence, neither any armed rebel or insurgent organisations ever formed and worked in the valley for its "independence from India" or separate statehood within India.

I am not denying the existence of one or two small organised groups of criminals in the valley. But the general public view them as groups of mercenaries nurtured by politicians to use them against their opponents and social activists who raise voice against corruption and oppression of the people by those politicians. This is a pure law and order problem and does not in any way amount to public disorder or a condition that is envisaged in the Naga Peoples' Movement for Human Rights case by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court envisaged a condition of the disturbance of public order which falls short of the "armed rebellion" within the meaning of Article 352 of the Constitution of India calling for proclamation of emergency but exceeds the limit "law and order" problem. There has never been such disturbance of public order in Barak valley. the valley was once dubbed by Indira Gandhi, a former prime minister of India, "Island of  Peace".

Investigations by human rights groups have also shown that these groups have some sort of nexus with para-military and the army at some level. But if asked the governments and the army will show you some cases where they nabbed some people with illegal fire arms and explosives or where they killed some alleged insurgents or terrorists in encounters. But investigations by human rights groups in some of such cases also show that most of these cases are false and the alleged insurgents or terrorists are innocent victims. These investigations reveal that in most of the cases politicians use the army or paramilitary forces to eliminate their opponents or inconvenient social activists or to teach them some lessons. There came out some cases where businessmen or otherwise wealthy and influential people also use the forces like politicians against their rivals. The forces teach the intended people by raiding their houses mid-night, mercilessly beating up everybody in the raided house including aged persons, pregnant women and children and in some cases they also molest and rape minor and teenage girls, by arresting and detaining the intended persons for days in their custody where they subject such people to torture and other cruel treatment including electric shocks and water boarding etc, some succumb to these treatment and some are framed with false charges of keeping firearms and explosives illegally or letter or letter head of some little known armed outfit which are planted by the raiding forces before or at the time of raid and then discovered by them. This is in addition to the fake encounter killings. The forces do it for a few thousands of bucks because it also gives them chances of earning accolades, medals and promotions as well as it justifies continued militarization of policing and governance through the AFSPA.

Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah has been talking of de-notifying some areas of the state which was notified as disturbed areas under the Act (known as withdrawal or lifting AFSPA) for some days. He is backed by his father and Union Minister Faruk Abdullah, Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare Gulam Nabi Azad and most importantly by Union Minister for Home Affairs P Chidambaram, although the proposal is opposed by the army and Union Defence Ministry. But, nobody ever talked of lifting AFSPA from Barak valley. IS BARAK VALLEY MORE INSURGENCY-AFFECTED THAN JAMMU AND KASHMIR?

(There are so many other reasons of not only lifting AFSPA from certain areas but also entirely deleting the law from the statute book, which I discussed elsewhere)

Some of the reasons why AFSPA must go

Waliulah Ahmed Laskar

 Irom Sharmila Chanu (also known as the Iron Lady of Manipur) is on hunger strike for 11 years since 5 November, 2000 in demand of the repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Power) Act, 1958 which is in force in most area of the North East Indian states including all the districts of Assam and a similar version of the law is in force in Jammu and Kashmir since 1990. Government of India has enforced virtual emergency for more than 5 decades in North East under the Act derogating basic human rights to life and personal liberty of the citizens living in the AFSPA-affected areas. After 11 years of fast by a lady sacrificing her life, agitation by civil society and calls from international forums the Government still have not repealed the Act.

Here are a few reasons why I think AFSPA must go:

1. A draconian law: The AFSPA is a piece of colonial legislation that gives the armed forces of India unfettered power: (i) to use lethal force on civilians even to the extent of causing death on mere suspicion that they may cause breach of any law or order, (ii) to search any dwelling places by breaking them on mere suspicion without warrant and (ii) to arrest people without warrant and to keep them in custody for unspecified time and more importantly the Act also bars the judiciary to question any acts of the armed forces operating under the Act in areas declared disturbed under the Act.

2. Its continuance is based on lie: The Government of India took the plea that it is a temporary measure for meeting an extra-ordinary situation and it would be withdrawn as soon as possible. This plea was taken in parliament when the Act was being passed, in the Supreme Court in the Naga People s Human Rights Movement case in 1997 and in international forums including the United Nations Human Rights Committee. It is now 53 years in North East and 21 years in J & K. If a measure for this length of time is temporary than what is permanent?  

3. The provisions of the Act militate against the purpose of the enactment: The non-state armed groups (insurgents, extremists or terrorists, whatever you may call them) need to be dealt with and contained because they violate rights of the people to live peacefully, they try to impose their will on the people and the state unlawfully and violently trampling the constitutionalism and the rule of law that are sine qua non for civilised human existence. It is the mandate of the state to maintain the reign of law and constitution and the writ of the government established by law along with ensuring security and safety of the person and property of the citizens. But when the state through its security forces and law enforcement agencies commits more atrocious acts than the acts which it professes it is fighting the difference between the non-state terrorists and the state gets blurred.
   
   The armed forces of India when operate under the AFSPA do not act for enforcement of the constitution and the law of the land or for protection of the life and property of the citizens. Because, they operate outside the constitutional and legal system of the land. The AFSPA places them above the constitution, law and human rights obligations. The AFSPA gives them the power to commit atrocities and wreak terror on the citizens which they are supposed to combat and prevent and protect the citizens from, with additional guarantee of immunity from any accountability. The mischief that is addressed in the statute is doubled by its provisions. To purportedly prevent the people from the terror of certain armed groups the sate itself has unleashed its unmatched terror upon the very people under the AFSPA. And it is not only in law but very much in practice.

4. Problematic political premise: The political premise of the Act appears to be very problematic in the sense that it seeks in essence to impose “Indian-ness” through violence on some of the people of the country who are deemed not to be adequately “Indian”. This is apparent from the facts that despite naxalism admittedly being the biggest threat to the national security the Act is not extended to the naxal affected central India[1].  Rather, it is stated that the responsibility to deal with such problems rests with the state governments, which is very true. This discriminatory attidute can not be explained in any way other than the racial reading of the situation and believe in fascist violence.[2] The “Indian-ness” as it was understood by our freedom fighters and for which they embraced martyrdom is not one which would needed to be or which could be imposed through violence.

5. A fraud on the constitution: The Act provides more than emergency powers to the armed forces fraudulently bypassing the provisions of the constitution of parliamentary oversight over the exercise of such powers. The constitution also imposes duties upon the Union Government to perform its obligations under the international treatises. India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR) which provides for derogations[3] of some the rights in times of emergency declared legally, which are nonetheless derogated by the Act without such declaration. It is to be noted that the Supreme Court did not examined the compatibility of the Act with the international human rights laws in the Naga People s Movement for Human Rights.

6. The law lacks legality: Both the procedural and substantial requirements of legality are conspicuous by their absence in this Act of the parliament. On the procedural level it is to be noted that the Act came not only as a product of a “decision” by the political executive (i.e., as an ordinance on 22nd May, 1958) but also subsequently escaped more or less unscathed from the “legislative oversight function” of a democratically constituted Parliament on 18 August, 1958. And finally, rather than returning the legislation to the Parliament again for reconsideration, the President readily gave his assent on the legislation, thus making it into a law on 11 September, 1958. On the substantial level the Act does not pass the test of precise definition as its terms are too vague and it also provides powers/measures disproportionate to the mischief it is intended to address.

7. Arbitrary application: Not only the framing of the Act and its provisions are arbitrary but also the application of the Act by declaring certain areas as disturbed is also arbitrary inasmuch as the declaration of areas which are not disturbed in the sense in which the term is contemplated in the Act. For example, the southern part of Assam comprising of the districts of Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi tht is known as Barak valley is declared as disturbed area under the Act which can not be said disturbed in any meaning of the word. There has never been any insurgency in the area. And the former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi proudly declared it as Valley of Peace admitting the fact.

8. Recommendations of the government committees: Every government committee which examined the Act opined against its continuity in the present form including the Administrative Reforms Committee headed by Mr. Birappa Moily. Most importantly, the Committee to Review the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 chaired by Justice Jeevan Reddy unambiguously recommended total repeal of the Act.

9. Militarisation of democracy: The ethos and practices inaugurated, nurtured and sustained by the Act has led to critical erosion of normative (norms) and institutional mechanisms of a civilized democratic life which are critically manifest as (a) the near collapse of Criminal Justice System and (b) culture of impunity of unbridled violence in peoples life. The mockery of democracy is such that it can be termed as democracy at gun point.

10. Traumatised Society: Actions taken under the Act caused hundreds of extra-judicial killings, rapes, torture, enforced disappearances forcing the people to live an uncertain terror-striken life bereft of human dignity. It has made the whole society mentally sick and traumatized.

And such many other reasons.

---

[1] However, it should be more than clear that I am not seeking extension of the AFSPA to any other parts of the country since I think it must be repealed completely. There are many other draconian pieces of legislation in force in naxal affected areas, though not of the nature of AFSPA, such as the Chhattishgarh Public Security Act etc. which also should be repealed. Rebelion in Central India is largely due to the deprivation, exploitation and oppression of the tribal people by the rulers and wealthy class. These are basically socio-economic and political problems and must be solved by democratic and peaceful political means. 

[2] The Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh himself stated more than once that the biggest threat to the national security is from the left-wing extremism of the Central India. Union Minister for Home Affairs Mr. P Chidambaram calling naxalism bigger challenge than terrorism and insurgency stated that "(t)he most violent movement in India is not terrorism or insurgency but Left-wing extremism" and added that "[t]he burden of the governance cannot be shifted from the state governments to the central government....in the ultimate analysis, the responsibility of governance in the Left-wing extremism affected districts must rest with the states". (Naxalism is a bigger challenge than terrorism - Chidambaram, Time of India, page no 11, dated 14 September, 2011).

[3] Article 4: 1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

AFSPA: A blotch on democracy in India

The Asian Human Rights Commission, REDRESS Trust UK, and Human Rights Alert, Manipur, India jointly authored and published a report on the Armed Forces (Special Power) Act, 1958 titled: The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 in Manipur and other States of the Northeast of India: Sanctioning repression in violation of India’s human rights obligations on 18 August, 2011.

In a statement jointly issued issued on 18 August, 2011 by AHRC, REDRESS and HRA it is claimed that a draconian legislation like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 and the concept of democracy do not go together. While democracy nurture values of justice, equality and fraternity, laws like the AFSPA are synonymous with injustice, discrimination and hatred. A report that analyses the legislation’s complete incompatibility with India’s domestic and international human rights obligations is released today in India, Hong Kong and London. Human Rights Alert, a human rights organisation working in Manipur, India; REDRESS Trust, a human rights group based in London, UK; and the AHRC, a regional human rights body based in Hong Kong have jointly authored the report.

It is also stated that the report while analysing the Act draws extensively upon international and domestic human rights jurisprudence, that India is mandated to follow. The report exposes the visibly different standards even the Supreme Court of India has adopted while deciding the constitutionality and thus the compatibility of the law with India’s international and domestic human rights obligations. Despite repeated calls to repeal the law immediately by government-sponsored Committees that have studied the law, the Government of India is yet to take any steps in that direction. International human rights bodies like the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Racial Discrimination have expressed concern about the law and its implementation in India, suggesting that the law should be repealed.

The law has attracted, repeatedly, wide-ranging criticisms from jurists, human rights activists, and even politicians within India and abroad. Organisations like the AHRC and Human Rights Alert have documented more than two hundred cases, over the past eight years, where the state agencies operating under the statutory impunity provided by the Act has committed serious human rights violations in states like Manipur. Most of these cases has been reported by the AHRC through its Urgent Appeals Programme and brought to the attention of authorities in India and within the United Nations. Yet, so far not a single military or police officer has been prosecuted for the human rights abuses they have committed under the cover of impunity provided by this law.

The report also places emphasis upon the unique form of protest by Ms. Irom Chanu Sharmila, through her decade-long hunger strike, which has been largely ignored by the national media in India.

The report could be downloaded here.

For comments on the report you may contact:
 

1. Mr. Babloo Loitongbom
Human Rights Alert
Manipur, India
Tel: + 91 385 2448159

2. Mr. Serge Golubok
REDRESS
London, UK
Tel: + 44 20 7793 1777

3. Mr. Bijo Francis
AHRC
Hong Kong
Tel: + 852 2698 6339

BHRPC demands repeal of AFSPA

BHRPC demands repeal of AFSPA

:

From our Staff Reporter, The Sentinel

SILCHAR, June 28: The Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRCE) has sought intervention of the Prime Minister for repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 and other laws providing impunity, including sections 45 and 197 of the CrPC. The BHRPC has also demanded for amendment to the Human Rights Protection Act, 1993 to make its recommendations mandatory and repeal the Section 19 of the Act in order to bring the armed forces under the purview of the NHRC.

On the occasion of International anti-Torture Day, the BHRPC had written a letter to the Prime Minister of India reiterating its conviction that torture is a deliberate cruelty and a crude and ancient tool of political oppression.

"It is commonly used to terrorize people or to wring confessions out of suspected criminals who may or may not be guilty. It is the classic short-cut for a lazy or incompetent investigator," the BHRPC told the Prime Minister in its letter.

The letter stated, torture destroys the physical and mental integrity of the victim to its core. It also dehumanizes the performer and does irreparable damage to men, women and children, families and communities. It prevents societies from nurturing the human and economic development that is a right for all people.

It is also prohibited in India mainly by Article 21 of the Constitution, Section 330 and 331 of the Indian Panel Code (IPC), 1860 and other laws and also strongly condemned by the Supreme Court of India and High Courts in a number of landmark cases like D K BasuVs State of West Bengal.

The laws that virtually make confession to a police officer inadmissible as a piece of evidence in a court of law such as Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, Section 25, 26, and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161,162, 163, and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 are rooted in the apprehension that police may subject the accused to torture to extract confession. It is a constitutional and statutory recognition that police may resort to torture and ill treatment, BHRPC stated in the letter to the Prime Minister.

The constitutional and statutory concern and mistrust of its own police and security forces is based on the experiences of decades and find strong echo in judicial pronouncement. In Niranjan Singh vs Prabhakar Rajaram (AIR1980 SC 785) the Supreme Court emphatically observed that, "The police instead of being a protector of law, have become engineer of terror and panic putting people into fear."

BHRPC is aware that there is no accurate data on the use of torture in India since the Government does not have an unambiguous and strong policy against torture. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) gathers figures on custodial deaths. But only a limited number of cases of torture results in death. Moreover, cause of death in custody may not always be torture.BHRPC relies on the Human rights groups with great credentials who maintain that torture is integral to counter-insurgency operations conducted by the military. Torture is used routinely in police custody. Based on data provided by the NHRC the Asian centre for Human Rights states in its report titled ‘Torture in India 2008: A state of denial’ that about 1,500 persons die in custody of the state each year.

Only four police personnel were convicted in 2004 and three in 2005. In 2004, 37 personnel were charge sheeted and 25 personnel were charge-sheeted in 2005 for custodial death and other criminal offences. Impunity for this custodial crimes stands exposed from the accepted number of the custodial deaths, compensation granted by the NHRC and courts based on the evidence, and the lake of corresponding prosecution of the guilty law enforcement personnel.

BHRPC claims that the government of India practices double standard regarding torture and argued that there are laws in India which encourage, condone torture and provide immunity to the torturer. Section 4 (a) of the Armed Forces (Special Power) Act,1958 empowers any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or any other person of equivalent rank in the armed force to ‘use force even to the causing of death’ against any person and section 6 ensures immunity of such torturer. Sections 45 and 197 of CRPC also guarantee such impunity.