Days after walls on the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus were defaced with anti-Brahmin slogans, the university has asked all its centres to install CCTV cameras and instructed students and staff members to remain vigilant to prevent such incidents in future.

According to a PTI report, the walls of the building in the School of International Studies-II were spray-painted with slogans asking members of Brahmin and Baniya communities to leave the campus and the country.

The slogans on the walls read “Brahmins leave the campus”, “There will be blood”, “Brahmin Bharat chhodo” and “Brahmo-Baniyas (sic), we are coming for you! We will avenge”.

This incident took place last week, on Thursday, December 1. Scroll reported that some of the slogans on the doors of the rooms assigned to faculty members asked them to go back to “shakha”, a reference to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

While the ABVP, (Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad) –affiliated to the RSS – held Leftist student groups responsible for the incident, the JNU Students’ Union (JNUSU) hinted that “right-wing forces” were to blame.

“Such statements are clearly meant to disturb the normalcy of the campus by vitiating the campus environment. This is not the first time that such vandalism has occurred within the university. Several instances have happened during previous years,” the JNUSU said in a statement.

The JNUSU also alleged that right-wing forces have “tried historically to caricature claims to social justice in such a deplorable manner”.

JNU vice-chancellor, Santishree D. Pandit, had on Friday, December 2, called an emergency meeting on this matter.

She had instructed the dean of the School of International Studies and the grievances committee to inquire into the incident and submit a report at the earliest. Teacher and student bodies have also urged the JNU administration to conduct a free and fair inquiry to ensure peace on the campus.

The university also issued a six-point advisory, including that all schools and centres will have only a single entry and exit point. The university also asked the authorities to ensure adequate lighting in corridors.

Related:

How the RSS’, Golwalkar, HMS’ Savarkar glorified caste: Devanur Mahadevan

ABVP goons allegedly attack protesting students: Delhi University (DU)

The post CCTV Cameras to be installed after anti-Brahmin graffiti surfaces: JNU appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a recent horrifying incident, 22-year-old Rehan was subjected to custodial violence by UP police. As per reports, the police brutally inserted a wooden stick into his genitals and gave him repeated electric shocks on a mere suspicion of cattle slaughtering. Though an FIR under Sections 338 (causing grievous hurt), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), 147 (rioting) and under the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against a sub-inspector, four constables, India witnesses five custodial deaths every day and the methods of violence include but are not limited to hitting private parts, pulling nails, urinating in the mouth, and even rape. Further, the report released by the ‘National Campaign against Torture’ highlights the fact that 60% of the people who died in custody were from an unprivileged and weaker section of society. The disproportionally higher number of custodial deaths from these sections is symptomatic of underlying biases and predispositions among public officers as well as an accidental result of increased occurrences of custodial violence. In my opinion, be it privileged or unprivileged, custodial violence is the worst kind of crime that can happen in a civilized society, and nothing is worse than seeing a person who is supposed to protect you being violent.

Prohibition of custodial violence.

Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution, Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 330, 331, 348, and 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 41, 41A, 41B, 41C, 41D, 46, 49, 54, 167 (2), and 176 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; and Section 29 of the Indian Police Act, 1861 have all attempted to combat the threat of custodial violence. In furtherance of the same, the SC has taken very critical stances in such cases and has posed angry expressions. In the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the SC held that Article 21 guarantees the right to live with dignity, and any torture or inhumane treatment by the police strikes at the heart of Article 21. Further, in the case of Yashwant and Others v. State of Maharashtra,the SC affirmed the convictions of nine Maharashtra police officers in the 1993 custodial death case and reminded them of “With great power comes greater responsibility”. Even after the anguish expressed in many other cases like Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Khatri v. State of Biharand State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav, there appears no softening of attitude in the inhuman treatment to the people who are in custody.

Who will police the police?

The question highlighted in this subheading was first posed by Justice Iyer in the case of Prem Chand (Paniwala) v. Union of India, and the answer to the same at an extent was tried to be addressed in Dk Basu v. State of Bengaland Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, where the SC directed the state governments to install CCTV cameras in every police station. Consequently, CCTV cameras were installed in some police stations, but they were useless. The officers often claim the dysfunctionality of CCTV cameras in order to escape liability, which creates an environment where the police could abuse their power, disregarding human rights and individual liberty, and allow them to do whatever they wanted to while conveniently claiming that the CCTV cameras are not functional. Even recently, the police repeated the same narration before Allahabad HC and argued that a 5.6 ft man, Altaf, had allegedly hanged himself to death from a 2 ft pipe in police custody. A similar stance was taken in other HCs, including but not limited to Delhi, Bombay, Kerala, and Madhya Pradesh, despite the landmark judgement delivered by the SC in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh,in which the SC issued a number of guidelines and made it quite clear that every corner of a police station (including outside, but not inside of toilets) must be equipped with the best possible CCTV cameras at the earliest. The court also looked at the issue of CCTV that wasn’t working correctly and said that if CCTV is broken, it needs to be fixed right away.

While the directions made by the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh are of utmost significance for policing the police and monitoring the grave violations of human rights within the courtyard of the police station, only a little has been done so far to implement the same. In March 2021, the Supreme Court ordered all the states to install CCTV cameras within 5–9 months. However, they welcomed the order with great reluctance and hardly bothered to comply with it.  many other reforms, such as the recognition of custodial violence as an offence in and of itself, as well as violence in and outside of police stations, must be implemented in order to completely eliminate custodial violence, the use of CCTV cameras to monitor police officers is a critical step in that direction and is likely to bring about larger reforms in the criminal justice system if properly implemented. Therefore, the Supreme Court must ensure that its judgements are rigorously implemented while filling up the gaps in the system to condense the occurrences of custodial violence.

(The authors are B.A.LL. B (Hons) students at Jamia Millia Islamia)

Related:

UP cops electrocute Muslim youth, insert stick in his rectum, violate judicial precedents on torture
Mumbai: Dalit youth tied and beaten to death with an iron rod!
UP: Goons carve trishul on a man’s face!
Hate Watch: Dalit man thrashed, dragged like an animal by so called “upper caste” goons
Hate Watch: Dalit, Covid health worker, killed for sporting moustache in Rajasthan
Dalits attacked by 300 men in UP village, 13 upper-caste men arrested

The post Who will police the police? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dr. GN Saibaba who has been on a hunger strike since May 21, 2022 was sent to prison hospital yesterday. The former Delhi University professor is a human rights activist and political dissenter and has been behind bars after being convicted in a case related to his alleged involvement with left-wing extremist groups. He is currently under the care of the prison’s Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and the Superintendent who have agreed to extend the medical treatment.

In a press release dated May 26, 2022, the Committee for the Defense and Release of Dr. GN Saibaba has said that the former DU Professor is suffering through serious health problems due to four days of hunger strike. They say that from the third day of the strike, Prof. Saibaba started passing blood motions spilling all over the bed. Moreover, the Committee states how his skin has loosened and is now hanging from the muscles.

This is not the first time that Dr. Saibaba has gone on a hunger strike for the sake of upholding his fundamental rights. Previously, during the pandemic, he had gone on a strike demanding the immediate handover of medicines supplied by his family members and advocates, as well as supply of books, letters, etc.

As for this hunger strike, he is fighting for his fundamental right to privacy, life, liberty and bodily integrity. The jail authorities installed a CCTV camera in front of his Anda Cell without providing any valid reason which records everything 24X7 including use of toilet, bathing, and all his bodily activities. The letter claims that this is against the basic human rights and that the rights, even of a convicted person, should be upheld. In a letter dated May 14, 2022, Saibaba’s wife Vasantha Kumari and his brother G. Ramadevudu wrote to the Maharashtra Home Minister, Shri Dilip Walse Patil urging him to intervene in the matter and to protect his rights.

In the letter, his family reportedly pleaded, “How can Dr G N Saibaba live in these circumstances? The helpers are also intimidated by the closely watching camera since their bodies are constantly exposed to the eye of the camera. This is clearly to intimidate and insult him.”

Two weeks ago, it was reported that the Nagpur Jail authorities have been denying Prof GN Saibaba a plastic water bottle for three weeks. The former Delhi University professor, who is ninety per cent physically disabled and wheelchair-bound, has been finding it difficult to lift the small pot kept in his cell or even a glass bottle, and has reportedly been unable to hydrate himself adequately amidst soaring temperatures due to this.

The Committee lists out the following demands:

• Removal of CCTV camera’s focus on his Anda Cell that keeps his privacy, dignity and body integrity at risk.

• Grant parole and enable him to get proper medical treatment for all his health issues. [His family members submitted applications several times to release him on parole.]

• Immediately shift him out of Anda Cell as he is unable to withstand heat/cold waves and unable to move on his wheelchair as the cell is very small and compact.

• Prison Transfer: He and his family members submitted letters to Jail Authorities and Maharashtra Home minister to transfer him from Nagpur Central Prison to Cherlapally Central Prison, Hyderabad.

• Implementation of all other demands of his earlier hunger strike that were not so far addressed.

Advocate Aakash Sorde informed the Committee that the jail authorities are now ready to give him a water bottle and they have claimed that they will accept all other demands one by one in due course of time.

As reported by the Wire, Dr. GN Saibaba suffers from ailments like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, hypertension, paraplegia, kyphoscoliosis of the spine, anterior horn cell disease, acute pancreatitis and a cyst in the brain. It is also reported that Prof. Saibaba’s left hand is on the verge of failure and there is acute pain spreading in both his hands.

Brief background of the case

The Sessions Court at Gadchiroli on May 7, 2017 sentenced Prof. Saibaba to life imprisonment under the Unlawful Prevention (Activities) Act (UAPA), for alleged links with banned organisation Communist Party of India (Maoist). He had appealed against the Judgment of the Sessions Court before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court, but his appeal has been pending for the last five years.

Dr. Saibaba, who has been a long-time defender of the rights of India’s minorities, especially Dalits, Adivasis and forest dwelling communities, against vested corporate interests, was first arrested in in May 2014, and eventually sentenced to life imprisonment in March 2017, for “waging war against the state”.

As an activist and rights defender, Dr. Saibaba has campaigned against a push to end reservations for lower castes, as well as against “encounter killings” of innocent people in Andhra Pradesh. He launched the Forum Against War on People, in response to the Indian government’s Operation Green Hunt in India’s tribal belt, which allegedly cracked down on Adivasis in the region. He organised a national campaign against the operation that reportedly led to investors pulling out. In July 2015, he told The Hindu that the authorities felt “the best way to stop me was to throw me in jail.”

Related:

GN Saibaba to go on hunger strike to protest being placed under CCTV surveillance
On what basis has GN Saibaba been sacked from DU?
Now, jail authorities deny GN Saibaba plastic water bottle!

The post Dr. GN Saibaba hospitalised after his health deteriorates due to hunger strike appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On a public interest litigation (PIL) filed for raising the issue of failure of the State to enact any policy or rules with regards to premature release of convicting prisoners, after they have completed 14 years of sentence, the Uttarakhand High Court observed that the affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Prisons was “absolutely vague”.

Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma had directed the Director General of Prisons to file a report on the conditions of jails, reformative techniques used to reform prisoners, working strength of the jail department, the vacancies and budgetary allocation for the jail department.

The Bench referred to the affidavit and stated, “Bare perusal of the affidavit clearly reveals that the affidavit is shorn off concrete details. It is absolutely vague in its content.”

With respect to the facilities in jail, the Uttarakhand High Court noted that the jail authorities failed to mention the details of the number of training halls and sheds available in District Jail, Haridwar. The court said, “Although, he claims that there is a skill development programme, the exact nature and the content of the programme has not been revealed.”

The court read the affidavit submitted by the IG, Prisons which stated that in the first phase, CCTV cameras are being installed in Dehradun and Haridwar jails and sub jails. The court, however, noted that the affidavit failed to mention as to when the said phase began. The Bench remarked, “The present status of the first phase? When the second phase would begin? And the time frame required for ensuring that CCTV cameras are installed in all the jails. The critical information is conspicuously missing from the affidavit.”

The Court addressed the point of reformative techniques used in jails as mentioned in the State’s affidavit that said that training was being provided to the inmates with regards to stitching, carpentering, power loom, nursery/gardening under the Kaushal Vikas Yojana. The Court noted that although the affidavit finds mention of the yojana, it clearly misses out the details as to whether or not such yojana was being implemented in all the jails across the State.

On the issue of distance education imparted by IGNOU and NIOS, the court said that the affidavit does not mention whether education imparted by these organisations is done on a weekly or monthly basis.

On the aspect of training and education inside jails, the Court observed that the affidavit failed to mention the details as regards to the specific area of training being imparted. It remarked, “Whether it is the training in an academic area, or in a technical area, or vocational area? Moreover, there is no indication whether the volunteers of Dev Sanskriti University are the students, or the faculty members of the said University.”

Observing that the basic course of Art of Living was being conducted by a live telecast in jails, the Court went ahead to inquire as to whether Shri Ravi Shankar himself conducted the said training or whether it was done by his devotees or trained personnel.

The affidavit further stated that the working strength of the said department was 624 against the sanctioned strength of 1030 posts. However, the court noted that, “he has not mentioned as to how the said vacancies are scheduled to be filled up? And the time period it would take to fill up these larger vacancies.”

On the issue of overcrowding of jails, the State has accepted that there was a grave problem of overcrowding in almost all the jails in the State. The court said, “District Jail, Haridwar has capacity of 840, whereas presently it houses 1328 prisoners; likewise, sub-jail, Haldwani, was constructed for housing merely 382 prisoners. But presently, it houses 1756 prisoners. According to Mr. Anshuman, the total capacity of all the jails is for housing 3540 prisoners, whereas presently 6608 prisoners are being housed. Thus, obviously the problem of overcrowding stares all of us in our face.”

The court further noted that despite this issue, the government has sanctioned construction of only three jails in the State. “However, when these three jails were sanctioned? What is the status of the construction of three jails? What is the capacity of these three jails, is unclear”, recorded the order.

The court noted that while dealing with the inmate population, Mr. Anshuman (IG, Prisons) did not reveal the number of under-trials, and number of convicted prisoners. Moreover, he also did not disclose the basis of classification of the under-trials and the convicted prisoners.

Thus, the court directed the IG, Prisons to submit a “more detailed and a more clear affidavit” on these issues. The matter will be heard on April 20.

The order may be read here:

Related:

SC seeks affidavit from Tihar Jail authorities over police excesses
CCTV cameras in Police stations: SC discontent with Centre, States and UTs
Rajasthan Govt amends Prison rules to prohibit religion & caste-based discrimination

The post Uttarakhand HC slams State for submitting ‘vague’ affidavit on prison conditions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court has directed the Jail Superintendent of Tihar Jail, Raj Kumar, to file an affidavit by April 5, disclosing where exactly the CCTV cameras have been installed and whether or not the control room and the boundary wall of the jail are covered by CCTV cameras.

The Supreme Court has also sought information about circumstances, materials, such as tobacco pouches or any other contraband/such things that find their way inside the jail premises and what kind of preventive and other measures are being taken by the jail authorities.

The court recorded in its order that, “The affidavit shall also disclose the make of CCTV camera which have been installed which according to Mr. Raj Kumar does not have life greater than four days for CCTV footage; so also about the time lines adhered to and required for installing CCTV cameras and the budgetary allocation made for such installations.”

The apex court was hearing a matter where three death row convicts were involved in an incident on March 15, 2021, where in a search conducted of the concerned cell/enclosure, the three inmates including the petitioner were found to be in an intoxicated condition.

They were allegedly beaten up by the police officers and the father of the petitioner received information that the petitioner was badly assaulted inside the prison where he is presently lodged. When the father visited Tihar to meet him, the petitioner had to be brought in, supported by two persons.

The Supreme Court had requested the Additional District Judge, Tiz Hazari court, Satish Kumar to visit the concerned cell/enclosure in Tihar Jail, Delhi and to make an appropriate report. The Bench of Justices UU Lalit and KM Joseph had said, “The Judge may interview the petitioner and such other persons as he deems appropriate. He is also at liberty to watch CCTV footage of the area in question, if available.”

The court also referred to Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020), to highlight the importance of CCTV cameras in jail, noting that no CCTV footage is stated to be available at the time of the incident on March 15.

On March 25, the Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph said, “According to Mr. Raj Kumar, Superintendent of Jail, Tihar Jail, who was connected through video conferencing, CCTV camera has been installed at the medical dispensary. However, according to him, the life of CCTV footage is only four days and as of now, no footage is available.”

With regard to the budgetary allocation and the kind of cameras installed in the jail premises, the court has directed for an affidavit to be filed by the concerned official from the Home Ministry of the respondent State with explanation as to why the life of CCTV footage is confined only to four days.

The Additional District Judge had observed that petitioner/accused Rahul was unable to walk properly. The Jail Superintendent was, therefore, asked to get the accused Rahul medically examined and to furnish a certificate. But the Bench noted, “No such documents pertaining to his medical examination are placed on record.” Further, the medical report under the signature of Medical Officer in-charge shows that the patient was planned for x-ray, but the relevant x-ray was not placed on record.

The Bench noted the submission of Amicus Curiae Sonia Mathur who said that the punishment Ticket issued to the petitioner and the others show that they were taken to jail OPD for medical treatment. However, the relevant certificates or reports of the concerned date are not placed on record.

The court said, “The hand-written portion below the Punishment ticket shows that punishment of withdrawing mulakat along with phone and canteen facility was inflicted upon the concerned inmates. Such imposition of punishment was not in keeping with the relevant provisions”, the bench further said.”

The matter will be heard on April 8.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

CCTV cameras in Police stations: SC discontent with Centre, States and UTs
End Custodial Torture: SC’s new comprehensive directions on CCTVs in police stations

The post SC seeks affidavit from Tihar Jail authorities over police excesses appeared first on SabrangIndia.

24-year-old Faizan became a household name after a video of him being forced to sing the national anthem even as he lay injured and writhing in agony on the ground went viral on social media during the February 2020 North east Delhi violence. The young man and his friends had been beaten brutally, and a few days later Faizan succumbed to his injuries.

In a plea seeking a court-monitored Special Investigation Team probe into his death, the Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi police to file an affidavit regarding the preservation of documents and working of the CCTV cameras at the police station.

Justice Yogesh Khanna said: “….with regard to direction to respondent No.3 to file an affidavit supporting all the relevant material regarding functioning of CCTV cameras of Police Station Jyoti Nagar and in particular on February 24, 2020 and February 25, 2020, let an affidavit be filed qua the functioning of said CCTV cameras along with material evidence qua its non-functioning on specific days or month, be filed before the next date of hearing with an advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioner.”

The Single-judge Bench also directed that if the CCTV cameras were not functioning, documents supporting that fact had to be produced in court. According to LiveLaw, the petitioner Kismatun’s (Faizan’s mother) advocates, Vrinda Grover and Soutik Banerjee, had earlier told the Court that the police have claimed that the CCTV cameras of the police station were not working on the relevant date.

According to the Indian Express, the police have filed a status report in the court stating that they are still trying to ascertain the identity of officers seen in the viral video and that only one policeman has been “pinpointed on probable basis”.

The video was shared over social media and WhatsApp when the incident first came to light on February 25, during the communal violence of Northeast Delhi. The video showed the three men, writhing in pain on the ground surrounded by a group of Delhi police personnel, who stood by, purportedly taunting and ordering them to sing the national anthem, and also Vande Mataram, occasionally, hitting them with their lathis.

Faizan, who was a resident of Kardam Puri, succumbed to his injuries at LNJP Hospital. Dr Kishore Singh, medical director of the hospital, had been quoted by the Indian Express, “He was admitted to the neurosurgery ward on February 25 and died three days later. He had suffered gunshot wounds and was critical.”

The matter will be heard on March 15, 2021.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Northeast Delhi violence: Policeman from ‘national anthem’ video questioned

The post Faizan police brutality case: Delhi HC directs police to file affidavit on working CCTV cameras appeared first on SabrangIndia.