As part of the government’s National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), a new group of baseline health workers called Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHA workers) was formed in 2005 to address health related demands of the rural population, especially women and children, who find it arduous to access basic health services.

The government guidelines laid down several responsibilities of ASHA workers which include creating awareness about health and its social determinants, mobilising the community towards local health planning, and increased utilisation and accountability of existing health services. This 2005 design recruited women as volunteers on honorariums to engage in tasks central to the functioning of the public health infrastructure, and promote good health practices.

Their role became even more critical in the Covid-19 pandemic era as they have been deployed to undertake additional work, like conducting door to door tests, monitoring the migrant workers, ensuring the adherence to Covid-19 protocols, as well as collecting data and reporting to the primary health centres across various states.

But the workload of ASHA workers is not directly proportional to the remuneration they receive, and they continue to be seen merely as volunteer service providers. The enormity of injustice does not end here, as they don’t fall under the ambit of the Minimum Wage Act, and don’t enjoy the maternity benefits and other schemes offered to regular government employees.
 

Meagre wage

In a written answer provided by Bharati Pravin Pawar, Minister of Health and Family Welfare, on July 23 this year to the Lok Sabha, it was revealed that ASHA workers receive a fixed monthly incentive of Rs. 2,000 for undertaking routine and recurring activities. Further to incentivise Covid-19 duty, the government decided to add an additional Rs. 1,000 per month under India’s Covid-19 Health System Preparedness and Emergency Response Package.

Different states have different incentives for ASHA workers, but there have been several strikes since the onset of the pandemic demanding sufficient and timely remuneration. For instance, Uttar Pradesh sanctioned Rs. 750 per month from the state budget and the average ASHA payment in the State is Rs. 4,270 per month. CJP’s interaction with hundreds of these women across the state reveals backlogs in payment of wages and often, withholding of payment, too. Bihar provides Rs. 1,000 per month apart from the fixed price fixed by the centre, so ASHAs in Bihar get Rs. 3,000 per month, Himachal Pradesh ASHAs get Rs. 2,000 per month, Uttarakhand ASHAs get Rs. 5,000 per annum and Rs. 1,000 per month.

Besides the range of monetary incentives to the ASHAs, on June 25, 2020, thousands of ASHA workers united, at the call of the All India Coordination Committee of ASHA Workers (CITU), and held a protest at various states, including Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Assam, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala for regularisation as government workers, for adequate Covid kits (gloves, masks, sanitisers), additional incentive of Rs.25,000 per month for all contract and scheme workers, Rs. 50 lakhs insurance cover to all frontline workers, etc.

The same answer provided to the Lok Sabha in July this year also revealed that out of 10,47,324 ASHAs, a total of 109 have died due to Covid-19 till April of this year, across the nation, but the numbers could be arguably higher.

Going by the government records, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Sikkim, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Puducherry, Himachal Pradesh, Ladakh, Lakshadweep, Andamans, Arunachal Pradesh, Dadar and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu and Assam have not recorded a single death of the health activists.  
 

Covid-19 duty risks

In May this year, lakhs of Accredited Social Health Activists across the country reportedly protested and demanded their pending payments and protective gears like PPE kits and masks for themselves. The workers who have efficiently assisted the government in controlling the spread of the virus have raised their voices against inadequate facilities. Some workers have complained that they hadn’t been provided uniforms for the last three years and they are expected to travel door to door to check on home isolated patients but have not been provided for transport, food or water while attending duties and most were yet to be tested for Covid-19. 

According to a NewsClick report, in Karnataka, D. Nagalakshmi, state secretary of the All-India United Trade Union Centre (AIUTUC) backed ASHA Workers’ Union said that the 42,000 workers have been waiting for their “honorarium” – Rs 4,000 – for the past two months.

Justice from the Courts?

The Bombay High Court was one of the first courts to recognise the importance of ASHA workers especially in the fight to combat Covid-19 and had directed the government to pay Rs. 200 per day instead of the fixed Rs. 1,000 per month. The application was filed on behalf of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation Employees Union in Subhash Jainarayan Zanwar Vs. Union of India and others, PIL No.10 of 2020), wherein they brought to the notice of the court the pathetic condition of the Accredited Social Health Activists.

They complained that appropriate remuneration was not being paid to the ASHA workers and the basic equipment for protection/security were not provided and further, even refreshments and tea, as also water from time to time, was not available to them. The insensitive Nagpur Municipal Corporation had gone a step ahead and filed an affidavit in the matter stating that there was no legal provision to provide food and refreshments to the ASHAs!

Justice Manish Pitale had said, “This Court finds that the ASHA workers, who are at the forefront of the war against COVID-19 and who are performing special duties, including door to door survey of houses during such crisis, are being treated in a most unfortunate manner by the Corporation. Even if the amounts of 1000/- per month and 1500/- ₹ 1000/- per month and that ₹ 1000/- per month and that per month i.e. total of 2500/- per month is being paid to ₹ 1000/- per month and that the ASHA workers, it is hardly sufficient for survival of such workers… It is distressing that those at the forefront of the war against COVID-19 are meted out with such treatment by the public authorities including the Corporation.”
 

How far have our courts helped?

Negligent efforts have been taken by the judiciary and the government to recognise the status of ASHAs as workers under the Industrial Act to avail the benefits of the Minimum Wages Act. The Minimum Wage Act that prescribes a minimum amount must be paid to an employee by the employer, as mentioned above, does not apply to ASHA or Anganwadi workers.

A big blow to Anganwadi workers was in 2006, when the Supreme Court Bench of Justices SB Sinha and Markandey Katju had held that Anganwadi workers engaged under the Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) Programme are not entitled to minimum wages as the Minimum Wages Act is applicable only to ‘workmen’ in the industries. The Bench said the ICDS programme would not constitute an “industry” within the meaning of the Act and Anganwadi workers were not industrial workmen. (State Of Karnataka & Ors vs Ameerbi & Ors, Appeal Civ. No. 4953-4957 of 1998). 

However, in State of Punjab and Others versus Jagjit Singh, Civ. Appeal No. 203 of 2013, the Supreme Court offered some relief for scheme workers where it ruled that all types of temporary workers and daily wagers are entitled to wage parity with the regular workers provided, if they perform similar work. Another important aspect of this judgment was that it had opined that a mere difference in nomenclature should not deprive an employee from being paid a similar wage that a permanent employee gets for the “same amount of work”.

Calling it “exploitative enslavement”, the court had said, “it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage.” 

Almost 5 years after this judgment, ASHA workers continue to fight for their identity, demanding for a permanent worker status and surely, the pandemic has exacerbated their needs. The 45th session of the Indian Labour Conference (ILC), had also recommended that all scheme workers should be recognised as ‘workers’ and not as ‘volunteers’ or ‘honorary workers’. It was also suggested that the Anganwadi workers and ASHAs be covered under life and health insurance and all necessary amenities should be extended to the women. But the action taken report presented by the government at the 46th meeting of the Standing Labour Committee rejected each and every one of these demands except the demand for insurance scheme coverage.  

In Oxfam’s Commitment to Reducing Inequality Report 2020, India ranked 154 in health spending, (fifth from the bottom). This infrastructurally reflects on the lack of enough amenities for the health workers that have been fighting tooth and nail to contain the pandemic. Despite being hailed as frontline workers and Covid-19 warriors, essential ASHA workers continue to work under unfortunate conditions.

According to ThePrint, a survey was conducted by Oxfam India and its partner organisation in Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Bihar and Chhattisgarh, interviewing a total of 306 ASHA workers. The startling facts that emerged were that just 23 percent workers had received hazmat or bodysuits. 64 percent of them claimed to have received no incentives for the Covid-related responsibilities undertaken by them. Only 43 percent ASHAs had received their monthly honorariums on a regular basis, as of September last year.

Central government’s Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana that was meant to provide an insurance cover of Rs. 50 lakh per person to frontline healthcare workers, sanitation staff, paramedics and nurses, ASHA workers and doctors was known to only 38 percent ASHA workers across the 4 states.

Besides verbal applause and showering petals over hospitals through helicopters to motivate healthcare workers, the government should start with recognising the ASHA workers who have proved to be more than just volunteers, and to not look for interim measures to shore up the crumbling public healthcare system. Subsequently, inhumane working conditions, inadequate staffing, low compensation, unacceptable working, lack of basic amenities should be next on the agenda!

As India begins to recover from 15 months of a social and political crisis unleashed by mis-governance over the handling of the health emergency, will Indians learn lessons and join hands to campaign for better wage security and health conditions for our ASHA workers?
 

Related:

ASHA Workers on Covid-19 duty demand safety gear, healthcare, insurance and better wages
Reports of glaring vacancies of ASHA workers in Covid-19 hotspots, no pay emerge
ASHA activist Ranjana Nirula succumbs to Covid-19

The post Is India exploiting its ASHA workers? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A total of 76 deaths have been reported to have taken place in police custody in the year 2020, as opposed to 85 deaths in the year 2019, as per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)’s Crime in India Report 2020. The leading cause for this has been revealed to be illnesses and while getting treatment in hospitals. Only one death has been registered due to injuries sustained by physical assault (Bihar).

Other reasons include cases of death by suicide (31), injuries sustained prior to arrest (2), and while escaping custody (3). Gujarat jails have reported the highest number of deaths by suicide in 2020 with 6 such cases. Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat have reported 6 deaths each due to various illnesses, followed by Tamil Nadu at 5, Rajasthan at 4 and Maharashtra at 3 deaths.

20 cases have been registered against police personnels for human rights violations including encounter killing, deaths in custody, extortion and ‘others’. Out of this, 4 policemen were charge-sheeted last year, 8 were arrested, but none have been convicted. A total of 7 cases were registered against police officials for death in custody and 9 for other reasons, without specifying the violation.

Lathi charge killed 14 civilians in 2020

The NCRB 2020 report has also revealed that 14 civilians have died due to lathi charge by the police- 4 in Karnataka, 6 in Telangana and 4 in Delhi. Two civilians in Rajasthan have died due to police firing and 6 have died ‘accidentally in police operations and encounters”. Of these 6 people, two belonged to Haryana, two to Odisha, one to Uttar Pradesh and one was from Jammu & Kashmir.

The report also states that 20 civilians who had been termed as anti-nationals, died in police firing last year. All 20 belonged to Jammu and Kashmir. In 2019, five people died due to lathi-charge. Further, a total of 71 civilians have been injured due to lathi charge and 5 have been injured due to police firing.

Of these 71 civilians, 65 people were injured in the National Capital last year, followed by 3 cases of lathi charge injuries in Jammu & Kashmir, 2 in Rajasthan and 1 in West Bengal.

Related:

95% pendency of trial of UAPA cases, 85% cases pending investigation: NCRB report

What does the Law say about Lathi Charge?

Karnal lathi-charge: Major win for farmers, as judicial inquiry ordered against Ayush Sinha

Over 55% of Undertrials are Muslims, Dalits or Tribes, says NCRB Prison Statistics Report

The post 76 deaths in police custody, 20 human rights violation cases registered against Police: NCRB report appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The eighteen accused persons in the Delhi Violence alleged conspiracy case appeared before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amitabh Rawat today, on September 10. They have been booked under the relevant provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Indian Penal Code, Arms Act and The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. (FIR 59 of 2020)

Advocate Adit S. Pujari, appearing for Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, argued that they filed an application under section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents) seeking copies of electronic evidence way back in April, but the Delhi Police has not responded to it.

He said, “We moved this application in April. Five months have passed. We haven’t received a reply yet. Where is the scope of section 207 application if there is no speedy redressal?”

Additional Public Prosecutor, Amit Prasad, appearing for Delhi Police, argued that the volume of data procured from all accused persons and witnesses is huge and hence, it will take time. He said, “What they are asking for is all the digital data that pertains to all devices that have been seized. During the investigation, various people and witnesses were called, and their devices were seized. Some are accused, some are witnesses and some are neither of the two. The volume of data is huge. That data contains personal things so now, if I am to supply all that data, I will be infringing their privacy.” He argued that the State will need to analyze each data, and without that analysis, they can’t file a reply.

He added, “The relevant data has been provided. I will file a reply, it will just take time.” Advocate Tusharika Mattoo, also appearing for Natasha and Devangana intervened and said, “Atleast they (Delhi Police) can supply a list of documents about the un-relied documents as per the directions of the Supreme Court.” The APP clarified that the evidence they have relied on, has already been supplied to the accused and contended that what the defense has been asking for is “over and above the chargesheet.”

Advocate Mattoo argued further that even if the prosecution has used confidential data, they should provide it to the accused persons. “Even if confidential data is part of the chargesheet, they need to provide it to us. Our application [under section 207 of the CrPC] was filed on April 8, we have sent repeated emails to the prosecution. They can at least indicate which files they are referring to!”

The Prosecutor then informed the court that he will file a preliminary reply to this grievance. He then referred to the application filed by accused Asif Iqbal Tanha who has sought for a clone copy of his mobile phone that has been used as evidence. Prasad submitted, “I cannot give a clone copy of the mobile phone as the same is with the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)”.

Advocate Sowjhanya Shankaran, representing Asif, argued that the prosecution has relied on this material to frame charges against him in the chargesheet, and that it is the duty of the State to provide for the same. She submitted, “The prosecution said they found something incriminating from my (Asif) phone and that material was sent to FSL and the result is awaited. Prosecution has filed 3 chargesheets, there are at least 65 odd pages which they claim they have recovered from my phone, these are data, WhatsApp chats, and alleged speeches already relied on by them. I need to know the entire content relied on by them. It is not the job of the prosecution to pick and choose what to rely upon.”

She further argued that it is the duty of the State to ensure a fair trial, investigation, and also fairness of disclosure. “This is my phone, it’s not about my privacy, give me access to my own records. I am not asking for my phone, just the materials the state has relied upon”, she argued.  

Amit Prasad refuted these arguments and said that in the middle of the investigation, he cannot disrupt the process. “I cannot keep distributing material against the accused.” The court then asked him to inform the court about the status of the FSL report. Judge Rawat orally remarked, “Please ask when the FSL report will come and inform me on the next date otherwise I will have to pass some orders. I will pass a direction that FSL may expeditiously do this.”

According to a SabrangIndia report, during the previous hearing in connection with co-accused PhD scholar Sharjeel Imam, APP Prasad had argued that Imam delivered a speech Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) on January 16, 2020 where he started his speech with “As-salamu alaykum” (a common way of greeting in the Muslim community) which means that the speech was meant for only one particular community. “The fact that the address starts from As-salamu alaykum itself states that the speech is addressed to a particular community. The tone and tenor are kept in fine balance,” he had said.

Referring to this argument, co-accused and United against Hate founder, Khalid Saifi told Judge Rawat, “I read in the papers something on starting a speech with As-salamu alaykum was illegal? I should stop if it is illegal. I always greet my friends with salaam.” The Judge said that it was an argument placed by the prosecution and not the court’s word.

Saifi replied, “Once I am out [on bail], I will file a case in the NGT [National Green Tribunal] because the Delhi police has wasted 2 million of precious papers on this chargesheet”.

Before adjournment, Advocate Mattoo requested the court to record all submissions made today. She said, “Kindly all the submissions made today be recorded. Last time, we were not supplied replies by the prosecution so at least our replies will be recorded.”

The court marked the presence of all accused persons and posted the matter for hearing on September 30.

Related:

Delhi Police can’t be trusted to investigate media leak: Asif Tanha’s counsel

Sharjeel Imam tried to create complete anarchy: Gov’t tells Delhi court

Umar Khalid files fresh bail plea, opposes State’s “dilatory tactics”

Chargesheet calls me ‘veteran of sedition’, gives it a communal colour: Umar Khalid to court

The post Production of electronic evidence delayed: Student activists to Delhi Court, 2020 Violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A few years ago, the top court of our country had observed the prejudicial and biased approach adopted by the investigative agency in the Best Bakery Case, where the tiny outlet was burnt down on March 1, 2002 by a violent mob in motivated retaliation to the Godhra train mass arson. After a series of roadblocks – hostile witnesses, intimidation, demand for a re-trial, appeals – the Supreme Court Bench of Justices Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat made some notable observations that went on to shape the jurisprudence on State accountability.

In Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh and Ors vs State of Gujarat and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 158, a case spearheaded by CJP’s efforts, the court ordered a re-trial, outside the state of Gujarat while ruling that not just the justice delivery system was taken for a ride, but the investigation was “perfunctory”, “impartial”, and the evidence was not brought before the court with any seriousness or meticulousness.

In paragraph 68 of the judgment, the Division Bench had said:

“Criminal trials should not be reduced to mock trials or shadow boxing or fixed trials. Judicial criminal administration system must be kept clean and beyond the reach of whimsical political wills or agendas and properly insulated from discriminatory standards or yardsticks of the type prohibited by the mandate of the Constitution”.

Almost 16 years later, a similar kind of segmentation haunts us. The real darkness on the horizon after the pan-India anti Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 protests, was the ravaging North East Delhi violence that killed 53 people and left more than 200 injured. The hasty enactment of the 2019 amendment to citizenship laws (December 9 and 11, 2019) is a poignant reminder of the ruling dispensation’s motive: exclusion and authoritarianism.

The State has since tried to manipulate the narrative by calling the demonstration communal, instead of the legislation that aims to provide citizenship to only non-Muslims from the neighbouring countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. Senior Counsel Trideep Pais, the counsel for youth leader, Umar Khalid was cogent in his arguments before the district court when he called out the Delhi Police’s special cell that falsely portrayed the anti-CAA protests as a “secular façade”. The protests were an organised effort for inclusion, an attempt to assert identity and belong to the country. But the State deflected attention and manipulated public opinion by deliberately trying to confuse protests with ‘planning a riot’.

A vast array of Indians, whose politics the government may not agree with, found their names in the Delhi violence conspiracy chargesheet. They were charged under the anti-terror law. One year later, eighteen are still incarcerated, and very few are out on bail. The Delhi Police, that come under the Union Home Ministry, have named and arrested student activists from only two universities, Jamia Millia Islamia and Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), and also some teaching faculty members of JNU, Delhi University to assert that there was an attempt to subjugate the government established by law, violently.

Indian courts have tried to dissect this chilling message, to some extent. Though verdicts have come after a whole year of being held under a manipulated process and a draconian law, the district courts and most recently the Delhi High Court has questioned the Delhi Police’s probe into the violence of February 2020. Perhaps this will help in re-shaping public discourse, that protestors are not “Islamic extremists”, “urban naxals”, and “anti-nationals”, and bring to the fore, a conversation on how citizens must and need to hold the state accountable.

Let us analyse some judgments for this purpose:

“Callous and indolent investigation”- ASJ Vinod Yadav

September 2, 2021: On September 2, the Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav discharged three accused- Shah Alam (26), Rashid Saifi (23), Shadab (26) from the case FIR number 93 of 2020, on the basis of two complaints alleging that a shop was burnt, attacked and looted during the violence. (State vs Shah Alam and Ors, Sessions Case Number 68 of 2021).

The court noted that the trial in the violence case has not begun, and accused persons have been languishing in jails for over a year. He said, “The police seem to be still busy filing supplementary chargesheets therein. The precious judicial time of this Court is being wasted in giving dates in those cases…where there is hardly any investigation carried out by the police.”

The court expressed its anger at the fact that the three accused were neither specifically named in the FIR, nor a particular role was assigned to them. This was followed by the observation that, “The sort of investigation conducted in the instant case and the lack of supervision thereof by the superior officers clearly depicts that the investigating agency has merely tried to pull the wool over the Court’s eyes and nothing else.”

The court observed that the case appeared to have been solved merely by filing this charge sheet “without any real effort being made to trace out eye witnesses, real accused persons and technical evidence”. ASJ Yadav also reportedly said, “When history will look back at the worst communal riots since partition in Delhi, it is the failure of the investigating agency to conduct a proper investigation by using the latest scientific methods, which will surely torment the sentinels of democracy.”

It blamed the senior officers for their “callous and indolent investigation”, which also was a criminal waste of the taxpayer’s money and time!

“Vague evidence and general allegations”-Justice Subramonium Prasad, High Court

September 3, 2021: On September 3, the Delhi High Court granted bail to five accused persons- Mohd. Arif, Shadab Ahmad, Furkan, Suvaleen and Tabassum in the alleged murder of Head constable Ratan Lal, and for causing head injuries to the DCP during the violence in February last year. Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the arguments of the Delhi Police regarding the accused persons’ call data records, their clothes during the committing of the alleged crime, and the available CCTV camera footage. (Mohd. Arif vs State, Bail App. Number 774 of 2021).

He held that the video footage placed before the court that shows the accused person at the crime scene is inconclusive, as they are not explicitly visible in the same. He also observed that there is no evidence that was placed on record that could corroborate the contention that the accused Mohd. Arif had damaged the CCTV cameras. He said, “merely being caught staring at a CCTV camera right before its dislocation by a co-accused cannot form the basis of this assumption.”

Justice Prasad did record in his judgment that it is “egregious and against the principles enshrined in our Constitution” to allow an accused to remain languishing behind bars during the pendency of the trial, and that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. But the principle came to apply on to the accused after 17 months of incarceration!

“Callous, inefficient, unproductive investigation”- ASJ Vinod Yadav

In the case State vs Rohit, Sessions Case No. 202 of 2021, the district court went on to frame charges against accused Rohit on the basis of a complaint made by one Anwar Ali regarding vandalising, looting and burning his house down by a mob.

The court observed that there was enough ocular evidence in the form of supplementary statements of complainant and public witnesses in order to frame charges against the accused, with no help from the Police.

“Their statements cannot be brushed aside/discarded at this stage, merely because there has been some delay in recording of their statements or the complainant(s) have not specifically named them in their initial written complaints….It is worth noting that investigation in the matter appears to be highly callous, inefficient and unproductive; however, as noted earlier this Court at this stage, cannot ignore the statements of victims dehors the delay in recording of FIR in the matter”, noted ASJ Vinod Yadav.

“Delhi Police itself does not know the details of the investigation”- ASJ Amitabh Rawat

August 25, 2021: On August 25, a shocked Additional Sessions Judge, Amitabh Rawat said, “This leads to a conclusion that though the case is being investigated by the police, the police did not itself know that they were investigating the case and when told came to realize that it is investigating the matter, the details of which they do not know. Since the police did not themselves know that they were investigating the case, the natural corollary is they could not have informed the Court or the complainant/ respondent about the same.”

He passed this order in a review petition filed by the Police against the lower court’s order. The court seemed perplexed at Delhi Police’s conduct which did not know about clubbing of a complaint, filed by the respondent Saleem who alleged an attack on his house during the carnage with another FIR of the same incident.

It was noted that the complaint was lodged in March 2020 however, the Delhi Police realised of having clubbed the same with another FIR only in November that year, i.e., after a lapse of 8 months (State vs Salim, Crl. Revision Number 102 of 2020).

“Pained to see the lackadaisical attitude of the Police”- ASJ Vinod Yadav

Haji Hashim Ali had alleged that on February 25 last year, a mob had put on fire two LPG cylinders lying inside the Madina Masjid, resulting in an explosion and thereby causing substantial damage to the Masjid. Furthermore, it was alleged that one person from the mob climbed on the top of Madina Masjid and hoisted a saffron flag atop it by chanting communal/religious slogans.

Meanwhile, an FIR was registered by Police on the basis of a written complaint by one Naresh Chand alleging that a riotous mob had caused damage to his house. Ali was arrested in the FIR and was subsequently granted bail. After being released on bail, Ali had made a written complaint to the Delhi Police in June 2021 where his complaint was clubbed with the FIR in which he was an accused and the Police did not register a separate FIR on his complaint.

But during the hearing before Judge Vinod Yadav, he was apprised by the Delhi Police that a separate FIR was already lying registered regarding the Masjid arson and it was also stated that the grievance of Ali was duly redressed in the matter.

In this backdrop, Judge Yadav called out the Police for their “callous attitude/negligence”. He said, “This Court is quite pained to see the lackadaisical attitude adopted by the investigating agency in the matter…..The investigating agency was duty bound to have apprised the learned ACMM (North-East) of the entire facts and place complete material before it, which admittedly has not been done.” (State vs Haji Hashim Ali, Crl Revision No. 7 of 2020)

Remote links to the main crime

Faizan Khan, an employee of a mobile shop allegedly sold a SIM card without verification in December 2019 for Rs. 200. This cost him three months of his life and terrorism charges as he was arrested under the UAPA FIR 59/2020 on July 29, 2020. The Police alleged that someone else’s’ Aadhaar card and photograph was submitted by the subscriber to purchase the SIM card from Faizan, and this mobile number was allegedly used by the media team of Jamia Coordination Committee headed by co-accused Safoora Zargar to create WhatsApp groups to coordinate anti-CAA protests.

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait of the Delhi High Court granted him bail in October last year, after noting that the onerous conditions/embargo under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA would not be applicable to him since the investigating agency’s status report did not disclose the commission of offences under UAPA, except for bald statements of the witnesses. This is how casually the Delhi Police invoked UAPA. Faizan was not even part of the protests that was alleged to be a plot to defame India! (Faizan Khan vs State NCT of Delhi, Bail App. No. 2725 of 2020)

The Delhi Police accepted that Faizan was not part of any “illegal activity”, nor did he have active knowledge that the SIM card he sold was for an “unlawful purpose”. There was also no proof on record such as CCTV footage, video or chats of Faizan with any of the group except the allegation that he provided SIM on fake ID in December 2019. But he is in for a long haul to free his name from UAPA charges.

His case is a classic example of the way the Delhi Police under the Centre has played its ubiquitous corrosive politics, manipulating democratic institutions. The Police has picked up remote links to incriminate people over FIRs and charge sheets running into thousands of pages.

Planted witnesses, conveniently placed constables

Irshad Ahmed, an associate of jailed Tahir Hussain (who is the main accused in UAPA FIR 59), was granted bail by the High Court on October 7, last year. Despite lack of electronic evidence such as CCTV footage or photos to implicate Ahmed, he spent 8 months in jail before getting bail. As per statement of constables Pawan and Ankit, who were eyewitnesses and were present at the spot of crime, they had identified Irshad and Tahir Hussain for “throwing petrol bombs on the houses of Hindu community.”

However, Justice Suresh Kait noted that the police constables did not make any complaint on the date of the incident (February 25), and filed the FIR only on February 28. “Thus, the said witnesses seem to be planted one”, he observed. (Irshad Ahmed vs State NCT of Delhi, Bail App. No. 2696 of 2020)

On May 29, 2020, in the case Firoz Khan vs State, Bail App. No. 945 of 2020, Justice Anup Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court dismissed the statement of Vikas, a police constable who claimed to have witnessed an act of burning down a shop during the violence. The informant had apprised the court that though he had contacted the police control room when his shop was being attacked by the mob, there was no immediate response. The Court was in a conundrum as to why the informant contacted the PCR if constable Vikas, who claimed to be the eyewitness, was right there at the spot.

Justice Bhambhani remarked, “Even on first blush, it is not understood as to why the complainant would say that he failed to reach the police by telephone, if Constable Vikas was already present there.”

Similarly, on October 10, 2020, in Mohd. Rehan vs State NCT of Delhi, Bail App. No. 2849 of 2020, Justice Kait granted bail to Rehan accused of rioting, after noting that the statements of Constables Pawan and Vikram were recorded as eyewitnesses whereby, they identified Rehan but they did not make any DD entry make a PCR call on the day of the incident. The alleged incident took place on February 25 whereas the FIR in the case was registered on March 4.

There is no doubt that unprecedented terror and repression was unleashed by the nexus of our rulers, the executive forces they dominate, and the media. In the painstakingly long process of obtaining bails, discharges, acquittals and dismissals, it is now time for courts to pin the focus on the role played by the government and its branches when we witness a mass scale catastrophe like this. Will there be ultimate accountability and a reckoning?

Nineteen months have gone by since the devastating Delhi violence, many remain incarcerated at the risk of damage to their reputation, but hate mogers like Ragini Tiwari and Kapil Mishra roam free. Is it because their hate speech of “kaat dalo” (kill them) and “shoot the traitors” doesn’t count as violent hate speech or they enjoy the patronage of the government? Does this kind of use of provoking mobs into mass violence and terror not count for the ‘law and order machinery’ under the ministry for home affairs?

One common thing observed in all three bail orders dated June 15, 2021, of UAPA accused students Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha were that there was “no prima facie evidence” against them to invoke this anti-terror law. The court observed and rejected the idea of the State which repeatedly urged that what was contemplated and in fact brought to fruition was not a typical protest but an aggravated protest which was intended to disrupt the life of the community in Delhi.

The Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani perused the chargesheet and all the materials against them and said that the allegations made against them are not even borne-out from the material on which they are based. In Natasha’s case, the court remarked, “The State cannot thwart the grant of bail merely by confusing issues.” (Natasha Narwal vs State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. App. No. 82/2021).

These judgments are no doubt pertinent counterweights offered by the judiciary in our political climate where the regime has tried its best to delegitimise resistance. Nonetheless, the narrative of how and why the investigation agency faltered and the tools that should be used as a deterrent to bar such recurrence should have penetrated mainstream media and public discourse yesterday. Our state cheerleaders have made some grave mistakes over the past few months, and such subverters of constitutional values must be questioned.

SHO and DCP failed in supervisory duty – CMM Arun Kumar

In the matter of FIR 130/2020 where the accused were charged with rioting and unlawful assembly, the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate sought an Action Taken report, as the trial was being adjourned for filing supplementary chargesheet. The court observed that the SHO Gokulpuri police station and DCP (NE) were being absolutely evasive as if they are not aware of the status of the investigation.

“I deem it appropriate to report the matter to Commissioner of Police, Delhi so as to bring the conduct of the SHO PS Gokal Puri and DCP (NE) to his notice in as much as they are failing in their supervisory duties despite receipt of copy of last order of this court and are trying to avoid taking any responsibility in the matter by not concluding further investigation in the present matter despite repeated directions causing delay in trial despite the fact that all the four accused in the present case are in JC for over a period of almost one year,” the court said in its September 9 order. (State vs. Babu@Sahil CR Case No. 795/2020)
 

Lackadaisical attitude in investigation – CMM Arun Kumar

The CMM court, on September 6, directed Delhi Commissioner of Police to take action to ensure proper investigation in riots cases. On September 1 as well, the court had pulled up Delhi Police for its conduct of filing supplementary chargesheets and failing to ensure conclusion of investigation due to which the court was unable to go ahead with trial.

“Last and final opportunity is accordingly given to the State to do the needful in the matter for filing of supplementary chargesheet positively within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, the Court shall proceed further with the matter without giving any further opportunity to the State in this regard particularly in view of the fact that the accused is running in J/C for over a period of almost one year,” the court said. (State v. Dinesh Yadav @Michael CR Case No. 1274/2020)

No steps taken for proper prosecution – CMM Arun Kumar Garg

In CR Cases 1494/2020, CMM Arun Kumar Garg observed that the public prosecutor remained absent for the hearing of this cases since many hearings and despite repeated calls on September 17 and several pass over requests, neither the police nor the prosecution was able to assist the court in the matter.

“Such   lackadisical   approach   on   the   part   of   the prosecution as well as the Investigating Agency in riots cases has been repeatedly brought to the notice of not only the DCP North East and Joint CP Eastern Range but has also   been brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. However, no steps for proper prosecution of the cases seem to have been  taken by either of them and if taken, have not yet been brought to the notice of this Court.   The aforesaid failure on the part of said police officers to take appropriate measures for prosecution of riots cases is causing avoidable delay in committal/trial of riots cases,” the court observed.

The court directed a copy of the order to be sent to DCP NE,  Joint Commissioner of Police Eastern Range, Commissioner of Police Delhi as well as to Lt. Governor of Delhi and asked the Commissioner of Police to ensure that DCP NE remains present before the court on the next hearing (October 1) failing which the court shall be constrained to pass an appropriate order as per law which includes imposing adjournment costs on the State  with a further direction to deduct the same from the salary of the officers. (State v. Rohit CR Cases 1494/2020)

Related:

Delhi Violence case: Court discharges 3 accused citing shoddy investigation

The 2004 Best Bakery Judgement and Its Significance

A new hope: Student activists charged under UAPA get bail

HRD Ishrat Jahan awaits bail in Delhi Violence Case

Chargesheet calls me ‘veteran of sedition’, gives it a communal colour: Umar Khalid to court

CJP’s online petition to CJI: Hold Kapil Mishra accountable for instigating the Delhi violence

Ragni Tiwari incites violence: CJP files complaint against hate

The post Delhi Violence: Courts call Delhi Police’s investigation ‘callous, inefficient, indolent and lackadaisical’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Aimed at expanding the health infrastructure in the state, especially in rural and semi-rural areas, the Maharashtra government has reportedly decided to set up new medical colleges and super-speciality hospitals on a public-private partnership (PPP) basis.

This partnership between private and public players involves financing, designing, and decisions on infrastructure facilities that were initially provided only by the public sector. According to media reports, the government believes that in the next three years, additional 1,000 seats in MD (Doctor of Medicine), MS (Masters of surgery) and DNB (Diplomate of National Board) courses will be created. In the next ten years, this plan envisages 2,600 more MBBS seats, including 1,800 in the new medical colleges and 800 in the present colleges.

Maharashtra Medical Education Minister Amit Deshmukh was quoted by NDTV saying, “Every district will have a medical college. At present, 18 districts have government medical colleges. There are proposals to set up medical colleges in eight districts. We will utilise the Central government’s scheme and funds for (setting up the health infrastructure) in Maharashtra.”

Vulnerable health infrastructure

The pandemic, especially the devastating second wave has exposed the crumbling healthcare infrastructure in India. In February 2021, the 15th Finance Commission report had revealed that the doctor-population ratio in India is 1:1,511 against the established World Health Organisation recommendation of 1:1,000. The nurse to population ratio is 1:670 against the norm of 1:300.

Further, the report also reflected poorly on the hospital beds-to-population ratio. “India is estimated to have a total of 18,99,228 hospital beds (over 60 per cent of which are in the private sector), that is, roughly 1.4 beds per 1,000 population. This is lower than in many comparator countries: China’s bed density exceeds four per 1,000; Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom and the United States have around three per 1,000; and in Thailand and Brazil, hospital beds exceed two per 1,000 persons,” it said.

The report submitted to the government also said that among the major states, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh are way behind others in government doctors to population ratio. The National Health Policy 2017 (NHP 2017) recommended the ramping up of public health expenditure to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2025. It said that States’ spending on the health sector should be increased to at least 8 percent of their respective budgets by 2020.

But as per the latest data (NHP 2018 to 2019), except Meghalaya, all states are spending less than 8 percent of their budget on the health sector. Punjab, Telangana, Maharashtra, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and Nagaland are spending less than 5 percent of their budget on health.

PPP, a good model?

It is a known fact that there is a vast disparity between public and private healthcare and the maximum population, i.e., the rural areas depend on public systems/government facilities. The National Health Profile (2019) also shows how health continues to be a low priority for the government, with low public healthcare spending, compared to other nations, at around 1 to 2 percent of the total GDP. On the other hand, the private sector runs on a for-profit basis, and hence offers better equipment and services that pander to the limited urban population.

Karnataka was one of the first states that tried to implement PPP in the health sector and allegedly failed. According to a New Indian Express report some experts were not happy with the results. Dr M Madan Gopal, former principal secretary to health and family welfare department had told the publication, “There have been examples of failures in Karnataka. For instance, the PPP for primary healthcare, the Arogya Bandhu scheme, was scrapped by the state government in January 2016 following a series of complaints of non-compliance with rules, misuse of funds, lack of accountability, poor availability of qualified human resources and failure to provide quality service to patients by the NGOs running the primary health centres.”  

The failed model of the Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital, in Raichur, Karnataka in tie-up with Apollo Hospital is not news to anybody. For this project, the government had reportedly provided 73 acres land, the hospital building, roads, power, water facilities and a financial aid of Rs. 60 crores. But after the state government evaluation in April 2011, it was found that there was poor governance, and grievance redressal mechanism in the hospital. As per the media, the contract was terminated in May 2012 and the hospital equipment worth Rs. 37 lakhs was seized by the Principal District and Sessions Court for unpaid dues. 

Health activists and doctors, have in the past, expressed concern about the quality and access to healthcare for poor patients and also the inevitable privatisation of medical education. Giving power to private players to encourage medical education seems to come across as a rather shaky plan. Medical education in India has also been rocked with a series of scandals.

The Vyapam scam from Madhya Pradesh, that involved the employing of imposters to write papers, manipulate exam hall seating arrangements and supply forged answer sheets by bribing officials, led to the cancellation of licenses of close to 700 doctors. In October 2019, the medical seat scam in Karnataka was exposed, wherein three private medical colleges blocked around 60 percent of the seats allocated under management quota and then sold them to students who secured low ranks. This was allegedly done by the medical college management paying off bright students to crack the NEET medical exam. After these students opted for seats in the respective colleges, they would later give them up, thus allowing the colleges to sell these seats for inflated prices, as they are ‘unoccupied’. As per a report in TOI, a seat worth 5 lakhs was sold for 50 lakhs.

Another issue with setting up medical colleges using the PPP model would be sudden fee hikes. For instance, in 2019, Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences in Dehradun had increased its fees to around 13 lakhs from 4 lakhs per annum, for seats under the national quota category. The private medical and dental colleges association in Telangana has also asked for an increase in fees, on grounds of “inflation”. This will remain to be a cause of concern.

Related:

Anti-Privatisation Day: Over 1 lakh protests, video message to UNHRC and more
One Day in a Ward in Kolkatta battling Covid-19
Covid-19: Are Indians letting their guard down against a possible third wave?
Covid-19 has completely exposed Delhi’s medical infrastructure: High Court

The post Maharashtra: Is setting up medical institutes under public-private partnership a good route? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Akil Abdulhamid Kureshi is the current Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court. He practised at the Gujarat High Court until he was appointed as an additional judge on March 7, 2004. He took an oath as a permanent judge on August 12, 2005. He has also acted as the interim Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court for two weeks before being transferred to the Bombay High Court. Finally, on November 8, 2019, he was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court.

Justice Kureshi was also in line to become the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High in 2019, on the recommendation of the Supreme Court collegium, but the Centre returned his file. On May 10, 2019 the Supreme Court in its resolution had said, “Mr. Justice A.A. Kureshi is the senior-most Judge from Gujarat High Court and at present is functioning, on transfer, in Bombay High Court. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Mr. Justice A.A Kureshi is suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.”

As the Centre seemed hesitant to make Justice Kureshi the Chief Justice of an important High Court, the Supreme Court modified its own previous recommendation due to communication from the government in late August in 2019. By a resolution dated September 5, 2019, the collegium recommended him to be appointed as the Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court instead.

“On reconsideration and after taking into account the aforesaid two communications dated 23rd August, 2019 and 27th August, 2019 and the accompanying material, the Collegium resolves to reiterate its earlier recommendation dated 10th May, 2019 with the modification that Mr. Justice A.A. Kureshi be appointed as Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court,” stated the collegium.

The Central government’s reluctance to appoint Justice Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court, led to the filing of a writ petition before the Supreme Court by the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association. The GHCAA had reportedly prayed that a direction be issued to the Central government to implement the Collegium resolution of May 10, 2019.

Further controversy erupted on August 17, when the Supreme Court collegium recommended the names of nine judges for elevation to the Supreme Court, leaving Justice Kureshi behind. What was more striking was that the collegium selected the senior most High Court Chief Justice, AS Oka but did not recommend the next senior Chief Justice in line, i.e., Justice AA Kureshi. 

According to some reports, the reason for his career hitting a wall is believed to be his decision to send Amit Shah to judicial custody in connection with the extra judicial killing of Sohrabuddin Shaikh and his wife, Kausar Bi. In Central Bureau of Investigation vs Amit Shah (Crl. App. No. 1497 of 2010), Justice Kureshi had ordered on August 6, 2010: “I am conscious that law leans against custodial interrogation as also limited jurisdiction of this Court in considering the legality of the discretionary order passed by the Learned Magistrate. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, however, I am of the opinion that limited remand would be justified and was called for.”

Notable work

Justice Kureshi has always upheld the constitutional freedoms of free speech, personal liberty and also passed key directions in the recent Covid matters. In Lipika Paul vs State of Tripura and Ors WP(C) No.1363/2019, he had held that government servants are entitled to hold and express their political beliefs. The government servant was suspended from duty after she allegedly participated in a political rally and canvassed against a political party by making defamatory and indecent comments on Facebook. But Justice Kureshi held that every person who is present in the audience during such addresses cannot be stated to have participated in the rally and that, as a government servant she was not devoid of her right of free speech, a fundamental right which can be curtailed only by a valid law. 

Another important judgment delivered by him was in the case of Dulal Ghosh vs State of Tripura and Ors Crl. Petition No. 8 of 2020, where he held that insults to religion made unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of a class, would not be an offence under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.

As we had previously reported in SabrangIndia, he was hearing a petition for quashing an FIR registered against the petitioner last year for allegedly hurting the religious sentiments of the Hindu community by insulting the Bhagavad Gita on social media. In this backdrop he had observed, “With rapid spread of social media platforms, the right to free speech has got an entirely new dimension…. What however continues to hold good is that the right of free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions that may be imposed by the State in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of Court, defamation or incitement of an offence…The law is clear. The petitioner can hold his personal beliefs and within the framework of law can also express them, as long as he does not transgress any of the restrictions imposed by law to the freedom of his speech and expression.”

He is also known for taking suo motu cognisance of a news report last year where a minor girl from Tripura was sold to a family in Rajasthan due to abject poverty of her family. By taking suo motu cognisance, the court also discovered that she was raped, was two and a half months pregnant, and had tested positive for Covid-19. The State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, Tripura as well as the Government authorities were directed to take necessary steps for ensuring the return of the girl as soon as she is cured of Coronavirus and her quarantine period is over. (Court on its own motion W.P Civ. PIL No. 6 of 2020).

New additional judges in the Supreme Court including three women have filled the vacancies for now, until Justice R Subhash Reddy retires on January 4, 2022. Justice Kureshi is set to retire in March 2022 and it is only fair that he be considered for this vacancy.

Related:

Unwitting and careless insults to religion, not an offence under IPC: Tripura HC

NHRC chairmanship contender Justice Arun Mishra’s legacy

The post Who is Justice Akil Kureshi? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Lathi charge, or use of force by the Police, has no place in the statutory books of India. Nonetheless, this technique is commonly adopted by the Police, be it on the protesting farmers, students across universities or people who were allegedly seen violating lockdown guidelines over the past two years. So, are the Police allowed to lathi charge as part of due process of law?

There are some provisions that allow the Police to use force or lathi charge but that is contingent on certain exceptions. According to section 144 of the CrPC, the police can resort to the use of force only when an unlawful assembly refuses to disperse. Under this provision, the police have the ability to disperse a crowd or a group of 5 or more people when there is a threat of public disorder. But the term ‘lathi or baton charge’ finds no mention in these sections.

Instead, what the section entails is that if the District Magistrate deems it fit, he/she can direct the Police to take such an action against an unlawful assembly if it will “prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot, of an affray.”

Section 141 of the IPC defines unlawful assembly as an assembly of five or more persons if the common object of the persons is:

-to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central/State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant

-to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process

-to commit any mischief or criminal trespass,

-by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property

-to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

But off late, students, lockdown violators and most recently, the farmers who have been brutally lathi charged, have not indulged in any activity that may amount to “criminal force against the government” or “criminal trespass”. According to media reports, students of premium institutes in Delhi were allegedly lathi charged while demonstrating against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in December 2019. Similarly, there were reports of excessive brute force against lockdown violators, especially migrant workers who were forced to walk back miles during the first lockdown.

Further, as per section 129 of CrPC, an unlawful assembly can be dispersed only on the exclusive orders of an executive magistrate or the officer in charge of a police station (and in his absence, an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector). The prerequisites mentioned in the provision have also been reiterated by the High Courts to permit the Police and the armed forces to use force. In Karam Singh vs Hardayal Singh And Ors. 1979 CriLJ 1211, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had said, “Before any force can be used, three prerequisites are to be satisfied. Firstly, there should be an unlawful assembly with the object of committing violence or an assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace. Secondly, such assembly is ordered to be dispersed and thirdly, in spite of such orders to disperse, such assembly does not disperse.”

In Police Commissioner and Ors vs Yash Pal Sharma RFA No. 364 of 2003, the Delhi High Court had observed that the Police had used force and lathi-charged even though the demonstrations were without any arms and was a peaceful march. The Bench had said, “It is lawful for the police to use necessary and reasonable force to disperse an unlawful assembly….The legal position which cannot be disputed is that it is only reasonable force which the police is authorized to use to disperse such unlawful assembly. This proposition flows from the principle that otherwise it is a well-settled law that citizens of this country have fundamental right of speech and expression, as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India.”

Finally, Justice AK Sikri held that this kind of force used by the police was far from reasonable and he also got into what section 129 envisages. He said, “The object of the provisions of Section 129 of the Code, or for that matter Rule 14.56 of the Punjab Police Rules, is to use the force to quell a disturbance of the peace or disperse an assembly which threatens such disturbance and has either refused to disperse or shows a determination not to disperse. Forgetting this, the act of the police was punitive and repressive.”

Section 130 of the CrPC, on the other hand, warrants the use of armed forces to disperse an assembly, but lays down that only “little force” needs to be used.

Section 130(3) reads, “Every such officer of the armed forces shall obey such requisition in such manner as he thinks fit, but in so doing he shall use as little force, and do as little injury to person and property, as may be consistent with dispersing the assembly and arresting and detaining such persons.”

The Karnataka High Court had attempted to explain how much force should be used by the Police or by the District Magistrate but the boundaries still remain vague. In State of Karnataka vs B. Padmanabha Beliya and Others 1991 (2) KarLJ 11, the High Court had held that after the Magistrate has decided on the kind of force to be used, the officer in charge of the police is solely responsible for deciding the exact amount of force to be used, the manner of using it and the settling of the details of the operations connected with the use of the force; the Police Officer should, of course, bear in mind the principle that no more force than is necessary should be used.”

None of the above provisions specify the exact form or extent in which ‘force’ is to be exercised, so lathi charge turns out to be the most common toolkit. The Kerala Police Manual, 1970 lays down step by step rules for lathi charge, which states, “The extent of force used must be subject to the principle of minimum use of force.” Further, the manual also states that Lathi charge can only begin if the crowd refuses to disperse “after suitable warning” and Lathi blows should be aimed at soft portions of the body and contact with the head or collarbone should be avoided as far as practicable. But just days ago, the Sub-District Magistrate Ayush Sinha directed the force to “split open the skulls of any person who tries to cross the border”, during the ongoing farmers’ protests!

In Anita Thakur vs Govt. of J and K and Ors. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 118 of 2007, the Supreme court had provided compensation to the petitioners who in fact were held to have protested violently and in the process had become unruly and pelted stones at the police. Despite such facts, the court had held that the police had acted excessively because even the police personnel continued the use of force beyond limits after they had controlled the mob. In the process, they continued their lathi charge and the court had remarked that the use of excessive force by the police results in violation of human rights and dignity.

International Law

As per the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba in 1990, in the dispersal of assemblies that are unlawful but non-violent, law enforcement officials shall avoid the use of force or, where that is not practicable, “shall restrict such force to the minimum extent necessary” (section 13).

Section 14 further provides for a possibility of violent unlawful assembly and states, “In the dispersal of violent assemblies, law enforcement officials may use firearms only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary.”

The manuals, rules, the constitutional courts, provisions-all set out for a minimum use of force by the Police but more often than not, they fail to meet even the preliminary threshold before using force, like an unlawful assembly or giving warnings before use of force. The Police need to act proportionately and not in excess to the threat perceived by them. In the case of Anita Thakur, the court had reiterated the use of “minimum and reasonable force” even against a violent mob and comprehended the alarming situations of police excesses.

It had observed, “it becomes a more serious problem when taking recourse to such an action, police indulge in excesses and crosses the limit by using excessive force thereby becoming barbaric or by not halting even after controlling the situation and continuing its tirade. This results in violation of human rights and human dignity. That is the reason that human rights activists feel that police frequently abuse its power to use force and that it becomes a serious threat to the Rule of law….Policemen are required to undergo special training to deal with these situations. Many times, situations turn ugly or go out of control because of lack of sufficient training to the police personnel to deal with violence and challenges to their authority.”

The use of lathi/baton against citizens by authorities has been a colonial gift. Zealous brutalities like these always tend to send shockwaves across the nations but it doesn’t bring about any change in the way the Police operate, nor is there any accountability. Be it the recent insensitive lathi charge against the farmers in Karnal or the lathi charge on Lala Lajpat Rai during the anti-Simon Commission protests years ago, the aftermath of such assaults has been grave.

Jawaharlal Nehru, in his autobiography Toward Freedom also wrote about the increasing police brutality in the form of lathi charges and raids during the Civil Disobedience movement. The lathi charges were so intense that Bombay, the city that became a hub of protests and ‘hartals’ (strike), saw the coming up of emergency hospitals to treat only the victims of these lathi charges.

As per the National Crime Record Bureau’s (NCRB) Crime in India 2019 report, 105 civilians have been injured due to lathi charge by the Police, the highest being in Meghalaya (65), followed by West Bengal (19). Back in 2016, the NCRB data revealed that there were 185 occasions on which police used lathi charge in Uttar Pradesh, the second highest in the country after Jammu and Kashmir, during which 219 civilians and 11 policemen were injured.

Following the death of farmer Sushil Kajal, who was fatally injured during the brutal lathi charge attack in Karnal, the All-India Farmers Convention concluded with a call for Bharat Bandh on September 25, 2021 to expand and intensify its agitation to every village and corner. Accordingly, leaders appealed to farmers to show up for a massive protest rally at Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh on September 5. The farmers have been protesting the three farm laws for over a year now.

Related:

SKM announces Bharat Bandh on September 25!
Haryana: Karnal SDM orders brutal lathi-charge on protesting farmers
SKM decries CM Khattar’s defence of Karnal lathicharge
Farmers call Karnal lathicharge “Death of democracy!”

The post What does the Law say about Lathi Charge? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since August 15, Gauri Memorial Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) have been hosting a a series of webinars in memory of slain journalist Gauri Lankesh. These online lectures and discussions examine several pertinent elements of the times we live in, and the role of the news media. On August 22, we hosted a discussion on the subject: Democracy under Attack: Populism, surveillance and the media.

The panel comprised Siddharth Vardarajan (Co-founder and Editor of The Wire), Prabir Purkayastha (Founder, Editor of NewsClick) and Teesta Setalvad (Human Rights Defender and CJP Secretary). This discussion was necessitated by the Pegasus spyware scandal, specifically its targeting of journalists known to speak truth to power. All three speakers have been in the regime’s crosshairs for their fearless journalism and human rights advocacy.

Mainstream vs Alternate Media

Speaking on the subject, Prabir Purkayastha first hailed Gauri Lankesh, a pioneer in the field of rights-based independent journalism, as “a martyr to the cause of fearless journalism.” Lankesh was gunned down outside her Bangalore home on September 5, 2017, allegedly by members of a hardline Hindutva group that has also been accused of targeting and killing rationalists like Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare and MM Kalburgi. Lankesh’s independent publication Gauri Lankesh Patrike, has been a source of inspiration for many publications that are now part of what is called “Alternate news media” to distinguish them from “Mainstream media”.

But here, Purkayastha offers his take on the mainstream media, who have so far either being outright lapdogs for the regime, or played a role in deflecting attention from its failures. “I wouldn’t call them mainstream media, but big media. They are driven more by advertising and investor concerns than what is in the best interest of their readers,” said Prabir Purkayastha who founded NewsClick in 2009. “The objective then was to do this experiment to see how we could use the online platform to do impactful journalism while keeping costs in check. We wanted to see how a small news platform could change how people consume news,” he said, adding, “Big media was focusing on advertisers. As alternative media, we wanted to give a voice to movements,” explaining the genesis of one of the most impactful online news portals in the country. But Purkayastha has paid dearly for his journalism, being targeted repeatedly by a vindictive regime.

Intimidating journalists with criminal cases

Another online publication that refused to bend the knee and kiss the ring is The Wire. Siddharth Varadarajan and his team have also been targeted with trumped up charges and multiple FIRS. “There’s an FIR against me. There is an FIR against a young colleague Ismat Ara who interviewed the grandfather of the farmer killed during the republic day protests. This was because, during that interview the old man said he suspected foul play. There are other colleagues who also face FIRs, Siraj Ali for reporting on a mosque demolition in Barabanki. In all there are four to five different cases against us,” he said explaining how the regime has tried to intimidate them.

“Since the onset of the pandemic, 40-50 journalists across the country have been targeted with criminal cases for news reportage,” said Varadarajan enumerating instances where journalists were being intimidated using criminal cases, such as Kishorechandra Wangkhem who put up a post about how cow urine could not cure Covid-19, or a reporter in Port Blaire who asked authorities why they were forcibly quarantining a family that had mere spoken to a Covid patient over the phone.

At this point Teesta Setalvad also reminded people, “Siddique Kappan is still in jail,” referring to the journalist who was picked up while on his way to cover the Hathras case and then accused of being connected with “anti-national” organisations. “The journalist today is a Human Rights Defender and is targeted for demanding information in public interest, and raising concerns when this information is denied,” she said.

“This is a new form of offence, we have not seen this before, so definitely there is an escalation of fear, using extra legal means to clamp down on reporters, editors, publications who are against the Centre’s agenda. This trend is dangerous. Citizens must have the ability to question what the government is doing, every sector of civil society must raise their voice and speak out,” said Vardarajan.

Pegasus: Aftermath and Implications

The Wire team has played a key role in exposing the Pegasus scam. “We began by scrutinising a list of 1,300 names, but could verify 300 numbers who were targeted or listed for targeting with Pegasus,” said Varadarajan. Out of these, they approached 60 people with a request to analyse their phones but some were hesitant. “Eventually, we ended up testing 25 phones and 14 mobiles were confirmed to have been infected,” he said.

When Setalvad brought up the subject of how the concept of privacy itself is viewed by the middle class,

Purkayastha hit it out of the park saying, “Apologists for the government often say, ‘If you have nothing to hide, why do you need privacy?’ To them, I say, ‘Why don’t you post all your passwords on social media?’”

Varadrajan also pointed out, “When the regime authorises surveillance of Prashant Kishore’s phone while he was advising Mamata Banerjee during the Bengal elections, in my opinion it is an assault on the electoral process itself.” He further said, “Pegasus is changing the nature of your phone as a communication device. It allows access to your camera and your microphone. Your phone can now be used for spying.” He added, “Pegasus allows the government to hack my phone. I don’t think that it is legal for the government to hack my phone using a cyber weapon.”

On the subject of malicious software, Teesta Setalvad drew attention to the findings of Arsenal, an American digital forensics firm that found malware had been used to plant evidence on devices used by activist implicated in the Bhima Koregaon case. And while the government continues to gaslight citizens, Setalvad pointed out, “Even the court has not taken cognisance of the Arsenal report. There is absence of judicial oversight in this case.”

To this Purkayastha responded by drawing attention to the digital literacy or possible lack thereof among members of the judiciary. He also said, “The Arsenal report on malware revealed how evidence was externally planted on a computer and used to build a case that the planted document was sent to others accused in the case. Today, malware has introduced ‘zero click infection’. You no longer have to click a suspicious link. It can either plant evidence or extract information.”

Reportage on Kashmir

The next topic touched upon by Setalvad was Jammu and Kashmir and how reporting from the valley is a challenge. She mentioned how The Wire and NewsClick has done exemplary work covering Kashmir, especially during the internet shutdown.

Vardarajan spoke about the pressure on journalists who are threatened with legal action for working on stories that reveal the actual state of affairs and how Jammu and Kashmir has taken the shape of a “police state” for journalists. He said, “Reporting from Kashmir is always difficult. There is too much pressure on journalists. They are summoned in thanas (police stations). Then, the cyber cell will ask you questions and berate you. If you are a freelancer and the publication is not strongly backing you, you are threatened with FIRs and that shakes a reporter up”. He suggested that the media fraternity needs to take a strong stand against such intimidation tactics and support the work done by reporters.

Purkayastha also shed some light on Kashmir and the internet shutdowns that have affected the daily routine of people there. He remarked that shutting down the internet affects other opportunities like applying for jobs, scholarships, etc. “Internet is a necessity now, not a luxury. Shutting down the internet is a denial of a necessity,” he said. Furthermore, he added that it is very important for journalists to report on Kashmir for the rest of the nation. “People should know what is really happening in Kashmir. We did it to show how things are not normal in Kashmir,” he said.

Hate Speech

Setalvad mentioned how hate is being used as a propaganda tool and as a result of this, the country is witnessing a tilt to majoritarianism. “Our publication Communalism Combat (1993-2001), then SabrangIndia (2015 onwards) have been highlighting instances of hate speech. Moreover, CJP has taken a legal recourse, reporting instances of hate to authorities and even those instances where news media was involved in the propagation of hate,” said Setalvad.

According to Vardarajan, it is futile to look at hate speech laws, as he is always in two minds about this. He drew parallels between two incidents where the Delhi Police charged student activists under UAPA and sedition charges but failed to take action against people who openly called for the genocide of Muslims. Referring to the Islamophobic slogans raised at Jantar Manta a few days ago, Varadarajan said, “You find no mention of sedition, or UAPA. Only milder sections of law are applied in cases where people call for the genocide at the heart of Delhi and they get bail!”

He also added that often the victims of hate speech incidents or crime are charged under hate speech provisions for promoting enmity between groups. Purkayastha also raised an important point saying it is the business model of these social media platforms that perpetuate and allow hate. Facebook, which has a poor track record of taking action against hate, has algorithms that depend on hate speech, as per Prabir. He added, “This appeals to certain sections. Facebook likes the eyeballs it attracts when hate is perpetuated. How do we regulate this! It is difficult to penalise this. We can complain about hate speech but the viewership also needs to be educated a lot. People now give so much more importance to WhatsApp and Facebook news. An entire generation needs to be educated.”

He pointed out how social media has been misused in the Muzaffarnagar riots, and against Rohingyas in the past.

New Information Technology Rules

Referred to the new rules of the Information Technology Act, that attempt to censor content on digital media platforms, Varadrajan said, “I am glad that the Bombay High Court has stayed some of the nastiest sections of the new IT Rules. The purpose behind these rules is to allow the government to control the narrative in digital news media. But no doubt this will be challenged, I hope the Supreme Court concurs with the decision of the High Court”. He further explained that this is against the Constitution and that there is an attempt by the Centre to weaponise the system of complaints to decide what can be said or printed.

The High Court recently stayed the operation of Rule 9 of the 2021 IT Rules deeming it to be manifestly unreasonable and going beyond the IT Act. This means that the publisher will not have to adhere to all the code of ethics such as the Norms of Journalistic Conduct of the Press Council of India and the Programme Code under Section 5 of the CTVN Act. Further, no self-regulation or central government oversight can be established, allowing the publishers functioning under jurisdiction of Bombay High Court, to freely publish articles without central government interference, subject to further orders of the court.

Purkayastha also explained that the digital platforms have played a role that the ruling government doesn’t like and is uncomfortable with. He said, “This is not the intent of the law but the intent of the government is very clear. A long battle is ahead us.”

Concluding on a hopeful note, he did say that citizens are slowly understanding the government’s intent. He said after the Pegasus revelation, denying Covid deaths is increasing the alienation of people from the government.

The webinar ended by highlighting the need for people to organise themselves at every level to resist undemocratic practices of the Government and raise the right questions.

The entire webinar may be viewed here:

Related:

India’s Deep State: Is any citizen safe?
Gauri Lankesh case: SC to decide on keeping KCOCA charges against accused
Gauri Lankesh case: CJP assists sister Kavitha move SC
Pegasus Scandal: SC finally issues notice to GoI

The post Gauri Lankesh was a martyr to the cause of secular ideas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The ongoing crisis in Afghanistan, with Taliban capturing and taking control of several regions, has led to outpouring of grief and solidarity in India too. But certain people are seeing this as an opportunity to target Islam.

Ashwani Dubey, an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court has drawn parallels between the Taliban and Bakhtiyar Khilji, a Turkish leader who had destroyed the Nalanda University in Bihar, which led to the destruction of many religious texts, way back in the twelfth century.  

His Islamophobic tweet read, “Taliban burns library in Kabul Once upon a time Nalanda University Library was burnt by Bakhtiyar Khilji Time has changed not the Modus operandi #Talibans #Afghanistan”

Taliban burns library in Kabul

Once upon a time Nalanda University Library was burnt by Bakhtiyar Khilji

Time has changed not the Modus operandi#Talibans #Afghanistan

— Ashwani Dubey (@ashwani_dube) August 19, 2021

The purpose of the tweet was probably achieved if one looks at the responses to it. Some netizens pointed at the irony of a city in Bihar named after Muhammad Bin Bakhtiyar Khalji (Bakhtiyarpur). A tweet by one Aman Kumar also stated that the name of the city has not been changed yet because the government fears they will lose their minority vote bank!

Not long ago in 2019, the Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti, an umbrella body of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), had written to the Chief Minister of Bihar, Nitish Kumar to rename the city and that it was time to “undo the sins of the past” by renaming the town and the railway station, reported The Print.

A look through Dubey’s Twitter handle tells us that he also sides with the idea of “Hindutva” that can prevent the country from turning into Kabul, insinuating that Muslims are capable of creating a Kabul like upheaval in the National Capital!

For how long is the question. The whole CAA charade was anything but a protest against policy. Bilkis Daadi would get better biryani @ Kabul. https://t.co/mIPsJVuhF1

— Siddharth Nayak (@_SiddharthNayak) August 16, 2021

A strange focus only towards the Indian Muslims to condemn the actions of the Taliban is bewildering. This opinion has also reached newsroom shows. News Nations’ “Desh Ki Bahas” show broadcasted a programme titled “Taliban ke kitne Hindustani hamdardi?” (How many Indian sympathisers for Taliban?) on August 18.

Deepak Chaurasia, the host of the show, at one point forced an All-India Muslim Personal Board member Yasmeen Farooqui, to condemn the Taliban, even when she said that she will not express any opinion before the Prime Minister issues a statement against Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan. To this, Chaurasia bizarrely reacted as to why she was so concerned about the opinion of the Prime Minister, when she blatantly disrespected the citizenship laws and participated in the Shaheen Bagh protests.  

A journalist unabashedly brought up the Taliban government and how the person she was tweeting against (poet Hussain Haidry) is perhaps a Taliban lover. This is just another instance to show how easy it is to target the already marginalised and vilified Indian Muslim community.

I don’t need certificates from you
An attention seeking rogue ( who was definitely called out by all of us every time,but u won’t find those tweets as they don’t suit u) is more dangerous than Taliban governing Afghanistan? Taliban govt looks too dear to u its seems https://t.co/yDQXQE2dsS

— Sakshi Joshi (@sakshijoshii) August 19, 2021

Days ago, the Zee News also came out with an insensitive piece in DNA suggesting an “Afghanistan Tour Package” for “Tukde-tukde gang” (a common pejorative for liberals and intellectuals), who allegedly supported the Taliban. The publication referred to the statement allegedly made by Shafiqur Rahman Burke, a member of the Samajwadi Party, who said that the Taliban fought in the same way as the revolutionaries of our country fought the British for freedom. As per media reports, he has booked under sections 124A (Sedition), 153A (promoting enmity amongst groups of people on the basis of religion, sex, caste, race, etc) of the Indian Penal Code.

Referring to liberals as ‘these people’, the article says that they don’t believe in democracy. The DNA News piece says that they could go to the Parliament in Kabul, have dinner with the Taliban leaders and members and go to theme parks with them!

Today, August 20, Hari Bhushan Thakur Bachaul, BJP MLA from the Bispi in Madhubani district of Bihar, said that those having problems living in India should go to Afghanistan. When a journalist asked him a question about rising petrol prices, he said that people who have an issue with this should go to Afghanistan where fuel prices are lower!

Related:

Controversial comments on Taliban draw ire
Afghanistan: The End of the Occupation
Will Taliban takeover of Afghanistan be used to attack Indian Muslims?
Zee proposes “Afghanistan Tour Package” for “Tukde-tukde gang”
Afghanistan Crisis: What is India’s plan of action?

The post Afghanistan crisis: A tool to target Islam? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Kerala based journalist Siddique Kappan has been lodged in Mathura Jail for over 300 days. The Uttar Pradesh Police have filed a 5,000-page chargesheet against him and 3 others who were arrested along with him, and have accused them of receiving Rs. 80 lakhs from financial institutions in Doha and Muscat to create unrest in the state.

Kappan, who is also the secretary of Kerala Union of Working Journalists Delhi unit (KUWJ), and a senior reporter had gone to cover the Hathras horror of the alleged gangrape, and murder of the 19-year-old Dalit woman that had made headlines all around the world. Soon after his arrest, the KUWJ issued a statement expressing that they could not get in touch with Siddique and that neither the Hathras Police Station nor the State Police department could provide any information on taking him into custody. 

The Uttar Pradesh government submitted in its affidavit that they found “suspicious literature, one that could have an adverse impact on peace,” from their electronic devices. Police have also claimed that the four including Kappan were linked to the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its student body Campus Front of India and that they were going to Hathras “under the garb of journalism with a very determined design to create a caste divide and disturb law and order situation.”

Over these 10 months, he has reportedly been tortured and harassed by jail authorities, denied legal assistance and medicines (he is diabetic), taken a fall in the jail bathroom, contracted Covid-19, has been chained to a hospital bed preventing him from moving or even using the washroom, forced to urinate in a bottle, and has also lost his mother.

As per a BBC News report, Kappan was “dragged and beaten with sticks on thighs, slapped on face, forced to stay awake from 6pm to 6am on the pretext of questioning and subjected to serious mental torture”. According to his wife Raihanath Kappan, the police repeatedly asked Siddique if he ate beef (many Hindus revere cows, and in recent years Muslims have been lynched for eating beef or transporting cattle), and also asked him why Muslims have an affinity to Dalits.

Proceedings before the Supreme Court

Subsequent to his arrest, KUWJ had moved a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court against his arrest, deeming it unconstitutional. An intervention application was also moved by the petitioner union seeking directions from the top court to permit Siddique to speak to his lawyers and family members. On November 16, a Bench headed by the then Chief Justice SA Bobde had also commented, “We are trying to discourage Article 32 petitions” while hearing his habeas corpus plea. However, he issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government but told the petitioners that they might be directed to approach the High Court. 

SG Tushar Mehta had submitted that the respondent State had no objection to Siddique meeting his lawyers. “There was no objection and there is no objection,” he said. He outright denied the allegations that Siddique Kappan was denied access to a lawyer. SabrangIndia had reported that on November 19, he was finally allowed to speak to his lawyer for five minutes after 49 days in Mathura jail.

Earlier on October 29, KUWJ had filed an application before the Supreme Court for an interim direction on permission for regular interview over video conferencing of Siddique, with his family members and lawyers. The application also prayed for a direction to the District Magistrate Mathura or a High Court Judge to visit the New Mathura Jail to take note of the human rights violation in it, and the courts of Mathura and to submit a detailed report before the top court in order to take corrective steps.

The application claimed that, “There are no justifiable grounds to reject the application of the counsel for the petitioner to meet the accused, and the said order violates fundamental rights of the Detenu and is against the spirit of rule of law.” The plea further stated that Kappan was not allowed to sign his Vakalatnama for authorising his counsel and when the said lawyer attempted to meet him in the Court during his production before the CJM, the Presiding Officer denied permission.

KUWJ denied that Kappan has any connection with Popular Front of India (PFI). In this regard, the KUWJ stated that the UP Government has taken inconsistent stances in two affidavits. While the first affidavit of UP Government filed on November 20 asserted that Kappan was the “office secretary” of PFI, the second affidavit filed by it on December 9 vaguely stated that Kappan was “in touch with the officials of PFI”.

The rejoinder reads, “It is a matter of grave concern that, the respondents have again claimed that Mr. Kappan has committed very serious offences, despite there being materials to support any allegations in the FIR, or in the investigation, other than vague statements, thereby seriously prejudicing the faith of the common man in the legal system and the procedure established by law.”

Interim bail to meet Kappan’s ailing mother

In early January, KUWJ had moved an urgent application in the Supreme Court, seeking Kappan’s immediate release from Mathura jail to meet his 90-year-old ailing mother, Kadija Kutty.

On February 15, the court granted him bail and said, “Mother is said to be in a critical situation and that she is likely not to survive for many days. In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate to permit the detenu to visit his mother and return to prison at the end of the 5th day.”

However, the court imposed strict conditions on Kappan. He was not allowed to give any interview to media outlets including social media and was also directed to not meet “members of the public”. He was entitled to meet his relatives and doctors only.

The Court also ordered that Kappan would be escorted by the Uttar Pradesh Police and his house will be guarded by the police from outside. Tushar Mehta vehemently opposed the bail plea on grounds of the serious charges against him but the former CJI intervened and said, “This is unfair Mr. Mehta. We are talking about the mother. We don’t think a man, whatever he may be, will lie about his dying mother”.

When his mother Khadija passed away in June, Kappan could not bid her goodbye or perform the last rites as he was lodged in Mathura jail.

Deteriorating health

When the country was reeling under the second wave, Kappan had collapsed in the bathroom with serious injuries and eventually tested positive for Covid-19. He was hospitalised in a Mathura hospital, when the KUWJ prayed for the top court to take cognisance of his deteriorating health condition and in the interest of justice, they sought for his transfer to New Delhi for treatment.

After taking the fall, his wife wrote to the former CJI complaining that Kappan was allegedly “chained to a hospital bed like an animal” and was not allowed to use the bathroom. Advocate Will Mathew told ThePrint that Raihanth found out about her husband’s condition when she spoke with him over the phone after he was moved to the hospital. Mathew said, “Before he was admitted, Kappan had a fall in the jail bathroom due to weakness. He sustained injuries on his face and was unable to speak clearly. He simply told her, when she called, that he did not want to stay in the hospital, or else, he would die. He said he would prefer to remain in jail.”

In an online event to pay tribute to the political prisoners, Raihanth had said, “Siddique called me from someone else’s phone. He fears that his jawline is broken. He can’t even eat properly; his face is paining. He was constantly asking to be discharged. After being hospitalised, he was not allowed to go to the bathroom. He is handcuffed to the bed. He is urinating in a plastic bottle lying on the bed itself. He said he cannot eat because of severe pain.”

Eventually, the Supreme Court ordered his transfer to a hospital in Delhi for treatment. The order read, “We are of the view that owing to the apparent precarious health condition of the arrestee, it is necessary to provide adequate and effective medical assistance to him and to allay all apprehension relating to his health, it would be in the interest of justice to shift Sidhique Kappan – the arrestee, either to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital or to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) or any other Government Hospital in Delhi for the proper medical treatment. The needful shall in this regard be done at the earliest. We state that the most precious fundamental ‘right to life’ unconditionally embraces even an undertrial.”

The order may be read here: 

In May, SabrangIndia reported that Siddique was “secretly discharged” from AIIMS and was taken to Mathura Jail. Raihanath told SabrangIndia, “I only learnt about it late last night that he may have been discharged. I did not know any updates nor was his lawyer informed and he was shifted secretly at night. He was brought to hospital and since May 1 when I came to Delhi, I had been trying to see him once.”

In July, Kappan’s bail plea was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge Anil Kumar Pandey who ruled that there was prima facie case that the journalist and other co-accused were trying to disturb the law and other situation when they were heading to cover the gang-rape incident in Uttar Pradesh. The Mathura court also observed that Kappan’s financial transactions in his bank account revealed that he was provided with the funds to conduct “anti-national” and illegal activities. The judge ruled that they damaged the integrity of the nation by provoking a particular community.

The order dated July 6, 2021 may be read here: 

Latest development

After the Mathura court rejected his bail plea, Kappan through his lawyer, moved an application before the Mathura court, on July 21 seeking a copy of the charge sheet for the purpose of filing a bail application and for initiating further legal proceedings. The court is to decide the matter on August 23, 2021.

As per some sources, Kappan has submitted that he is willing to undergo a lie detector test/Brain Mapping test/Narco Analysis Test to prove his innocence. The court has also rejected Uttar Pradesh Police’s application seeking permission to conduct further probe against Kappan.

In June, the Mathura court also dropped the proceedings against Siddique Kappan and three other persons in connection with a case registered against them under charges related to apprehension of breach of peace while they were on their way to Hathras.

LiveLaw reported that The Sub Divisional Magistrate of Mant, Ram Datt Ram dropped the proceedings against them, as the police failed to complete the inquiry against them within the prescribed period of six months as stipulated under Section 116 (6) of CrPC. They have been discharged of the charges under Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc) sections 151(Arrest to prevent the commission of cognisable offences), 107 (Security for keeping the peace in other cases) and 116 (Inquiry as to truth of information).

Related:

UP Police arrest Muslim journalist, 3 others near Hathras for carrying ‘suspicious literature’
Siddique Kappan “secretly” discharged from AIIMS, taken to Mathura jail
Shift Siddique Kappan to Delhi for medical treatment: SC to UP Gov’t
Siddique Kappan ‘chained like an animal in hospital’: Wife writes to CJI Ramana
SC grants 5 days interim bail for Siddique Kappan to meet his ailing mother
Freedom of Press in UP: Journalists killed, attacked, arrested, not allowed to talk to lawyer
We are trying to discourage Article 32 petitions: Chief Justice of India
Hathras arrest: Union moves SC to allow journalist to talk to family, lawyers
No objection to Siddique meeting his lawyer: UP gov’t to SC

The post 10 months on, Siddique Kappan still in jail! appeared first on SabrangIndia.