Two people were arrested on June 21, 2022 for thrashing a 25-year-old Dalit food delivery executive allegedly after learning about his caste identity, reported the Indian Express. Police booked the persons for breach of peace while 13 other people have been named in an FIR by Lucknow police.

Delivery executive Vineet Kumar Rawat told the police he had gone to Sector H of the Ashiana colony on June 18 to deliver a food order. On reaching the house, the customer Ajay Singh answered the door and asked his name. According to Rawat’s complaint the customer used casteist slurs and refused to accept the food on learning he belonged to the Pasi community. Singh then spat tobacco on Rawat’s face when the latter asked the customer to cancel the order.

Following this, around 12 other people came out of the house and thrashed Rawat with sticks. The delivery boy finally escaped leaving his motorcycle and called the police control room. He added that he returned with a police team and got back his vehicle.

However, on Monday, Dainik Jagran reported that Rawat was apprehensive in lodging a formal complaint to the police. ACP Qasim Abidi reached out to Rawat who filed an FIR under sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), rioting with a deadly weapon and voluntarily causing hurt.

In 2019, a Zomato employee had faced similar discrimination when a customer refused to accept food from a “non-Hindu”. At the time, Zomato had staunchly stood with the delivery person at least on social media. Yet, this year the company is shockingly mum on the matter.

The silence in this case is particularly concerning as the company had responded in connection with the incident on June 15, when a Delhi Zomato delivery agent was stabbed and left to bleed to death in Tilak Nagar area. The 29-year-old Sagar Singh was only helped by a fellow Muslim colleague. At that time, the company did extend support to the employee’s family.

Incidents like these further highlight the lack of security for private company employees that provide 24-hours service to their customers. In Maharashtra’s Thane region, there was an incident wherein an Ola cab driver murdered by the very people who hailed his services on the app.

Maharashtra App-Based Transport Workers Union President Prashant Sawardekar had pointed out at the time how these companies leave their employees bereft of any form of security while on-duty. As the nature and wages from the work mostly attract youths from marginalised communities, there is a greater need for Zomato, Swiggy, Ola and Uber companies to pay attention to the employee policies.

Related:

International Day for Countering Hate Speech
MAT union writes to Thane police for support
CJP’s intervention saves another Indian in Assam
Cab drivers demand safety security code from Ola

The post Lucknow: Two arrested for thrashing Dalit Zomato delivery boy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Muslim women are being increasingly targeted with vile sexual threats, both online and on the ground. The blatantly abusive behaviour is often spearheaded with impunity by right-wing extremists and socio-culturally influential members of the majority community. Therefore, it is time to delve into legal provisions pertaining to such threats that have been becoming increasingly common.

Take for example the words of Bajrang Muni Das, the ‘Mahant’ and ‘Hindutva’ leader from Khairabad, UP. On April 2, 2022, Das openly threatened Muslim women with sexual assault while addressing supporters from his vehicle parked outside a mosque in Sitapur. Das’s audience comprised people who were part of a procession on the occasion of Hindu New Year. Much like many such processions being taken out recently, they made it a point to halt outside a mosque. This is where Das spoke into a microphone connected to loudspeaker and said, “If you tease a single [Hindu] girl, I will abduct your daughters and daughters-in-law from your house, and rape them in public.” The vile rape threat was filmed on video and went viral online shortly thereafter.

Taking cognisance of the offence and seeking arrest of the accused, National Commission for Women (NCW) reportedly stated, “The NCW has come across a Twitter post enclosing video of a priest Bajrang Muni threatening to kidnap and rape Muslim women while addressing a gathering in Sitapur district of Uttar Pradesh. It has been reported that police personnel were also present at the location; however, none of them stopped him from making such an outrageous statement against women.”

On April 8, 2022, the Uttar Pradesh police finallyfiled a First Information Report (FIR) against Das, four days after the incident.As reported by The Print, the said Hindutva leader was charged under sections 298 (utterance or gesture in the sight of that person or places with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person), 354 (sexual harassment, making sexually-coloured remarks) and 509 (using word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Muslim women in Hate’s crosshairs

This is not the first time where Muslim women have been targeted. It was Citizens for Peace and Justice (CJP) that, in May 2021, approached Twitter over sexually violent content against Muslim women. We brough to light several instances of unchecked accounts promoting material that was not only pornographic but also glorified sexual violence against Muslim women. The accounts in question shared hundreds of pornographic videos of women in hijab every day, with inflammatory captions presenting Muslim women as objects, meant to be sexuallyexploited. Photoshopped pictures of Hindu men and pregnant women in saffron hijab were also widely shared by these accounts.Twenty-one such abusive accountswere removed after our complaint.

The fact that social media can be toxic to and for all women, regardless of religion, region, political affiliation and even nationality, is indisputable. But in India, Muslim women in particular are subject to an orchestrated right-wing campaign, abused for both their gender and their religion. This is made worse with the tacit complicity of the government of the day that harbours a hate-filled ideology and holds undisputed sway and power.

Although people of all genders can experience violence and abuse online, the abuse experienced by women is often not just sexist or misogynistic in nature, but online threats of violence against women are often sexualized and include specific references to women’s bodies and person. The aim of such verbalised gender violence and abuse is to create a hostile online environment for women with the goal of shaming, intimidating, degrading, belittling or silencing women.

There are even professionally successful and influential Muslim women on Twitter with verified accounts who are subjected to slurs and threats of sexual violence quite frequently. Noted journalist Arfa Khanum Sherwani, who works for The Wire, told Article14 that words like begum and hijabi have been converted into sexualized slurs to attack Muslim women just like jihadi is used to abuse Muslim men.“The word halala is used by IT cell trolls as a coded rape threat. There is a campaign to attempt to incite sexual violence and other crimes against Muslim women but its larger goal is to further isolate Muslim men from society,” she said.

In July 2021, nearly 80 Muslim women were targeted and put up “for sale” on the S**li Deals app, and in January 2022, over 100 Muslim women were targeted using the B**li Bai app. Both B**li and S**li are sexually derogatory words used to target Muslim women. In both cases, there was no real sale of any kind – the purpose was to degrade and humiliate Muslim women by sharing their personal images, and also to harass them by sharing their personal information.

Noor Mahvish, one such young woman targeted by the S**li Deals app shared her experience in a blog on CJP saying, “The Sulli Deal app that was hosted on GitHub listed (as if to auction) the profiles Muslim women with their pictures, as if they were objects. My picture and information were also made public. Along with me, there were 80 other Muslim women who have been listed (sic) on that app. The Women who were targeted are very vocal on social media, they proudly represent their community and are bravely fighting against this fascist regime. The most common thread behind those listed on Sulli Deal is that they are vocal Indian Muslim women.”

Hasiba Amin, a national coordinator for the Congress party with 139,000 Twitter followers, opened her account on 13 May, a day before Eid, to find that she had been “sold” in an online “auction”.She tweeted, “These people are placing bids to own me and this handle claims that I have been sold to someone. He says ‘enjoy brother’.” Amin had filed a complaint with the police regarding this incident. Journalist Sania Ahmad was also targeted by an unknown account, Sullideals101. “This account has been harassing me since the past one year. I had complained but that went in vain,” she told Article 14.

As reported by SabrangIndia, the UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, Dr Fernand de Varennes, has taken note of the vile anti Muslim ‘S**li Deals’ as hate speech. Varennes said such harassment of Muslim women in India must be condemned and the law should act against it “as soon as they occur”. He added that “all Human Rights of minorities need to be fully and equally protected.”

Repercussions of online sexual abuse

The repercussions of such incitement of sexual violence against Muslim women sees its history in the incidents of communal violence and genocidal pogroms that have damaged India’s social fabric for decades. In both the 2002 Gujarat genocidal carnage and the Muzaffarnagar pogrom of 2013 rape and gendered violence was used as a weapon of violence against Muslim women.

Right before the anti-Muslim carnage broke out in Gujarat, we saw mass distribution of hundreds of pamphlets with all sorts of messages spreading hatred against Muslims. One such pamphlet titled Jihadinciting sexual violence against Muslim women was circulated. In the next few months 300 to 500 Muslim women were raped, killed and mass humiliated in full public view. CJP secretary Teesta Setalvad, who was documenting the 2002 Gujarat violence and its aftermath saw this on the ground as she interviewed women in relief camps and they shared theirfirst-hand experiences with the senior journalist and human rights defender.

This sexually driven propaganda achieved two aims: creating a band of men who view women of a particular community as targets for mass sexual violence and in every instance of mass violence, women are attacked to insult and attack the honor of a community.

Details of this hate speech preceding the 2002 genocidal pogrom was documented in Communalism Combat, March-April 2002, chapter entitled Pamphlet Poison. The Concerned Citizens Tribunal, Crimes Against Humanity, Gujarat 2002 also documented this thoroughly (Role of the Media), Hate Speech and Hate Writing. On the 20^th anniversary of the Gujarat pogrom, secretary, CJP had documented the lineage of this kind of hate speech in that state since the early 1990s which has now gone national.

At that time, the mode of communication was limited to pamphlets but now the same message is being circulated on a much wider, national level scale which is facilitated by social media platforms like Twitter. Sexist or misogynistic abuse and threats have become rather common online. Suspending a few accounts or deleting some tweets are measures that are merely small dents on these concerted, wide-ranging, politically driven campaigns that are also aimed at misusing and manipulating platforms like Twitter for their illegal acts. India has had a history of targeted communal disturbances even when social media was absent and not a reality, so we can only imagine the kind of consequences such incitement on social media can have now.

The systemic nature of this online Islamophobic, racist, casteist and misogynist abuse indicates that it is produced and circulated by organised groups. Studies such as those conducted by Professor Shakuntala Banaji who teaches at the Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics endorse this.More often than not, when it comes to such cases, especially women from marginalized sections, the persons who set things in motion are often found to be pawns of people who have power and clout, both political, social and economic.Her book co-authored by Ramnath Bhat titled Social Media and Hate is an excellent resource for anyone who wishes to learn more about the subject.

CJP’s sister organization, SabrangIndia has documented hate trends on social media systematically, especially how especially abusive #hashtags proliferate the public sphere and are a precursor to physical targeting of minorities.

The ease and speed with which content can proliferate on Twitter means that women’s experiences of violence and abuse on the platform require an urgent and adequate response from the company, which is lacking. Its algorithms fail to detect such content. Unless any user manually reports a particular tweet, it does not get taken down and in most cases even after it is reported, it doesn’t get taken down before it reaches the desired audience. The accounts, mostly anonymous, know that there is hardly any precedent for anyone in India from being prosecuted for misogynistic or hate speech. They are also aware that even if one handle is banned by a platform, it is easy to set up another account using another anonymous handle. The fact that they are able to have such a wide reach despite their content that is violative of twitter’s community guidelines, means they are able to thrive and mushroom into more and more accounts.

The violence and abuse many women experience online has a detrimental effect on their right to express themselves equally, freely and without fear. A December 2021 survey commissioned by Amnesty International also shows that women who are more active on the platform were more likely to report experiencing online abuse, compared to those less active – 40 per cent of women who use the platform more than once a day report experiencing abuse, compared to thirteen per cent who use the platform less than once a week.

Violation of Laws

The Indian Penal Code:

• Section 153: Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot

Whoever malignantly, or wantonly by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed;

Punishment:

If the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation – be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and

If the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

• Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

(1) Whoever—

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racials, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity,

(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community

Punishment:

Imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

• Section 153B: Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration.—(1) Whoever, by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise,

(a) makes or publishes any imputation that any class of persons cannot, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established or uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, or

(b) asserts, counsels, advises, propagates or publishes that any class of persons shall, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, be denied, or deprived of their rights as citizens of India, or

(c) makes or publishes and assertion, counsel, plea or appeal concerning the obligation of any class of persons, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, and such assertion, counsel, plea or appeal causes or is likely to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons.

Punishment:

Imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

• Section 292: Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc.—

(1) For the purposes of sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

(2] Whoever—

(a) sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicity exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes, produces or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever, or

(b) imports, exports or conveys any obscene object for any of the purposes aforesaid, or knowing or having reason to believe that such object will be sold, let to hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(c) takes part in or receives profits from any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such obscene objects are, for any of the purposes aforesaid, made, produced, purchased, kept, imported, exported, conveyed, publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(d) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any act which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from or through any person, or

(e) offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section,

Punishment:

On first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.

In the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.

• Section 293:Sale, etc., of obscene objects to young person.

Whoever sells, lets to hire, distributes, exhibits or circulates to any person under the age of twenty years any such obscene object as is referred to in the last preceding section, or offers or attempts so to do.

Punishment:

On first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.

In the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.

• Section 294: Obscene acts and songs.

Whoever, to the annoyance of others,

(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or

(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place.

Punishment:

Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.

• 295A Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

• 298 Uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person

Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that persons or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

• Section 351: Assault.

Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault;

Explanation.—Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault.

• Section 354: Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty;

Punishment

Imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

• Section 354 A: Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.

(1) Aman committing any of the following acts—

(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or

(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

Punishment:

Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

• Section 503: Criminal Intimidation.

Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

Punishment – Section 506:

Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 8 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

• Section 504: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.

Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence;

Punishment:

Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

• Section 505: Statements conducing to public mischief.

(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report,—

(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or

(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community;

Punishment:

Imprisonment which may extend to 6 [three years], or with fine, or with both.

(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.—Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities;

Punishment:

Imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

• Section 509: Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.

Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman;

Punishment

Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.

The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986

• Section 2: Definitions

(a) “advertisement” includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document and also includes any visible representation made by means of any light, sound, smoke or gas;

(b) “distribution” includes distribution by way of samples whether free or otherwise;

(c) “indecent representation of women” means the depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman, her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to, or denigrating, women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals;

• Section 3: Prohibition of advertisements containing indecent representation of women.

No person shall publish, or cause to be published, or arrange or take part in the publication or exhibition of, any advertisement which contains indecent representation of women in any form.

• Section 4: Prohibition of publication or sending by post of books, pamphlets, etc., containing indecent representation of women.

No person shall produce or cause to be produced, sell, let to hire, distribute, circulate or send by post any book, pamphlet, paper, slide, film, writing, drawing, painting, photograph, representation or figure which contains indecent representation of women in any form.

Punishment: Section 6

Any person who contravenes the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend two thousand rupees, and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term of not less than six months but which may extend to five years and also with a fine not less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees. 

The Information Technology Act, 2000

• Section 66A: Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.–

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,–

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device;

(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages.

Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, terms ―electronic mail‖ and ―electronic mail message‖ means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message

Punishment:

Imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

• Section 67: Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.

Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

Punishment:

On first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees.

In the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.

Judicial Precedents

Hate on social media platforms can have catastrophic impacts of communal violence, offline. The Law Commission Report, 2017 stated that “Hate speech has the potential of provoking individuals or society to commit acts of terrorism, genocides, ethnic cleansing etc. Such speech is considered outside the realm of protective discourse. Indisputably, offensive speech has real and devastating effects on people’s lives and risks their health and safety. It is harmful and divisive for communities and hampers social progress. If left unchecked hate speech can severely affect right to life of every individual.”

CJP had uploaded a 2-minute-long video citing the Equality Labs report raising the rising hate speech on Facebook India during 2018. Real threat presented by Facebook to an estimated 300 million Indian caste, religious, gender, and queer minorities both in India and abroad is a ticking tomb of communal violence, caste and hate speech. The video may be viewed here:

In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, 2014 11 SCC 477, the Supreme Court has unambiguously stated that hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership to a group, that can have a social impact. Moreover, the Court stated that hate speech lays the groundwork for broad attacks on the vulnerable that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, deportation, violence, and even to genocide.

In the same case, the Supreme Court cited Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, (1990) 3 SCR 892, stating, “Three main prescriptions must be followed while interpreting the word “hatred” as is used in legislative provisions prohibiting hate speech. First, courts must apply the hate speech prohibition objectively. The question courts must ask is whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to hatred. Second, the legislative term “hatred” or “hatred or contempt” must be interpreted as being restricted to those extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words, “detestation” and “vilification”. This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimisation and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects. Third, tribunals must focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others. The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination.”

In the case of Amish Devgan vs Union Of India 2021 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court quoted Benjamin Franklin, “It remains difficult in law to draw the outmost bounds of freedom of speech and expression, the limit beyond which the right would fall foul and can be subordinated to other democratic values and public law considerations, so as to constitute a criminal offence. The difficulty arises in ascertaining the legitimate countervailing public duty, and in proportionality and reasonableness of the restriction which criminalises written or spoken words. Further, criminalisation of speech is often demarcated and delineated by the past and recent significant events affecting the nation including explanation of their causes. Therefore, constitutional and statutory treatment of ‘hate speech’ depends on the values sought to be promoted, perceived harm involved and the importance of these harms. 57 Consequently, a universal definition of ‘hate speech’ remains difficult, except for one commonality that ‘incitement to violence’ is punishable.”

The court elaborated on the concept of Hate Speech by identifying three elements:

• Content-based: Open use of words and phrases generally considered to be offensive to a particular community and objectively offensive to the society.
• Intent-based:Speaker’s message to intend only to promote hatred, violence or resentment against a particular class or group.
• Harm-based/ impact-based:There is an element of harm to the victim which can be violent or such as loss of self-esteem, economic or social subordination, physical and mental stress, silencing of the victim and effective exclusion from the political arena.

In the same case, the Apex court also cited Andre Sellars from his essay ‘Defining Hate Speech’ where he examined the concept of hate speech in different democratic jurisdictions and formulated common traits in defining ‘hate speech’. He says:

• Hate speech targets a group, or an individual as a member of the group
• One should be able to objectively identify the speech as an insult or threat to the members of the targeted group, including stigmatising the targeted group by ascribing to it qualities widely disregarded as undesirable
• Speech should cause harm, which can be physical harm such as violence or incitement and true threats of violence
• Speech should have no redeeming purpose, which means that ‘the speech primarily carries no meaning other than hatred towards a particular group’

In the case of State of Karnataka and anr vs. Dr Pravinbhai Togadia (2004) 4 SCC 684, the Supreme Court held, “Communal harmony should not be made to suffer and be made dependent upon the will of an individual or a group of individuals whatever be their religion bit of a minority or that of the majority… the valuable and cherished right of freedom of expression and speech may at times have to be subjected to reasonable subordination to social interests needs and necessities to preserve the very core of democratic life preservation of public order and rule of law. At some such grave situation at least the decision as to the need and necessity to take private reactions must be left to the discretion of those entrusted with the duty of maintaining law and order and interposition of courts…”

Here is a list of serial hate offenders who seem to be part of an “orchestrated right wing campaign”.

As a step towards curbing the spread of communal hate and violence, Citizens of Peace and Justice (CJP)decided to file a petition to form Mohalla Committees in all communally sensitive areas and strictly implement Rule of Law against Hate Offenders. We had also filed a joint-petition with other like-minded groups to the police to police to conduct thorough investigation and take action against actual perpetrators in the S**li Deals and B**li Bai cases.

Related:

CJP approaches Twitter over sexually violent content against Muslim women

Masterminds behind ‘S**li Deals’ and ‘B**li Bai’ apps granted bail

Bajrang Muni Das openly threatens Muslim women with sexual assault

Being a Muslim woman in India: A story

Muslim women’s auction: CJP, rights groups and activists write to Mumbai Police Commissioner

The post Orchestrated right-wing campaign targets Muslim women: Can the Law defend them adequately? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Followed by the Hijab controversy, the Muslim minority are now being banned from conducting business at temple fairs in Karnataka. What first started in Marikamba temple in Shivamogga has now been followed suit by other temples in Dakshina Kannada, Hassan, Tumukur, Chikkamagalur and other districts.

Reportedly, banners have been put up outside some of these temples urging them not to lease stalls to Muslims. According to The Print, “Hindutva organisations including the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), Hindu Jagarana Vedike, and the Bajrang Dal have been submitting memorandums to temple authorities, municipal officials, and town councils, calling for a ban on Muslims setting up shops and stalls.”

The issue came to light when it was raised during zero hour in the State Assembly by Congress Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) UT Khader on March 23, 2022. The Karnataka State government made a statement in defence of the said ban by citing Rule 31, sub-rule 12, of the Karnataka Religious institutions and Charitable Endowment Rule 2002, which bans the leasing of land or buildings near temples to non-Hindus.

As per Rule 31(12) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules 2002, “No property, including land, building or sites situated near the institution (temple) shall be leased out to non-Hindus.”

Citing the Karnataka Religious institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 2002, State Law Minister, JC Madhuswamy reportedly stated in the Assembly, “If these recent incidents of banning Muslim traders have occurred outside the premises of the religious institutions, we will rectify them. Otherwise, as per norms, no other community is allowed to set up shop on the premises.”

What seems like a defence to JC Madhuswamy’s statement, Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai reportedly stated, “During such jathras (religious fairs), there are a lot of shops that are sub-leased. These people who take up the lease from the temple management board would do it for money. This is something that the government cannot interfere in. When it is such cases, we will look into the laws as well as the facts of the case.”

In sharp contrast to the stance of his party in Karnataka and elsewhere and the ruling government on the issue, BJP leader AH Vishwanath has spoken sharply and vociferously against these brazen attempts to not just deny Muslims their livelihood but on the political moves to create social divisions and schisms. The former Congress leader who is now a Member of Legislative Council (MLC) said, “No God or religion preaches these kinds of things. Religions are inclusive and not exclusive”, adding to this he has stated, “This is a very sorry state of affairs. The government must take action or there will be a reaction from the people. People need livelihoods to feed themselves and cloth themselves and if there is no means of livelihood then what is the point of democracy, religion, caste — throw it all away. When there is no means to buy food, what are we searching for in this world”

With a brazen confidence, a serial hate offender with a history of making misogynistic statements, and even encouraging violence against women as witnessed during the infamous Magalore pub attack in 2009, Sri Rama Sene chief Pramod Muthalik said that the ban would continue until Muslims stopped eating beef, reported The Telegraph.

Leaving no stone unturned to inculpate the Opposition, the BJP led state government argued in the Assembly that the said rules banning lease of land or buildings near temples to non-Hindus were framed in 2002 when the Congress was in power.

Explaining the raison d’etre behind framing these rules in 2002, former chief minister SM Krishna who was with the Congress reportedly stated, “While non-Hindus were not allowed to do business near temples, Hindus were also not allowed to do business near mosques or churches. This was done to help vendors of respective faiths and not on religious lines.”

What is of particular concern however, is that there appears to be a pattern behind such calls for socio-economic boycott that have taken a particular turn in Karnataka, a state that goes to the polls next year. Other parts of India and within Karnataka too, have been a series of incidents reported that show that Muslim vendors and traders are not just being banned from temple fairs but are also being illegally kept out of streets that lead to the temples. This is a serious and calculated assault on their livelihood and a direct violation of Articles 14, 15(1) and 15(2) of the Constitution.

What is the Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997, and how was it erroneously applied?

As explained in the (said) legislation’s statement of objects and reasons, the State Government of Karnataka decided to enact a new law to replace several local Acts to bring about “uniformity” in the matter of regulating all Charitable Endowments and Hindu Religious Institutions in the state. This was in 1997.

A similar law had been enacted in a few other states decades earlier. For example, in Tamil Nadu (1959), Madras (1951) and Andhra Pradesh (1987) for the same purpose, i.e. for the administration and regulation of temples and the endowed properties attached thereto.

A close reading of the Karnataka law, reveals its intention, to ensure better administration, protection and preservation of temples and the endowed properties attached thereto, so that the substantial assets donated by believers as part of ritual charity –in good faith– do not get misused.

Significantly, Rule 31 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 only talks about the terms of the lease and renewal of immovable property of a notified institution that comes under the Act. Sub-rule 12 under Rule 31 imposes the restriction for the long-term leasing of an immovable property – land, building or area which is located near a Hindu institution or temple to non-Hindus.

The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Karnataka has written to both Karnataka CM Bommai and Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot stating, “(It is) a deliberate misinterpretation of the provision, as Rule 31 only deals with long-term leases of immovable property owned by a temple (up to 30 years for land, and five years for shops and buildings). It does not deal with the short-term licences which would be used to allot stalls or spaces to vendors during a festival. The matter in question here is not of leasing out immovable property but allocation of such short-term licenses for temporary instalment can be dismantled.”

Bangalore based advocates Arvind Narain and Shujayathulla, both Presidents of PUCL Karnataka and Robin Christopher, general secretary, have in this representation pointed out a distinction between a lease and a licence. Moreover, the PUCL representation calls out the boycott for its unconstitutionality.

“The boycott calls are sought to be given a fig leaf of legitimacy by referring to Rule 31(12) of the 2002 Rules of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, which state that no property, including land, building or sites situated near the institution shall be leased out to non-Hindus. However as Senior advocate Chander Uday Singh pointed out this is a deliberate misinterpretation of the provision as Rule 31 only deals with long-term leases of immoveable property owned by a temple.  It does not deal with the short-term licences which would be used to allot stalls or spaces to vendors during a festival. Rule 7 also specifically prohibits sub-lease, leading one to the conclusion that the contract temple authorities enter into with traders can only be a licensing agreement. 

However, going beyond the question of whether the temple actions are justified by the rule 31(2) cited by the Hon’ble law minister, the larger questions is the constitutionality of the same. Both economic boycott and calling for economic boycott is violative of the constitutional promise of non-discrimination enacted in Article 15. Article 15, explicitly prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, besides race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 15(2) further proclaims that no citizen be subject to any ‘restriction’ with regard to ‘access to shops’, ‘maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public’.

The representation also states that, “A lease is akin to a permanent transfer of rights as far as property is concerned. So, the concept of sub-leasing exists. A licence is a temporary transfer of property. You do not acquire any ownership rights under a licence.” Therefore, the said boycott of Muslim vendors is not justified under the law.

Recalling that Dr BR Ambedkar was a vociferous opponent of social and economic boycotts noting that it was a form of ‘tyranny of the majority’. In Ambedkar’s words, “The method of open violence pales before it, for it has the most far reaching and deadening effect.” It is more dangerous because it passes as a lawful method consistent with the theory of freedom of contract. Warning that such a trend as seen in Karnataka and other parts of India could lead to widespread exclusion even crimes against humanity like in Rwanda and Hitler’s Germany, PUCL calls on the government of Karnataka to:

1. Immediately withdraw of all such decisions Immediately withdraw the decisions, and ensure that Muslims and persons of all religious communities are provided an equal space and opportunity to carry out their businesses during all days of the festivals;
2. Immediately initiate criminal action against the organizations pressurizing and attempting to cause an economic boycott of Muslim businesses;
3. Ensure that immediate measures are taken to restore and maintain communal harmony across Karnataka as required by the Communal Harmony Guidelines, 2008 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, including keeping organizations that undermine communal harmony under scrutiny and taking appropriate action against them;
4. Clarify that the statements made by elected representatives erroneously interpreting the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 to legitimize the unconstitutional act of discrimination on grounds of religion.

The entire PUCL representation may be read here:

Where the Muslim minority is similarly discriminated against in other states of India

Uttar Pradesh

In Uttar Pradesh, right-wing Hindutva groups are often seen harassing and taking away the livelihood of Muslim minorities. During the State Assembly elections, Muslim vendors were forced to shut down their small daily-wage works, beaten and harassed by the said groups. While some were forced to change their stalls’ names, some faced intimidation and violence. In January 2021, mass gathering were openly called upon by Swami Anand Swaroop in a Hindu Sabha Meerut wherein hereportedlyasked the people to “boycott Muslims from social, economic and political bases so far that they themselves get converted to Hindu.”In another instance, Legislator Suresh Tiwari from Deoria town in the northern state of Uttar Pradeshreportedly said amidst the crushing economy during the pandemic, “Keep one thing in mind. I am telling everyone openly. There is no need to buy vegetables from ‘miyans’ [Muslims].”

Delhi

On March 23, 2022, previous participants in the infamous at Dharma Sansad in Haridwar, Uttarakhand in December 2021, Swami Jitendranand Saraswati and Vinod Sharma, were seen addressing a crowd of persons watching the film ‘The Kashmir Files’. He not only attempted to spread anti-Muslim sentiments and accused Muslims of dividing the country. This right-wing proponent spread this hate in front of young children addressing them to pick up arms to protect themselves.On March 22, 2022, a video of Vinod Sharma’s aides went viral on social media asking audience to boycott Muslim vendors and break their economic backbone. Around this time, a hotel in Delhi, the capital, denied accommodation to Kashmiri man on a hypothetical idea of ‘Kashmiri a crime” created by ‘Kashmir files’ movie.

Haryana

In Haryana, 23 “upper” caste persons have been booked for calling for an all-out boycott of more than 150 Dalit families. In Chhatar village, a Panchyat (council/gathering) dominated by the “upper” castes was called, in which it was collectively decided to boycott the ration (food supplies) and access to free movement (transport) to Dalit families living there. This was nothing short of coercive pressure on the Dalit community to withdraw a case filed against atrocities and abuse.SabrangIndia had reportedthis case of “upper” castes’abuse of the Dalit community.

Chhattisgarh

In Surguja district, there has been mass gatherings of Hindutva group taking an oath of communal discrimination.

Madhya Pradesh

In Pelampur, banners have been reportedlydisplayed banning entrance to the Muslim vendors inside the village.

Violation of Constitutional provisions

What is both crucialand interesting to note is that –be it Karnataka or elsewhere –the granting of such short-term licenses to Muslim traders was never an issue until now. Since 2002, no Muslim traders have everbeen prohibited from setting up stalls near Hindu pilgrimage sites or during festivals. This brazenly exclusionary and violent trend is clearly linked to the rise of the right-wing in politics; a trend made more dangerous by the fact that this surge in majoritarianism is used to reap electoral benefits. A meek Election Commission has not enforced its statutory powers to ensure non-partisan campaigning and a far from assertive judiciary has not stepped in either.

In a nutshell, the said call for boycott and boycott both violate fundamental rights conferred under articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Articles 21, 14 and 15 both guarantee that every person has the right to life, equality and non-discrimination. Article 19 ensures freedom of movement and the right to undertake economic activity. While Article 14 says that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth. Further under article 15(2), no citizen shall be subject to any restriction or condition with regards to access to shops or the used of roads and places of public resort maintained out of state funds or made for the use of general public, merely on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

1. Equality before law—The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
2. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth—(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to— (a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

The said boycott also violates the freedom of the Muslim citizens to carry on any occupation, trade or business as provided under article 19 of the Constitution.

1. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.—(1) All citizens shall have the right— (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

The economic boycott of Muslim citizens also violates their right to life under Article 21.

1. Protection of life and personal liberty—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 [AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621], the Supreme Court had held that the right to life is not merely a physical right but includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity. Elaborating on the same the Court in Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi 1981 [AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516]observed:

“The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic necessities the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of human self.”

The systematic targeting of the Muslim minorities over the time by politically powerful, right -wing Hindutva groups is also endangering their rights conferred under article 15 and 29 of the Constitution. While article 25 provides freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion to all persons, article 29 protects the interests of minorities by giving them the right to conserve their language, script or culture of its own.

1. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion—(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law— (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
2. Protection of interests of minorities—(1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.

Moreover, as per the Directive Principles of State Policy, the Constitution aims to create a socio-economic condition for the citizen of India to lead a good life. Under Article 38, the Constitution directs the state to promote social and economic welfare of the people and Article 39 the Constitution directs the State to formulate policies that secure people’s right to adequate means of livelihood.

1. State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people—1 [(1)] The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life. 2 [(2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.
2. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State.—The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing— (a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood; (b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good; (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;………

Legal precedents

In a recent and similar case(TM Rabbani vs. G Vaani Mohan & Ors), in December 2021, the Supreme Court had stayed a similar rule existing in Andhra Pradesh. The Court has stated, “We direct that none of the tenants/shop holders shall be excluded from participating in the auction or from the grant of leases including in the shopping complex on the ground of their religion.” The Court admitted that “it was impermissible for the State to either exclude the license holders from participating in the auction or from being granted leases, including in the shopping complex constructed by the State on the ground of religion”.

The special leave petition had been filed in Supreme Court against the order of Andhra Pradesh High Court who ruled against the Muslim minorities stating“…… the alleged acts of non-Hindus would cause serious inconvenience to worship deity by Hindus, as such to protect the interest of Hindu worshippers of deity and to avoid any amount of inconvenience or any prejudice to their interest; the State issued such rules inconsonance with the Act itself. Hence, we find no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the same is hereby rejected. We are of the confirmed view that such discrimination permitting Hindus only, debarring non-Hindus to participate in the auction of leasehold rights or license in respect of the shops and plots belonging to the respondent No.3 does not amount to violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

The Order of the SC and other related orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court may all be read here.

The atmosphere in India has become quite hostile towards the Muslim minorites who are being constantly targeted with impunity, especially in states with BJP-led governments. Multiple and repeated instances of Hate Speech, Mob Lynchings and other kinds of exclusion and violence have spiralled. Things are made worse with the authorities taking no strict actions being taken against the human rights violators and hate offenders.

Recently, (BJP) General Secretary, CT Ravi –with decades long record for provocative speech —joined the right-wing groups’ hate call to boycott ‘Halal’ meat which has been equated with Muslim dietary habits, and called all Halal food ‘economic jihad’. Adopting a right-wing tactic to associate Muslims with words like Jihad/Jehad (Holy War), he has reportedly said, “Halal is an economic Jehad. It means that it is used like a Jehad so that Muslims should not do business with others. It has been imposed. When they think that Halal meat should be used, what is wrong in saying that it should not be used?”

While past years have seen some positive rulings emanating from India’s top court, the non-implementation of directions, renders even these without teeth. In 2016, Activist Lawyer Tehseen Poonawalla along with few others had filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court [Tehseen Poonawalla vs. UOI &Ors (2018) 9 SCC 501]troubled by the increasing incidents of cow-vigilantism in the country where private citizens violently punish people who they suspect of consuming beef.

The Court had condemned the widespread acts of mob lynching and violence in the country. While prescribing a bunch of guidelines to curb such unlawful activities, the Court had observed,

“It is our constitutional duty to take a call to protect lives and human rights. There cannot be a right higher than the right to live with dignity and further to be treated with humanness that the law provides. What the law provides may be taken away by lawful means; that is the fundamental concept of law. No one is entitled to shake the said foundation. No citizen can assault the human dignity of another, for such an action would comatose the majesty of law. In a civilized society, it is the fear of law that prevents crimes. Commencing from the legal space of democratic Athens till the legal system of modern societies today, the law makers try to prevent crimes and make the people aware of the same but some persons who develop masterly skill to transgress the law jostle in the streets that eventually leads to an atmosphere which witnesses bloodshed and tears. When the preventive measures face failure, the crime takes place and then there have to be remedial and punitive measures. Steps to be taken at every stage for implementation of law are extremely important. Hence, the guidelines are necessary to be prescribed.”

Drawing a perfect analogy to India’s current predicament, activist and author, Mr. Pieter Friedrich has rightly said, “In 1933, the Nazis said,Don’t buy from Jews. In 2022, the Nazi-inspired Hindu nationalists say,Don’t buy from Muslims. Economic boycott is the path to genocide. Fascism in India must be stopped.”

Related:

Don’t stop at Muslim-owned dhabas, VHP, Bajrang Dal warn buses in Gujarat
CJP moves NCM over hate crimes against Muslims in Madhya Pradesh
Why is iD dosa batter giving communal trolls indigestion?
Hate Watch: Hindutva group raises slogans outside Muslim-owned shop in Gujarat

The post Are increasing calls for economic boycott of Muslims a sinister precursor to something worse? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On March 24, 2022, the Gauhati HC granted four weeks’ time to the State and the Union of India (UOI) as a last opportunity to file their respective affidavits in connection with the public interest litigation filed by CJP raising concerns over the quality of legal aid to be provided to those in Assam whose names do not figure in the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta appeared for CJP. The case has now been listed on April 27, 2022 for which Senior Counsel Mihir Desai is likely to appear.

In its order dated November 23, 2022,the Gauhati High Court had asked the Centre as well as the Assam State Government to indicate their stand on provision of funds.

Previously, the Assam State Legal Services Authority (ASLSA) filed an affidavit in this petition, on February 1, 2022, stating that it has made endeavours to train its staff in citizenship matters however is lagging in financial resources for providing aid to the large population that has been left out of NRC. In the said affidavit, the Authority also admits that on account of lack of financial resources, the state government needs to revisit the budget allocation to enable it to provide the requisite legal aid. This is a significant admission on record of the ASLSA’s inability to provide adequate legal aid to all those who might need it, and it is high time that the Assam state governmentproves its commitment to the NRC processby allocating sufficient funds to the legal aid authorities in the state.

CJP’s petition

In its petition, CJP had sought directions to the state to formulate effective and robust modalities for legal aid in terms of having trained lawyers and adequate front offices in light of the several pending appeals to be filed before Foreigners Tribunals (FT) by people from marginalised sections to prove their citizenship. The plea emphasised that those excluded cannot be deemed non-citizens till the remedies available before them are exhausted, and unless the marginalised among them are not provided adequate legal aid, they would suffer irreparable loss and injury.

The organisation raised concerns before the court that since NRC-excluded people are required to file an appeal within 120 days, there would not be sufficient funds for such persons to engage legal counsel and get legal aid in such a short span of time. Hence, the plea also contended that legal aid be provided by the ASLSA as well as the National Legal Services Authority (NLSA) to the aggrieved people.

CJP’s survey of DLSAs

CJP had gone one step further and conducted an independent survey (November-December 2019) in 10 districts of Assam to assess the preparedness of District Legal Services Authorities (DSLA) which revealed that the front offices were either not present or the ones that had front offices were inadequate in terms of space or in terms of staff.

We also found that personnel were not trained in Citizenship laws, NRC related procedures, Immigration law or the Foreigners Act, in any of these 10 DSLAs, even though in-depth knowledge of all these laws, procedures and Acts are vital for offering quality legal assistance toNRC-excluded people who will now have to defend their Indian citizenship before Foreigners’ Tribunals.

Our survey also found that only 10 cases have been handled by the counsel of these DSLAs so far; all by Dhubri DLSA: 7 in 2019, and 3 in 2020.

SC judge’s observations on quality of legal aid

On March 26, 2022 while addressing the Judges, Lawyers and Legal services provider at the Maharashtra State Level Conference on the topic Early access to Justice at Pre-arrest, Arrest and Remand stage, Justice UU Lalit, the second most senior judge of the Supreme Court and the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NLSA), spoke about the importance of providing quality free legal aid services.He said, “Free legal aid does not mean poor legal aid, free legal aid must mean quality service.” As reported by LiveLaw, he expressed his concern about the extremely low percentage of cases which landed up with the Legal Services Authority and stressed upon the need to induct talented and committed persons.

More details about the petition filed by CJP may be read here.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

CJP’s Assam Legal Aid Petition: ASLSA indicates shortage of funds for providing legal aid to those excluded from NRC
CJP’s Assam Legal Aid Petition: Gauhati HC asks Centre and State to indicate stand on funding
CJP’s Guwahati legal aid petition: State fails to file an affidavit
Assam DSLAs woefully understaffed, staff under-trained to handle FT cases
Assam Paralegal Training Workshop

The post CJP’s Legal Aid petition: Gauhati HC gives State of Assam and UoI one final chance to file affidavits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post SHRC Directs DM, Amroha to Act on CJP’s Complaint against Hate: UP appeared first on SabrangIndia.