Random musings and observations about the state of human rights and human rights laws, democracy, justice, secularism, peace and, off course, the life and all its paraphernalia with particular reference to Barak valley.
Supreme Court Guidelines regarding arrests of the accused by the police in cases punishable with 7 years imprisonment or less issued Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014):
1.All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;
2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;
5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.
9. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.
10. We direct that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Chief Secretaries as also the Director Generals of Police of all the State Governments and the Union Territories and the Registrar General of all the High Courts for onward transmission and ensuring its compliance.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his concerns about the
image of police in public mind. He said the mental image that people
have with regard to police has to change. It is good that he noticed it
and thought something was needed to be done about it. But unfortunately
his diagnosis and prescription were utterly wrong. He thought it was the
negative portrayal of police in Bollywood cinemas which was responsible
for distrust of people in the law-enforcement forces. The medicine, according to him, is wearing make-ups. He said,
“Every police thana (police station) should have a website to propagate
good deeds done by the force. Each thana should upload one positive
story a week, which shows the good work done by them,” said the PM.
It is not surprising that he is asking for image make-over by masks and
make-ups after the huge success of the art in his own case.
The root of the ills that plague policing in India lies deep in
history. The police force in India was set up after 1857 war of
independence. The constituting statute was passed in 1861 which is still
in force and governs policing as mother statute of all other police
Acts. The force was conceptualised by the servants of the Queen as
protectors of the interest of Her Highness in her Indian colonies and to
repress people and their voices. True to their founding objectives the
force served the Queen well during her regime and after that her
successors even after independence.
Although there are legal
protection for the police in Police Acts as well as in the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, cases of police atrocities started coming up to
the High Courts and the Supreme Court when after independence democracy
started to percolate and deepen in remote towns and rural India. And
after growth of mass media they also began to pick up stories of police
atrocities, torture and killings. It is not the stories of the inhuman
deeds which are responsible for the bad image of the police but it is
the deeds themselves which are responsible. অন্ধ হলে কি প্রলয় বন্ধ থাকে?
(Does disaster stops if you shut your eyes up?)
For decades
there was a movement by human rights activists, police officers,
lawyers, judges and common people for police reform. As a part of this
movement, two former director generals of police moved tthe Supreme
Court in 1996 requesting the Court to direct central and state
governments to address the most glaring gaps and bad practice in the
functioning of the police.
After a decade, on 22
September 2006, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgment
directing central and state governments to implement a set of seven
directives laying down practical mechanisms to kick-start police reform.
The Court's directives seek to achieve two main objectives: functional
autonomy for the police - through security of tenure, streamlined
appointment and transfer processes, and the creation of a "buffer body"
between the police and the government - and enhanced police
accountability, both for organisational performance and individual misconduct. The case is know as Prakash Singh vs. Union of India.
Central government has yet to comply with the directives and the
responses of the states are tremendously varied. In short, most of them
did not comply with the directives in their letter and spirit. In
response to the directives the Assam government passed the its state
police Act in 2007. It is, in fact, was an effort to bypass the Supreme
Court order.
Reforming laws governing policing in
compliance with the Supreme Court directives would only be the first
step towards a long journey in the direction of building a
law-enforcement institution which itself follows laws, protects rights of the people and enforces laws democratically.
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:
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.
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?
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.
Problematic political premise: The political
premise of the Act appears to be very problematicin 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
India: Law-enforcement agencies need to be made accountable to the rule of law
Asian Human Rights Commission Press release
December 2, 2009
The Indian media often report with contempt the killing and maiming of the citizens by non-state actors. The limited debate in the country upon the issue is centred on the illegitimacy of violence used by the terrorists, insurgents and armed resistance movements, and is highly polarised. Except for the effort of a few publications like the Tehelka, the deliberations so far have missed a crucial aspect, the issue of disproportionate use of violence by the state upon its own citizens.
The significance of this subject is on the logic that the state is the custodian of the law and is principally responsible for governing by the rule of law. It implies that the state must ensure equality before the law and must not allow the arbitrary abuse of authority and power by its agencies. Further, it casts a legal obligation upon the state that it can resort to force only through legitimate and controlled procedures, that too in extraordinary circumstances where the lives of its citizens are under immediate threat.
The constitutional framework in the country that guarantees rule of law to its citizens thus restricts the state from unleashing disproportionate violence upon its citizens. Unfortunately, the Indian state is engaged in systematically negating this legal premise for the past several years.
A cursory glance at the statistics produced by the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC), brings this fact to the fore. From April 2001 to March 2009, the NHRC has recorded 1184 deaths in police custody; which is murder committed by the police, without any sanction or approval of a court of law. Further analysis of this data brings out even more startling facts.
Most of these murders have taken place in relatively calm and problem-free states in the country, with Maharashtra state having the dubious distinction of topping the list with 192 murders. The other states ranked high in the list are Uttar Pradesh (128), Gujarat (113), Andhra Pradesh (85) and West Bengal (83). All these states are within the peaceful and prosperous parts of the country, with no insurgent activities.
It becomes apparent what would be the state of affairs in states like the Jammu and Kashmir, and in the seven states forming the Northeastern territory of the country where armed insurgent activities have been going on for the past 60 years. Deaths in police custody and extra judicial executions in fake encounters are rampant in these states, and the perpetrators of the crime go unpunished. For instance, in a recent statement, the Director General of Police in Manipur state, Mr. Y Joykumar Singh, said that in the past eleven months his officers have murdered more than 260 persons. Of course, the officer added that all those who are killed are terrorists, murdered in armed encounters.
It is a fact that these statistics is a gross underestimation of the actual numbers since only very few cases reach the NHRC and/or judiciary. The reason behind this is that often the victims' families, being from the most underprivileged backgrounds, have no means or the courage to approach the courts. The complete absence of a witness protection programme or even a law to that effect, coupled with court delays often makes complaining against the law enforcement agency a suicidal act in the country.
Further, in states like Manipur, the security forces have unlimited and unaccounted power to carryout their operations under the statutory protection of the draconian law, The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958. This law allows even a non-commissioned officer to shoot to kill based on mere suspicion in order to "maintain public order".
The euphemism, "to maintain public order" is widely misused by the security forces for unleashing unbridled terror where they operate, thus supporting a trigger-happy culture of governance. The July 23 killing of Mr. Chongkham Sanjit and Ms. Rabina Devi in Manipur, exposes the degree of lawlessness resorted to by the security forces in these areas. For further information please see: AHRC-UAC-098-2009.
Placed in this context, the recent developments in the country have been highly disturbing. Despite all the evidences pointing to the worthlessness of the idea in delivering peace to the disturbed areas by use of force, the state is increasing its pitch for declaring war on its own people. Even more unsettling is the fact that the union home minister himself leads the campaign.
An example of this is the home ministry's argument for a cohesive, clinical and all out operation against the Maoists named as Operation Green Hunt. What is missing in the aggressive rhetoric for a war on Maoists is the question about the people living in the area -- poor, hapless tribal -- marginalised to the peripheries of the Indian state for long. Caught between two warring parties armed to the teeth, the tribal pay the heaviest price in this battle.
Yet, they are nowhere cited in the public discourse. The only occasion they appeared to be included in the discussion was when the government decided to withdraw more than 100000 cases against the tribal 'to win their hearts and minds'. Cases that were slapped on them for 'stealing' firewood, honey and other minor forest produce and a constant source of their exploitation by the police and the forest department were withdrawn.
The government did not care to answer why these cases were charged against them in the first place! After all, they have been living in these forests for centuries and the forest belonged to them. Why did it take an armed rebellion to force the state to think about their plight, and why the government could not act on its own for this long are two important questions that are yet to be answered.
Similar is the case with the people of Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, the Jammu and Kashmir and other states hit by insurgent activities in the country. The people residing in these states are compelled to resort to war like efforts just to ensure survival. Day after day, they are forced to walk through an alarmingly reducing narrow corridor of neutral space, maintaining equal distance from the sate and the non-state actors. In addition, the state does not help its case for garnering their support by the amount of terror it unleashes. After all, the state is the legal guardian of all its citizens, for it is the state who had solemnly promised and which had been bestowed the authority under the constitution to protect and preserve the inalienable human rights of its citizens.
For this reason alone, extrajudicial executions committed by the police and other state agencies deserve not only the strongest condemnation but also concentrated action against them. The deaths in police custody, committed with impunity provided by the uniform and authority, instigates not only public anger and protest but also hatred towards the state. The insurgents, whichever colour they belong to, tap this hatred for mobilising people into an armed rebellion against the state.
For this reason, declaring a war on its own people is a humongous error of judgment on the part of the state. What the state needs to do is reengaging those who are up against it, addressing all their concerns. The state also needs to go for a systematic and systemic overhaul of the system and correcting the flaws within the administration at the earliest. For this, it is elementary to conduct a revision of state policies ensuring public participation.
Further, guaranteeing equality before the law and ensuring punishment to the perpetrators of violence including those enjoying political power is required. The country needs to put an immediate end to murder in police custody and fake encounters. Those who are responsible for committing these acts must be prosecuted, with no exception to incidents that have happened in the past. The government needs to put people in command of their life, their habitat and resources and stop the state-sponsored corporate plunder of natural resources. The future, otherwise, does not seem that bright.
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly warned the government that 'custodial torture, violence and killing' as 'a naked violence of human dignity' and a 'calculated assault' upon the people and their fundamental rights. The judgments delivered in the D.K. Basu and the Bhajan Kaur cases categorically declare that it is the state's duty to ensure that persons live, behave, and are treated like human beings. The state must neither condone nor tolerate deprivation, oppression and violation of the right to life and liberty.
Yet, custodial killings in India have assumed alarming proportions, that it has adversely affected the belief of the citizens in the rule of law and the administration of justice in the country. Arbitrary misuse of authority with statutory impunity has also demoralised the security agencies in the country. If the functionaries of the state become lawbreakers, it results in a situation where might means right, leading to lawlessness and anarchy.
The Supreme Court has also directed the government that it must undertake innovative measures to deal with terrorism and has said that 'state terrorism would only provide legitimacy to terrorism which is against the rule of law'. The state must thus ensure that its agents deployed for combating terrorism acts within the bounds of law and do not become law unto themselves.
India cannot afford to kill anymore of its citizens without plummeting into a state of anarchy. The prophetic vision of the court has proved to be true. It is now the duty of the state to undo its wrongs and prevent the ensuing anarchy.
It is time for the government to put an immediate end to the use of arbitrary means in dealing with dissent to safeguard the life and liberty of the citizens. The government cannot reject its constitutional and sacred duty to the citizens by becoming the unlawful arbiter and the executioner of humanity.
BHRPC urges administration to look into missing case
: From our Staff Reporter
SILCHAR, July 20: Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC), a human rights organization working in Asom, is deeply concerned over the report of disappearance of two labourers Paresh Das (55) and Dilip Das (45), both residents of Nandan Kanan Tea Garden area under the Jirighat Police Station in the district of Cachar-Asom. The two went missing on May 25, 2009.
Sources said the two missing persons used to buy damaged and unused utensils and other household things made of tin, steel and iron from the villages in the districts of East Imphal and Tamenglong in Manipur and sold them in Silchar.
The two left for work early on May 25 and never returned. The family members of Paresh and Dilip as well as people residing in Nandan Kanan Tea Garden are completely disturbed with the incident. They said both the missing persons were friends and partners in their small venture.
Paresh was the only bread winner of his family consisting of his 80-year-old mother Shefali Das, wife Unmoti Das (35) and a daughter Monika Das. Similarly, Dilip had to earn for his mother, wife Himani Das (29), a sister and two sons. Now they have been left to fend for themselves.
On May 26, both the Jirighat police station in Asom and Jiribam PS in Manipur were duly informed about the incident but till date no action has been taken on the matter. Local clubs and organizations got united and met the administrative and police authorities to press them into swift action.
Getting no satisfactory response, the people called for a 36-hour bandh of the NH-53 to demonstrate on June 4. Hundreds of people from neighbouring areas supported the demonstration. According to witnesses, when these unarmed peaceful people were demanding the administration to take proper actions by shouting slogans, a large number of armed para-military personnel from 72 Field Regiment of Assam Rifles camping nearby at Lalpani entered the spot and allegedly beat the demonstrators with sticks without provocations injuring about 40 people in the process including women and children, some of whom sustained serious injuries.
According to sources, when Assam Rifles personnel were threatening to open fire, a large force of Asom police reached the spot and brought the situation under control.
BHRPC has strongly condemned the action and urged the administration to pay adequate financial aid and other assistance to the family members of the missing persons and to order a prompt and impartial investigation into the hulabaloo created by Assam Rifles personnel into the peaceful demonstration.
ISSUES: Human Rights Defender Assaulted for Pursuing a Case in North East India.
BARAK HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION COMMITTEE (BHRPC), a human rights organisation working in Assam, India, requests your urgent actions in the following situation in North East India.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SITUATION: BHRPC has received information from reliable sources that Ms. Hasina Kharbhih, a human rights defender working against human trafficking in North East India was assaulted and threatened on May 28th 2009. BHRPC has been informed that Kharbhih, while on her way to the court for the hearing of a case, was stopped, threatened and manhandled by Ms. Bethswa Dympep, the accused in threatening case. Kharbhih was injured in the incident and had to be taken to the local hospital for treatment. It is also reported that the perpetrators are receiving clandestine support from the police.
According to the victim and other local human rights defenders, Hasina Kharbhih is a human rights defender leading the Impulse NGO Network <http://www.impulseasia.org/>, a local human rights organisation based in Shillong, Meghalaya.
According to the same sources, on May 28, Kharbhih and her colleague were on their way to the District Council Court to accompany her Lawyer to show cause her case concerning a case involving threats to Kharbhih. Since there was a traffic block, Kharbhih had to get out from their vehicle and walk towards the court. Not far from the court compound, the accused in the case, Ms. Bethswa Dympep along with a male, stopped her and started threatening her and her colleague,claiming that if they continued with the case, Kharbhih would face terrible consequences, including the closure of the Impulse NGO Network. When Kharbhih replied that such matters were for the court to decide, Dympep assaulted her. Dympep was accompanied by her mother who also shouted abuse.
The victim immediately went to the Lumbiengri Police Station to report the matter. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered and since she was injured, the police asked Kharbhih to seek medical treatment, which she did. Three police officers searched the court compound for Dympep, but finding she was inside the court, did not arrest her. The officers later told Kharbhih and her lawyer that Dympep had escaped from their view.
Later Kharbhih was contacted by a press personnel in Shillong telling her that Dympep has called a press conference at the Shillong Press Club. In the press meeting Dympep reportedly accused Kharbhih of assaulting her, while claiming that she is being backed by a business group in the country and that she will ensure the closure of the Impulse NGO Network soon.
The BHRPC and several other civil society organisations inside and outside of India are worried for Kharbhih, and have been calling on the state administration of Meghalaya, particularly the state police, to ensure her protection--and that of others involved in the case.
From the start of the case Kharbhih and her colleagues have been receiving life threatening telephone calls, demanding their legal withdrawal and that they stop investigating all cases involving Dympep. In the Press conference, Dympep had declared that she is the personnel stewardress at thebungalowof the Private airline company in India chaired by Mr. Vijay Mallya. While the factual basis of claims by Dympep are yet to be verified, it is a known fact that Kharbhih continues to receive threats, and that the local police have thus far refused to take any appropriate action against the assailant. A few days before the assault, Kharbhih’s website was hacked into and the contents destroyed.
Dympep's act of assaulting and threatening Kharbhih and her colleague is also a direct violation of her bail conditions. The BHRPC wonders why the District Council Court has not simply recalled Dympep's bail order and had her taken into judicial custody. In spite of repeated requests the local police have also refused to take any affirmative action on Kharbhih s behalf.
ACTIONS REQUESTED: Please write to the authorities in India urging them
To take all necessary actions to guarantee the physical safety and mental integrity of Kharbih, her colleagues and their family members,
and to conduct a prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into the accusations against Dympep and charge her and her accomplices accordingly.
Or you may forward the following letter adjusting the salutation part to the addresses given bellow:
To
******************************,
******************************,
******************************
Subject: Urgent Appeal Regarding Threat to Life to Human Rights Defender in Meghalaya.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to express my concern about the threat to the life and security of Ms. Hasina Kharbhih, a noted human rights defender working against human trafficking. I am informed that Kharbhih has been contesting a criminal case against Ms. Bethswa Dympep at the local courts in Shillong and that since the beginning of the case Dympep has been threatening Kharbhih and her colleagues with personal harm and the closure of her office, demanding the withdrawal of the case from the court. However the police have not taken any action upon the complaint and have allowed Dympep to continue with her threats in private, and in the public eye.
I am informed that on May 28 in particular, Kharbhih was verbally abused and assaulted by Dympep in front of the local court, and has filed a complaint at the Lumbiengri Police Station. The police failed to arrest Dympep on the excuse that they could not locate her, yet I am informed that after the incident the assailant had convened a press conference at the local press club, a public event which the local police were aware of.
The lack of police action suggests that Dympep is using her influence to prevent the due process of law from taking its own course. In these circumstances, I request that you immediately take swift assertive action to ensure that Kharbhih remains safe throughout this trial and after, and that an investigation is ordered into the entire incident. I also request that if required, Dympep be taken into custody on the basis of the complaint filed by Kharbhih against her at Lumbiengri Police Station. Human rights defenders carry out a valuable and necessary service, often at the expense of their lives. Any government should give their safety utmost priority.
A vegetable vendor named Moyfar Raja, aged about 45 years, son of late Tajamul Ali, of Village Baldabaldi Part-II, P.O. Jamira under the police outpost of Jamira within the jurisdiction of Katlichera Police Stattion in Hailakandi, Assam was arrested at about 11am on 10 June, 2008 by Pijush Kanti Roy, in-charge of Jamira outpost and allegedly was tortured to death at 5 pm the same day. This information was published in local newspapers on 11 June, 2008.
Having learnt from the newspapers about the incidence, Barak Human Rights Protection Committee formed a fact-finding team. The facts stated herein are based on the preliminary report of that team.
Moyfar Raja, the deceased belonged to the poorest stratum of the society. He worked as a daily wage labourer and sometimes as a vegetable vendor. He was supporting his wife, 3 sons and 3 daughters with livelihood. According to his relatives and neighbours, he was generally a peace loving and law abiding citizen, though there was a police case pending against him.
Family members of the deceased state that he, as usual, he went to Jamira Bazar in the morning on 10 June, 2008 to sell his vegetables. They were later informed that a police team comprising of constable Bashir Uddin and Home Guard Nijam Uddin Laskar led by Sub-Inspector Pijush Kanti Roy, in-charge of Jamira Outpost picked him up. According to them, the police team was going somewhere else but when they saw the deceased they nabbed him. Legal procedure of arrest was not observed properly. Requirements of arrest issued by the Supreme Court of India in D K Basu Vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 1997 SC 610) were not fulfilled. The guidelines regarding arrest issued by the National Human Rights Commission also were not complied with. Even no 'arrest memo' was prepared, it was revealed during the said fact-finding efforts of BHRPC.
Family members of the deceased and his other companion vegetable vendors alleged that the police team started to beat him with cane sticks in front of them. They continued to do so along the way to the police outpost and even in the lock-up. At about 2 pm when his condition became critical due to a serious head injury sustained during the beatings by police, he was taken to Jamira Primary Health Centre. Doctors at the health centre referred him to Hailakandi Sontosh Kumar Roy Civil Hospital due to the seriousness of his condition. Dr. Rehana Begum, a doctor at the H S K R Civil Hospital states that the deceased was received at the hospital at about 5 pm and he was found in coma and it was also observed that he had a serious injury in the head. He died on the stretcher while he was being taken to the ward.
On the other hand, the police alleged that the deceased was wanted in connection with Katlichera police station case No. 70/03 which was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 427 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There was also a non-bailable warrant against the deceased issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Hailakandi in connection with G R Case No. 545/03, which was registered as a result of the said FIR. Constable Bashir Uddin and home guard Niajm Uddin laskar alleged that soon after the arrest the deceased complained of his ill-health. But there is no answer to the question as to why the deceased was not sent for medical examination and treatment as law also mandates it.
It appears that there were serious charges against the deceased. But allegations of offences, howsoever serious they may be, do not render a person bereft of his basic human rights. Crimes on the person of an accused or suspect are equally prohibited as in the case of any other persons. Facts alleged before the BHRPC team prima facie establish a case of torture and murder attracting punishment under section 302 and 34 of the IPC. Such cases fall under sections 154 and 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 154 mandates the officer-in-charge of a police station to register an FIR on receiving information about commission of a cognizable offence and section 174 enjoins upon such officer a duty to report the case to the nearest magistrate if he receives information that "a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some person has committed an offence" relating to the death. This procedure is prescribed by law to ensure impartial and prompt investigation into the incidence and thus to facilitate the prosecution and conviction of the offender.
This incidence of custodial death amounts to extra judicial killing, which flagrantly violates rule of law, basic features of the Indian Constitution and Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court of India.
This incidence is also a gross violation of the international obligation of the state of India, which has bound itself under various human rights treaties and other instruments, such as Articles 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and it is the obligation of the state of India under Article 2 of the covenant "to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present covenant". Article 6 of the Covenant recognizes right to life stating, "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." The present case clearly shows the failure of Indian state to respect its obligation under this Article. Moyfar Raja was deprived of his life arbitrarily by its agents. The case also attracts Article 7 of the covenant, which reads, "No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which India is a signatory, defines torture in its Article 1 as " any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity". No further analysis is needed to show that this case falls under the definition. In spite of the fact that torture is universally prohibited, the Supreme Court of India held that the right to freedom from torture is also inherent in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The phenomenon of custodial death was brought before the Supreme Court in many cases. The Court issued 11 requirements to be fulfilled in cases of arrest in order to mitigate this evil in D K Basu Vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 1997 SC 610). While issuing he requirements the Supreme Court observed, "the custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crime in a civilized society governed by the rule of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution require to be zealously and scrupulously protected. Court cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel inhuman degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution. Whether it occurs during the interrogation or otherwise. If the government becomes law-breakers it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchism. No civilized nation can permit that to happen". As stated above the requirements pronounced in this landmark judgment was not observed in the present case. No arrest memo was prepared as it is prescribed in requirement No 2.
The National Human Rights Commission has also dealt with the cases of custodial death and issued guidelines regarding arrest and also prescribed procedure in cases of custodial deaths/rapes. It is obvious that NHRC guidelines regarding arrest were not followed in this case.
Justice M N Venkatachalia, Chairperson (as he was then), NHRC sent letters to all chief ministers vide letter No. No. NHRC/ID/PM/96/57 dated March 27, 1997 reminding them of a circular of the commission issued on the 14th December, 1993 requiring all the District Magistrates and the Superintendents of Police to report to the Commission, incidents relating to custodial deaths and rapes within 24 hours of their occurrence. He also stated that "if post-mortem examination is not thoroughly done or manipulated to suit vested interests, then the offender cannot be brought to book and this would result in travesty of justice and serious violation of human rights in custody would go on with impunity." He continued, "with a view to preventing such frauds, the Commission recommended to all the States to video-film the post-mortem examination and send the cassettes to the Commission." The Commission also prescribed a model autopsy form and additional procedure for inquest, which were annexed to the said letter.
Justice Ranganath Misra, Cairperson of NHRC (as he was then), also sent "letters to Chief Ministers of States on the video filming of post-mortem examinations in cases of custodial deaths" dated August 10,1995. These recommendations require (i) informing NHRC regarding custodial deaths or rape within 24 hours of occurrence, (ii) Vedio-filming of post mortem and (iii) prompt and impartial magisterial enquiry. Usually these requirements are not followed in Assam. If a magisterial enquiry was ordered, the report never sees daylight in most of the cases. Where the report is made public, it happens in rare cases, it is too late to have any effect. Such magisterial inquiry is no longer seen by the people as having trustworthiness. As the saying goes, 'justice should not only be done but it should also seemed to be done', this incidence requires a prompt judicial probe.
An Assam Police personnel posted at Tarapur Police Outpost under Silchar Sadar Police Station in Cachar, Assam on 2 March, 2008 rode a motor bike into the house of Mr. Manik Paul of Rabindra Sarani, Shivbari Road, Tarapur Part-VI, Silchar and grabbed Miss Mamon Paul, a 13 years old girl, by her hand and took her forcibly with him.
The said police personnel was Assistant Sub Inspector Mr. Kshitish Chandra Das who started his mission soon after Mr. Manik Paul, Mr. Pradip Paul and Mr. Sukumar Das of the same address had been sent to the Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silcharby by the In-Charge of Tarapur Outpost for treatment. They sustained serious head injuries caused by iron rods with which they were severely beaten by Mr. Bhajan Mazumder, Mr.Bokul Mazumder and Mr. Nitu Mazumder, residents of the same locality. It is alleged by Mrs. Shilpi Paul, wife of Mr. Manik Paul, that Mr Bhajan Mazumder and other are rich and powerful persons of the locality due to their affiliation with ruling party of the sate. They had been trying to exclude some people of the area who are supposedly supporters of other political parties from the use of water from a public tape installed and maintained by the Public Health and Engineering Department of the state government. Mr. Bhajan Mazumder and others were threatening women of the families of Mr. Manik Paul and others with dire consequences including grievous hurt and prosecution in case that they would not abstain themselves from fetching water from the tape. The persons threatened complained of the same to the Legal Aid Cell, a local legal aid organization. Rina Paul, a woman from a Paul family, stated that at about 8am on 2 March, 2008 when she and other women were filling their jars with water from the said tape Mr. Bhajan Mazumder and Mr. Bokul Mazumder, both are sons of Mr. Sudhir Mazumder and some other people started to assault the women. At that time some people came to rescue the women who were too beaten by iron rods by the said persons. Mr. Pradip Paul, son of late Pranesh Paul and Mr. Sukumar Das, son of late Naresh Chnadra Das sustained severe head injuries due to the beatings. Ms Rina Paul and others brought the injured to the Tarapur Outpost. Ms Paul further stated that the accused persons were also present there and a police man had conversation with them following which that police man filed a conspiratorial complaint against the injured persons and others who accompanied them.
Mrs. Shilpi Paul, the mother of Mamon Paul, stated that after her husband and other injured persons had been sent to Tarapur Outpost a police man in uniform but without wearing his name plate and cap came to their house with motor bike and forcibly entered in. He asked her daughter Mamon Paul to accompany him and upon her denial he grabbed her by the hands and forcibly making her to sit on the back seat of his bike started away not giving a little heed to her crying. Mrs. Shilpi Paul ran after them crying and screaming. She contacted Mr. Ranjit Bhattacharya and Mrs. Shobha Bhattacharya, President of Cachar Din Mazdur Union and President of All India Democratic Women Association (Tarapur Brach) respectively and informed them of the incident. Then all of them and other persons who came to know about it started to scream and cry. In the hue and cry people of the locality came out and were able to stop the fleeing police man at Sukanta Road, about one kilometer away from the house of Miss Mamon Paul. At the demand of people to disclose his identity the police personnel showed his name plate and told that he was an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. Nonetheless, the ASI of police tried to go away with the girl. He hurled abuses at the protesting people, bullied them and threatened them that he would arrest all of them if they tried to prevent him. At that time another police constable in civil dress named Mr. Himangsu Das arrived in a motor car and joined the ASI at his attempt to take away the girl. But they failed in the face of resistance put forth by the people.
Mrs. Shilpi Paul filed a complaint regarding the matter with the Superintendent of Police, Cachar and at the advice of N S Gogoi, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Cachar submitted a formal complaint with Mr. Ashok Shaha, officer in charge of Silchar Sadar police station on 3 March 2008. A delegate of the people of Tarapur area led by Ranjit Bhtacharya, President, Cachar Din Mazdur Union and Sumita Bhattacharya, Secretary, AIDWA (Tarapur Branch) met the DSP who assured them of appropriate actions regarding their complaints. But till date no First Information Report was registered against either Mr. Bhajan Mazumder and other accused persons or the two delinquent police personnel.
On the other hand, the same DSP did not admit any delinquency on the part of the two accused police personnel. "When asked about the incident the DSP (Headquarter) laughed it away saying that the two police personnel had just asked eye-witness Mamon to come to the Outpost to interrogate her about the case, nothing more happened", reported Samayik Prasanga, a local daily news paper, on 4 March, 2008. In fact, it is nothing but an effort at covering up the alleged offences of his colleagues. It is a practice of the higher officials of Assam Police to save those who work at the behest of leaders and cadres of the political party in power in contravention of law and in breach of mandatory legal duties violating human rights of the citizens.
Even if the assertion of the DSP that the two accused police personnel just asked Mamon to come to the Outpost is to be supposed to be true for a moment for the sake of argument then this itself violates the Guidelines regarding Arrest. The Guidelines tells that if a woman or a child does not want to go to the police station his or her statement must be recorded at any place other than the police station.
Moreover, there is no purpose to ask her to come to the Outpost without registering an FIR and designating anybody as Investigation Officer. If necessary they could record her statement at her residence. A police officer must wear his name plate clearly showing his name and designation when he is conducting an arrest, investigation or other such procedure as per requirement issued by the Supreme court of India in DK Basu Vr. The sate of West Bengal and Guidelines regarding Arrest issued by National Human Rights Commission. Dispensing with this requirement and the requirement to be accompanied by a respectable local person which are mandatory in law, timing of the visit and other circumstantial evidences clearly establish his criminal intention.
In the course of its fact finding effort Barak Human Rights Protection Committee came across 43 persons all of whom witnessed the desperate efforts made by the said two police personnel to take away the victim girl with them. Their statements in a single voice accuse the police personnel of offences falling under section 34, 448 and 365 read with 511 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860. Both the police personnel made the attempt to kidnap the victim girl in furtherance of their common intention. So, as per section 34 of the IPC each of them is liable for the act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. There does not arise any question on the entrance of the ASI into the house of Mamon that it was made with criminal intention because the eye witness accounts corroborated by the circumstantial evidences as stated above prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. Entering a house with criminal intention is an offence of house trespass as defined in section 442 calling for punishment under section 448 of the IPC. This is a cognizable offence. The offence of attempt (511) to kidnap (365) is also cognizable.
The complaint about head injuries caused to Mr. Pradip Paul, Mr. Sukumar Das and Mr Manik Paul by Mr. Bhajan Mazumder, Mr. Bokul Mazumder and Mr. Nitu Mazumder with dangerous weapons like iron rods which, if used to its full potential, is likely to cause death and hence comes under section 34, 324 of the IPC. This offence is also cognizable according to the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
There is, therefore, a prima facie case of cognizable offences to be registered by an officer in charge of a police station under section 154(1) of the CrPC which says "Information in cognizable cases. (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf." After the investigation is complete the police have to file charge sheet in the court of the chief judicial magistrate. Then it is up to the judicial authority whether to frame charges against the accused or not. It is not the business of a DSP to pass judgments acquitting the accused without an investigation and hearing the parties. The DSP transgressed his limits of business.
Non-performance of a statutory duty intentionally in disobedience of law by a public servant knowingly to the detriment of any person constitutes an offence under section 166 of the IPC. The complaints suggest that Mr. Satyen Gogoi, the Superintendent of Police, Cachar, Mr. N S Gogoi, the said DSP, and Mr. Ashok Shaha, the officer in charge of Silchar Sadar police station are guilty of this offence.
This offence also constitutes violation of legal rights as well as universally recognized human rights. Where there is a duty there is a correlative right. Duty of the public servants correlates itself with the rights of the public. So breach of duty under section 154 of CrPC amounts to violation of legal rights of the people. It is also evident from the circumstances of the case that some persons, both men and women, who are relatives to the victim girl, were assaulted and subjected to severe injuries with intention to deprive them of the right to use water from a tape installed and maintained for the public at public expenses in collusion with and with abetment o the police. This also amounts to violation of legal rights.
The right to personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India of which no person can be deprived without the procedure established by law was also jeopardized by the said two police personnel by their attempt to kidnap the victim girl which subjected her to physical and mental trauma. This attempt to kidnap was also made in violation of 'the right to liberty and security of person' enshrined in Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. India has bound itself legally by the provisions of this treaty and has the legal obligation to enforce the rights as incorporated therein.
The discriminatory treatment of victim parties by the police apparently on the basis of political opinion also violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law to all persons. This right to equality before law is also provided in Article 14 of the ICCPR, which was violated in this case.
Every right violated gives birth to a new right to remedies. Where there is a right there is a remedy is a basic principle of law. This right is also provided in the Constitution of India in Articles 32 and 226. The Supreme Court and High Courts in India held in many cases that right to remedies is also implied in Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 2(1) of the ICCPR also provides for this right to remedies and prohibits discrimination on the ground of, inter alia, political opinion explicitly. The right to remedies consists of (i) Access to justice by way of an impartial investigation and prosecution and conviction of the violators in a fair trial, (ii) Reparation of the harms done to the victims, and (iii) right to know the truth behind the al relevant matter relating to the violations. Non-registration of the complaints against the accused kills all these rights in the buds and ensures their impunity against the law of the land as well as international human rights law.
Impunity is the failure of the sate to provide to fully investigate the violations, to bring to justice and punish perpetrators, to provide victims with effective remedies and to take all necessary steps to prevent recurrence of the violations. Impunity multiplies violations and it deserves to be dealt with by the iron hands.
Barak Human Rights Protection Committee wrote a complaint o the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar on 11 March, 2008 demanding him i) to register the complaint of the victims as an FIR, ii) to arrest the accused and entrust the investigation of the case to a high level officer and iii) to pay adequate compensation to the victim girl. But no action has still been taken.
By nature human beings are social animals. Without society and company of fellow beings they can not live. As for maintenance and survival of a healthy society discipline and order must be maintained some principles and rules have to be followed by all the members of the society. The rules which are thus recognised and have the sanction of the state can be called laws. The acts in violation of any of such rules of laws may be called crimes. The state mainly performs the task of implementing laws and preventing their violations through the agency of police. The institution of police is a machinery of state for implementing laws, maintaining peace and order in the society by ensuring justice for its each and every member by preventing crimes or acts or omission in violation of law. For this sometimes it has to nab and detain suspicious and anti-social elements. To bring an accused to book with enough evidence is a duty of police. Here comes the mast bitter and unwanted term ‘ARREST. There are many kinds of arrest in legal terminology. But in the popular sense, a detention or restriction of movements of a person by an authority acting with the authority given by law can be called a legal arrest. Here police is the authority to do so in certain circumstances. Those circumstances have been defined by law clearly. Actually a human being can not be arrested as he or she is born free and has his or her birth-right of freedom and more definitely the right to freedom of movement. This right is a natural right and a basic human right which can not be curtailed or infringed. As human rights inhere only in human beings so no animal has been given any of human rights including this right to freedom of movement. When a human being ceases to be a human and his being is possessed by animalist elements he loses his all such rights which are called human rights. Restriction of a person also becomes necessary when his freedom may cause infringement of others freedom. In this way sometimes arrest of a person becomes inevitable. However, arrest is a necessary evil. So when an arrest have to be made it should be made in strict accordance with the law, at least the Constitution of India says so. In the context of India it has to be said that the state of affairs is very sorrowful. The Indian police works still under the colonial Police Act of 1861. With this weapon of mass destruction in its hand the Police strides in a society which is in the extreme verge of explosion as it has been overflowing with corruption and erosion. The transparency International places Police in the first position in the list of bribe-takers in India.
The facts of crossing the Lakshman Rekha (delicate boundary line) and itself breaking laws when police goes to arrest or deal with an accused due to greed of money or being intoxicated by the beverage of power or merely as a habit are not new in India. Custodial deaths in this country can by no means be called rare incidents, they are very much regular. Whereas Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees right to life and personal liberty of every person: “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Article 22 lays down the broad principles of law, to be made and implemented by state, of procedure of arrest. Clause (1) of the Article thunders: “no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody by without being informed, as soon as may be of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice”. Then comes clause (2) with the stricture that “every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without any authority of a magistrate.” But these two clauses have been made inapplicable where the arrestee is an enemy alien or detained under the laws of preventive detention. Torture in police custody and in the time of interrogation including the so-called third degree method is made a crime punishable with imprisonment for seven yours or fine under section 330 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
STATEMENT OF BHRPC REGARDING CONTINUED ASSAULT ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Barak Human Rights Protection Committee(BHRPC), a human rights group working mainly in southern part of Assam known as Barak Valley, is deeply concerned at the arrest of Lachit Bordoloi, Advisor to the Manab Adhikar Sangram Samiti (MASS), Pradeep Gogoi, the Duliajan correspondent of NETV, Nekibur Zaman, Advocate, Gauhati High Court and Suman Dutta, an employee of Air Deccan. We fear for their safety. It is disturbing that Borodoloi, Dutta and Gogoi have been remanded to 5-6 day police custody by the Sub Divisional judicial magistrate, Kamrup. Nekibur Zaman is in hospital with a leg injury.
The police are accusing them of being involved in a plot of hijacking a flight. But long before Lachit's arrest it was known that the Assam government had decided to detain him. On the 9th of February the police had come to his house and without giving a seizure list confiscated some CDs andhis computer from his residence.
BHRPC wants to remind that this is not the first time that Lachit Bordoloi has been picked up, having been arrested under TADA while it was in operation and on other occasions. Manab Adhikar Sangram Samiti, of which he is the advisor, too has also been at the receiving end of a state onslaught, with its offices being routinely ransacked, and activists threatened.
It is to be noted that Lachit Bordoloi was part of the People's Consultative Group set up in 2005 to initiate discussion between the Government of India and United Liberation Front of Assam. His arrest is another indication of the hard line that the government is adopting towards those who seek to occupy the middle ground. It is also yet another instance, in now linking Lachit to ULFA, of how the pernicious Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 2004 is being used to choke human rights activity. MASS has over the years been strongly opposing army atrocities, encounters, disappearances in Assam, and together with many other organizations demanding the repeal of the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act,1958 (AFSPA). Coming as it does within a few months of the arrest of Dr. Binayak Sen, Vice-President of PUCL, his arrest is clearly part of a concerted strategy, on the part of the state, to silence all democratic dissent and criticism of state policies, especially in conflict areas.
BHRPC Demands: 1. The immediate and unconditional release of Lachit Bordoloi, Pradeep Gogoi, Suman Dutta and Nekibur Zaman; 2. The total repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958; 3. The repeal of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 2004, and
4. The end to any attempts by the government to muzzle the human rights of the people including the right to freedom of the Press and dissent.
The statement is issued by Neharul Ahmed Mazumder,
Secretary General,
Barak Human Rights Protection Committee,
Sadarghat Road, Silchar-788001
Assam, India
And sent to you by
Waliullah Ahmed Laskar,
Special Representative to Guwahati,
Barak Human Rights Protection Committee,
15, Darandha, Panjabari Road, Six Mile, Guwahati-781037
Assam. Cell: +919854441275
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
