As detailed in the memorandum, this entire move by the Assam Border Police from May 23 onwards shrouded in secrecy, and executed with flagrant disregard for constitutional safeguards, legal procedures, and even ongoing court cases. The most chilling claim: many of those missing may have been forcibly pushed across the Indo-Bangladesh border—a move that amounts to extra-legal expulsion and, potentially, statelessness.

Last Monday, May 26, CJP’s Team Assam had spent the entire day outside the Matia Detention Centre with legal aid volunteers and advocates in a bid to get information from the authorities on the identities of those detained. They found not the Jailor but the Assam Police in charge. Efforts were also made to submit a detailed memorandum to the Detention Centre authorities, citing judicial precedents and NHRC guidelines on procedures of detention and rights of detainees and families, advocate. When authorities refused to accept this, in flagrant violation of the Constitution and the law, this memorandum too has been despatched to the authorities by email and speed post. The exclusive ground report, published two days later may be read here.

The crackdown: Fear, silence, and disappearances

The CJP’s memorandum presents a grim chronology. Night raids by Assam’s Border Police reportedly swept across 33 districts from May 23 onwards, detaining individuals from their homes without warrants, memos, or explanations amounting to a form of abduction. No legal counsel was allowed. Families were left in the dark about their whereabouts or safety.

Approximately 150 detainees were later released, but at least 145 people reportedly remain untraceable—many suspected to have been dumped into “no man’s land” between India and Bangladesh.

(Note-Since the memorandum was sent on Saturday, reports of at least six persons being brought back by the BSF to the homes of the distraught, after the Bangladesh Ground Guard (BGB) refuted claims that they were Bangladeshi. Mal treatment however was meted out in the interim, and several dozen are still untraceable)

The detained include:

• Individuals who had been released on temporary bail by courts on the orders of the Supreme Court in 2021
• Citizens who were still litigating their status before Foreigners Tribunals, the Gauhati High Court, or even the Supreme Court
• People who had lived in Assam for generations and whose names appear in the National Register of Citizens (NRC)

One particularly egregious case is that of Khairul Islam, a retired government schoolteacher from Morigaon. Despite his ongoing petition in the Supreme Court, Islam was picked up by police on May 23. Days later, he appeared in a video from Bangladesh’s Kurigram district, confirming he had been forcibly expelled at 4 AM—an act tantamount to extra-judicial deportation. (Subsequent local reports on Sunday, June 1 reveal that Khairul Islam was also among one of those fortunate to have been brought back home).

Personal tragedies in the shadows of state power

CJP’s memorandum documents the lives behind the numbers, providing intimate profiles of individuals who vanished in the sweep. Among them:

• Doyjan Bibi, detained despite NRC inclusion, released on temporary bail in 2021, and now missing since May 24.
• Abdul Sheikh, a senior citizen displaced multiple times by communal violence, disappeared after the May 24 crackdown.
• Mojibor Sheikh, a daily wage labourer whose minor son was forced to drop out of school to support the family after Mojibor’s detention; now untraceable.
• Samsul Ali, 67, with valid legacy documents from 1951, disappeared despite suffering from chronic health conditions.

All of these had been legally temporarily released in prior years and actively engaging with the justice system, but were now forcibly removed without notice—rendered voiceless and invisible.

A legal, constitutional, and humanitarian catastrophe

CJP’s memorandum is not just a plea for redress—it is a devastating indictment of what it calls a “stealth administrative purge” targeting a vulnerable minority community.

Key legal violations identified:

• Constitutional Rights:
  • Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty
  • Article 22: Right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and access to legal counsel
• Supreme Court Precedents:
  • D.K. Basu, Joginder Kumar, Vihaan Kumar: All mandating transparency, legal access, and procedural safeguards during arrests and detentions
• Statutory Breaches:
  • Numerous provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the former CrPC, including rights to bail, medical care, and judicial oversight, were reportedly flouted
• NHRC’s Own Arrest Guidelines (2000):
  • Not followed—no arrest registers, no medical checks, no access to families or advocates, no transparency
• International Law:
  • ICCPR, UDHR, and customary international law explicitly prohibit arbitrary detention, expulsion without due process, and pushbacks—particularly under the principle of non-refoulement

CJP warns that these acts not only violate India’s international legal obligations but may amount to collective punishment and ethnic profiling—practices wholly antithetical to a constitutional democracy.

Justice denied: Non-exhaustion of legal remedies

A central legal concern raised is that many individuals had not exhausted judicial remedies. Some, like Khairul Islam, had active cases in the Supreme Court. Others were in the process of securing permanent bail or challenging ex-parte FT orders.

By detaining and disappearing them before legal processes concluded, the State effectively:

• Short-circuited the rule of law
• Undermined court jurisdiction
• Violated natural justice

This, CJP argues, is not just “procedural impropriety” but an act of executive overreach and constitutional breakdown.

Breach of Supreme Court directives in Rajubala Das

CJP points to the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Rajubala Das v. Union of India, which directed strict compliance with legal procedures before deportation—such as:

• Submission of Nationality Verification Requests (NVRs) to Bangladesh
• Issuance of travel permits
• Public documentation of deportation orders

The memorandum demands that NHRC urgently verify whether these formalities were observed in any of the 145+ suspected pushbacks. If not, the Assam government may be in contempt of court, and liable for gross human rights violations.

CJP’s prayers: Urgent action, transparency, and accountability

CJP has called on the NHRC to:

1. Demand full disclosure within 72 hours from the Assam government and Ministry of Home Affairs, including:
   • Names and details of all detainees, released persons, and those missing
   • Legal basis and authority under which arrests were made
   • Detention orders, FT case numbers, and status of deportation procedures
2. Constitute a fact-finding committee to visit Matia Detention Centre and affected villages, record testimonies, and report publicly within 10 days
3. Issue binding guidelines against arbitrary detentions and mass expulsions
4. Initiate legal and disciplinary action against officers responsible
5. Restore liberty to all unlawfully detained individuals
6. Create a real-time detainee tracking system and helpline

The memorandum closes with a stirring reminder: The Constitution does not allow governments to extinguish liberty in silence, nor abandon citizens to exile without due process. If confirmed, these disappearances and pushbacks mark a turning point not only for Assam but for Indian democracy itself.

CJP’s urgent appeal is as much a legal petition as it is a moral alarm bell. It demands that India’s institutions act now—firmly and transparently—to restore faith in the rule of law before irreparable damage is done.

The complete memorandum may be read below.

Related:

CJP Exclusive: Homeland to No Man’s Land! Assam police’s unlawful crackdown on residents still battling for restoration of citizenship rights?

Supreme Court and the Rofiqul Hoque Judgment: Evolving jurisprudence on documentary evidence in Assam citizenship cases

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Indian again! Matleb Ali’s fight to prove Indian identity ends with CJP’s intervention

The post Vanished Without a Trace: CJP writes to NHRC detailing Assam’s secret detentions and illegal pushbacks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was on March 14, 2023, during the ongoing Budget Session of the Parliament, Lok Sabha member Shri P Ravindhranath (AIADMK) raised questions on the total number of violations of human rights that have been taken into cognizance as suo-moto and the number of complaints received and disposed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The Lok Sabha member also asked for the state-wise details of the amount of compensation paid on the recommendations made by the NHRC, and the total number of cases in which the Union and the State Governments have accepted the recommendations of NHRC. While the state-wise data for the same was provided by the NHRC for the last three years, the data does not provide any insight into the actions taken by the NHRC in cases where the government refused to comply the NHRC recommendations or the actions taken by the government on incidents where reports of non-disbursement of such compensation to the victims.

Shri Nityanand Rai, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs, responded to the said question by providing the Lok Sabha the date for the last three years. From the state-wise data provided, which has been simplified and analysed below, it was observed that the number of cases where the NHRC had closed cases without recording any reason and without any proof of payment was not provided were consistently highest in the State of Uttar Pradesh since the last 3 years. Even though there has been an increase in the said number over the years, 27 such cases in 2022-23 in comparison to 44 in year 2021-22 and 118 in the year 2020-21, the state has reported the highest number of such incidents. No information has been provided upon the kind of cases that have been registered or taken suo-moto cognizance of by the NHRC.

According to the data provided, the number of cases that NHRC took suo moto cognizance in the duration of 2022-2023 (till February 28, 2023) are 77, which is a significant increase from the year before, during 2021-2022, when only 16 such cases were taken cognizance of by them. During the period of 2020-2021, 41 cases were filed by them, while during 2019-2020, the number of cases that they took suo-moto cognizance of was 64.

As per the data provided by the NHRC, in the period between April 1, 2022 to February 28, 2023, 97,788 cases were registered with the NHRC, out of which 91,196 cases were disposed of and 6.592 remain pending. During the period of 2021- 2022, out of the 1,11,082 total cases registered, 1,07,823 cases were disposed and 3,259 remained pending. In 2020- 2021, a total of 74,968 cases were registered by the NHRC, out of which 73,210 were disposed of and 1,558 remained pending. For the year 2019-2020, 76,628 cases were registered, and 75,999 were disposed of. It is to be noted that no details as to how these cases were disposed of, whether there were acquittals or convictions or any other decision was reached, have been provided.

Furthermore, the NHRC also provided the state/UT-wise data on the cases dealt by them. The information provided by them includes the data on no. of cases in which the Union and the State Governments have accepted the recommendations of NHRC, the amount of compensation paid on the recommendations made by the NHRC, number of cases in which the recommendations made by the NHRC are pending/ refused by the Government/ recommendations withdrawn by the NHRC/ challenged by the Government in the Courts etc., from the year 2019 to 2023.

1. Year 2022-23

This table provides the data during April 1, 2022 to February 28, 2023. As can be deduced from the table above, highest number of cases have been closed in the state of Uttar Pradesh, 44 in number, followed by the state of Odisha, Delhi and Bihar, with 17 cases being closed in all these states. It is notable that Uttar Pradesh is also a state that records the highest number of cases being closed without recording of reasons and without any proof of payment. As per the data provided, in the state of Uttar Pradesh, 27 cases were closed without any reasons, followed by Jharkhand (11) and Odisha (10). In totality, 113 cases were closed without any reason and the proof of payment was not received, while only 184 cases were closed and proof of payment was received.

In the states of Assam, Delhi and Jharkhand, one case each was recorded where the case was closed but compliance/ proof of payment (POP) remained pending. In 3 cases, in the state of Manipur, Punjab and Tamil Nadu, the case was closed as the State/Central Government refused to comply with the recommendations or due to refusal by the recipient.

2. Year 2021-2022

This table provides the data during April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. As can be deduced from the table above, highest number of cases that were closed were in the state of Uttar Pradesh, 42 in number, which was closely followed by the state of Odisha (34). Again, Uttar Pradesh was also the state that recorded the highest number of cases being closed without recording of reasons and without any proof of payment. As per the data provided, in the state of Uttar Pradesh, 21 cases were closed without any reasons, followed by Chandigarh (18) and Odisha (9). In totality, 103 cases were closed without any reason and the proof of payment was not received, while only 199 cases were closed and proof of payment was received.

Nineteen such cases were recorded where the case was closed but compliance/ proof of payment (POP) remained pending, highest being reported from Uttar Pradesh (11). In 2 cases, in the state of Odisha and Haryana, the case was closed as the State/Central Government refused to comply with the recommendations or due to refusal by the recipient.

3. Year 2020-2021

This table provides the data during April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021. As per the information provided, a total of 299 cases were closed, with reasons and proof of payment in the said year. The highest number of cases that were closed were in the state of Uttar Pradesh, 118 in number, which was followed by the states of Odisha (41) and Madhya Pradesh (18). Again, Uttar Pradesh was also the state that recorded the highest number of cases being closed without recording of reasons and without any proof of payment. Out of the total 270 cases that were closed without any proof or reason, the state of Uttar Pradesh accounted for 107 of them. Following this, 24 cases were closed without any reasons in the state of Bihar. 

104 such cases were recorded in the said year wherein the case was closed but compliance/ proof of payment (POP) remained pending, highest of which were reported from Uttar Pradesh (37). In 17 cases, highest reported from the states of Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, the data provided that the cases was closed as the State/Central Government refused to comply with the recommendations or due to refusal by the recipient.

4. Year 2019-2020

This table provides the data during April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. As per the information provided, a total of 142 cases were closed, with reasons and proof of payment in the said year. The highest number of cases that were closed were in the state of Uttar Pradesh, 47 in number, which was followed by the states of Odisha (21) and Chhattisgarh (9). Again, Uttar Pradesh was also the state that recorded the highest number of cases being closed without recording of reasons and without any proof of payment. Out of the total 493 cases that were closed without any proof or reason, the state of Uttar Pradesh accounted for 170 of them. Following this, 39 cases were closed without any reasons in the state of Odisha and 36 in Delhi. 

61 such cases were recorded in the said year wherein the case was closed but compliance/ proof of payment (POP) remained pending, highest of which were reported from Uttar Pradesh (13). In 3 cases, reported from the states of Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Delhi, the data provided that the cases was closed as the State/Central Government refused to comply with the recommendations or due to refusal by the recipient.

The complete answer can be read here: 

Related:

Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh: Sikh man thrashed and turban thrown

Under the guise of cow protection: reports of assault, illegal restraint against Muslims

Junaid Nasir murder: Magistrate summons relatives, villagers of victims for breach of peace

Bihar: New day, new atrocities reported against the Muslim community

Gau Rakshak Dal issues open threats to Rajasthan Police for investigating Junaid-Nasir murder

UP: Journalist, Lawyer to Approach Court Over House Demolition, Scribe Says ‘Razed Without Notice’

The post Uttar Pradesh has highest number of cases “closed by the NHRC without reason”: NHRC data appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In further developments in the shocking cold-blooded killing of coal mine workers by security forces in Nagaland, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has taken suo motu cognisance of the incident based on media reports. At least 14 civilians and one member of the security forces were killed in two separate incidents.

The NHRC has now taken suo motu cognisance of the killings, and has issued notices to the Union Home Secretary, Union Defence Secretary, the Chief Secretary and DGP of Nagaland. The NHRC has asked for a detailed report within six weeks, detailing the status of the investigation that is being conducted by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), compensation paid to families of victims, state of people undergoing medical treatment for injuries sustained in the attack and cases registered against people responsible for the incident. According to LiveLaw, the human rights body observed that security forces should ensure proper precaution and a human approach even when militants are involved.

The two incidents when security forces killed civilians

The first incident occurred on the evening of December 4, 2021 when coal mine workers, all members of the Konyak tribe, were returning home. The security forces opened fire on their vehicle on a stretch of road between Tiru and Oting villages, in the Mon district of Nagaland. While six people died on the spot, two others were injured and taken to the Dibrugarh Medical College Hospital, where they were admitted to the ICU.

Meanwhile, villagers had sent out search parties when the miners did not reach home. According to a joint report by the Nagaland Director General of Police (DGP) T John Longkumer and Commissioner Rovilatuo Mor, it was at this point that the villagers grew agitated upon discovering that the army was trying to hide the bodies and whisk them away. “On reaching the spot, they found the pick-up truck and the special forces personnel trying to hide the dead bodies of the six villagers by wrapping and loading them in another pick-up truck (Tata Mobile) apparently with the intention of taking the dead bodies to their base camp,” said the report. Villagers protested and the security personnel shot dead seven more people, taking the death toll to 13. A serviceman who was injured, later succumbed to his injuries, taking the death toll to 14.

The following day, a funeral was planned at the helipad in Mon, but was postponed to Monday without proper communication to the families and tribe of the deceased. This led to another round of violent protests where a 700-strong mob reportedly burnt properties belonging to security personnel at the Assam Rifles Camp 27 located in Thamnan Ward. A resident of Chi village was confirmed dead in this incident, and six people including an India Reserve Battalion personnel were reported to have sustained gunshot wounds. The death toll now stands at 15.

“Mistaken identity” : A feeble defence

The security forces claim they opened fire thinking the people in the vehicle were members of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Khaplang) or NSCN-K, a separatist group that has been designated a terrorist group. The Army’s attempt to blame “bad intel” leading to people being killed on the basis of “mistaken identity” have been widely criticised, as they didn’t even bother verifying the identity of people they were shooting at!

The unit of the security forces involved in the killings i.e the 21st Para Special Force, is interestingly, based in Assam and not Nagaland, and reportedly returned across the state border after the firing. For the security forces based in one state to conduct an anti-insurgency operation in another state, permission has to be sought from personnel higher in the chain of command and coordination has to be established between agencies of both states. The operation has to go through multiple levels of checks and balances, and cannot be carried out spontaneously, therefore “mistaken identity” appears to be a feeble, even misleading defence. Also, even if one were to accept that it was a genuine mistake, what could possibly explain the need to hide the bodies of the deceased and attempt to ferry them across the state border in a clandestine manner?

The AFSPA shield

While both Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Nagaland Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio called it an “unfortunate incident”, emerging ground realities indicate a degree of deliberation, and even impunity, perhaps because of the protective shield provided by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958, that has been active in Nagaland since it became an Indian state in 1963. The draconian Act has already been criticized for allowing security forces to conduct operations anywhere and arrest anyone without a warrant. This power has allegedly been misused by security forces to torture locals with several allegations of gendered crimes also mode from time to time.

The image of the Mothers of Manipur stripping and holding a banner saying, “Indian Army Rape Us”, is still fresh in the minds of people. The AFSPA has been condemned by many rights groups and most famously by human rights defender Irom Sharmila for its misuse by security forces to commit excesses, abuse and human rights violations.

In fact, scrapping the AFSPA was one of the key demands of the draft framework agreement to maintain peace in the region signed between the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak Muivah) (NSCN-IM) and the government interlocutor RN Ravi in 2015. However, the act was not withdrawn. Now, there is a growing chorus for a repeal of the AFSPA. This is also building pressure on the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government at the Centre, as the party is also part of the ruling alliance in North Eastern states like Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Tripura, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh.

Impact on Naga Peace Talks

As we have reported earlier, the timing of the attack is also curious given how the Naga Peace Talks have been in a stalemate for some time, with Naga groups digging in their heels on key matters such as repeal of AFSPA, and a separate Constitution and flag to recognise the sovereignty of Nagaland. The NSCN that is part of the Naga National Political Groups (NNPG) that comprise seven separatist groups that are in talks with the Indian government as part of the Naga Peace Process, has condemned the killings saying that the security forces “will never be able to wash its hands off, smeared with the blood of innocent Nagas…” It further said, “The Nagas had in the past faced a trigger-happy Indian SF (security forces), acting with impunity under the GoI’s AFSPA which is mainly used against the Naga political movement. Notwithstanding the ongoing political dialogue that has seen much fruition during the period running more than 2 decades the violence continues unabated. This is one of the most unfortunate incidents of the Indo Naga ceasefire signed.”

Related:

MHA declares entire Nagaland ‘disturbed area’
Turmoil in the North East: Where are the Naga Peace Talks headed?
Nagaland steps one step closer to lasting peace
Turmoil in the NE: The Naga Pact and its ramifications
Security forces gun down 13 civilians in Nagaland
Nagaland killings: Chorus grows for repeal of AFSPA
Army tried to hide bodies: Nagaland DGP’s report

The post Nagaland Killings: NHRC takes suo motu cognisance appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Human Rights Commission(NHRC), after a delay of almost two years has instituted a spot enquiry by its own team led by Rajvir Singh into widespread overreach by the state police and administration in both Kanpur and Lucknow districts. The action comes on detailed complaints that pointed out various human rights violations during the protests against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Uttar Pradesh first sent to the Commission on December 24, 2019.

During the anti-CAA protests in UP, several allegations of the incidents of deaths in police actions; brutal and excessive use of force by state forces and the and fabricated cases against human rights defenders (HRDs) apart from cases of custodial torture have come to light and even and even reported in news media. The state of UP also had one of the most widespread internet shutdowns during the protests with 21 districts experiencing an imposed internet block over a span of about 10 days. Further, there was also a blanket application of Section 144 across the entire state.

One such petition or complaint was by Wajahat Habibullah, Sajjad Hassan, Maja Daruwala and Henri Tiphagne states that the imposition section 144 amounted to complete suspension of the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and to peacefully assemble guaranteed in Article 19 of the Constitution. It said that the state government and police did not follow the required legal standards and operating procedures to manage assemblies which meant excessive use of force by security forces on peaceful protestors leading to loss of lives and severe life-threatening injuries. The petition highlighted how many HRDs were detained on clearly trumped up charges and in a manner replete with procedural violations with many alleged instances of custodial torture.

This petition highlighted that the Commission’s interventions were warranted as all these actions of the UP government and the police were in contravention to the set guidelines on deaths in police actions, arrests in a bid to secure human rights.

Series of actions by NHRC

The first action was taken by NHRC in January 2020 where it clubbed the several complaints it had received related to the anti-CAA protest related incidents and called for reports from Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the Director General of Police, Lucknow within 4 weeks. Thereafter in July 2020 the NHRC perused the reports sent by Superintendent of Police, Banda and SSP, Saharanpur that no such incidents took place in their jurisdiction. However, in the light of newer complaints received by the Commission, it sought fresh reports and also directed to submit medico-legalreport of all the activists who were detained by the police.

Also, the Commission directed its Investigation Division to have the allegations made in the complaints to be enquired through telephone, or even by conducting on-the-spot enquiries, in order to ensure that no HRD is harassed illegally, and the cases registered against them, if any, are being investigated properly by following the established process of the law and to submit the report within 8 weeks. However, there is no update on the same or whether this inquiry was conducted in the first place.

The complaint

The complaint was based on facts gathered from media sources and other reliable individual sources. Uttar Pradesh witnessed widespread protests on December 16, 2019, across the entire state. From Aligarh to Lucknow to Varanasi and even in Mau, students, citizens, civil society organisation came out on the streets, expressing solidarity and protesting against brutal police force against fellow students in New Delhi’s Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) and Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).

Violence of unprecedented nature was seen at the AMU campus, where local police and the Rapid Action Force (RAF) entered the campus and fired rubber bullets, pellet guns and teargas shells at the peacefully protesting students.

There were reports of 19 cases of deaths in police actions across the state. A senior police official confirmed to Free Press Journal that 14 of 16 persons dies from firearm injuries while in most news reports the UP Police denied to state the number of deaths. senior police officers in Bijnor confirmed that a civilian Mohammad Suleman, 20, died after he was shot by constable Mohit Kumar in “self-defence”.

The state police had on December 18, 2019 issued notices to more than 3,000 people across the state, cautioning them not to participate in protests against the CAA on December 19, 2019. In a statement, Uttar Pradesh Police said that over 5,300 people were taken into preventive custody for alleged involvement in violent protests and later released. Of this 879 are arrested and 154 FIRs have been filed in UP. The police have registered 76 cases and arrested 108 people for sharing and posting objectionable and misleading posts on social media in connection with the law.

There were also reports that the police sealed hundreds of shops owned by Muslims, alleging that they were among the agitators and were involved in violence.

The appeal

Through the petition, it was appealed that the NHRC urgently and immediately intervenes, as the apex human rights body of India, to ensure that officials are held accountable for suspending human rights.

Since the UP police refused to ascertain the number of deaths that took place due to police action, the petition called for an urgent independent investigation to ascertain the same. The petition also appealed that the NHRC acknowledges this as an extraordinary situation and use the expertise of its investigation wing, special rapporteurs, special monitors and members of the NGO core group. The petitioners also prayed that the NHRC sets up an independent team for investigation – ensuring victims of police violence, HRDs who were detained and arrested, family members, relatives and colleagues of those killed in firing depose before this team.

“Given that it is an absolute case of police violence backed by the state administration, the case by no means be limited to response from Uttar Pradesh authorities or limited to investigation only by the investigation wing of the NHRC – composed solely of police officials but an independent team also including NHRC’s special rapporteurs, special monitors and members of the NGO core group. While investigating into these cases, we urge that the NHRC also focuses on adherence to all relevant laws, procedures and guidelines to be complied by the state police and administration,” the petition reads.

In specific prayers, the petition sought the following actions from NHRC:

In cases of Deaths in Police Actions –

● Direct the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh to seal and preserve all the locations where firing took place

● Direct the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh that all victims’ bodies are preserved to enable the video-graphing and conduct of post-mortems in full compliance with the NHRC guidelines; and the post-mortem reports are handed over directly to the NHRC

● Direct the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh that all forensic and other evidence is seized from every location and preserved

● Direct the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh that the names, duty records and registers relating to all police officials on duty on all the necessary dates are collected, listed, and secured and handed over directly to the NHRC

● Direct the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh that all the weapons, and all related evidence such as projectiles, bullets, and cartridge cases used by the police personnel are seized and secured and handed over directly to the NHRC

● Direct the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh that all wireless and vehicle log book records and entries between December 16 and December 23, 2019, are collated and handed over directly to the NHRC

● Direct the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh that all call detail records of all police personnel involved in supervising police actions at the time of the firings and all calls made between December 16 and December 23, 2019, are collated and handed over directly to the NHRC

● Direct the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh to seize all available CCTV footage in and around each area where firing took place and hand over directly to the NHRC

● Ensure that procedures laid down in Section 129, CrPC on dispersal of assembly were followed in full compliance, including the assurance that only an Executive Magistrate, or officer in charge of a police station or in the absence of the officer in charge, an officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector gave adequate and audible warnings first for the assembled to disperse and only after that that firing was to commence. The Commission’s investigating team is urged to take the statements of every area Executive Magistrate and Station House Officer to ascertain who was present, whether force was used in a graded manner, whether warning before resorting to lethal force was issued audibly, and which official gave the warnings.

● Ascertain if the standard operating procedures to be followed by the police, also as may have been prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Police Manual, in case of management of public assemblies was adhered by the Uttar Pradesh police in all cases

In cases of detentions and custodial violence –

● NHRC to compile all police stations and corresponding judicial Magistrates’ courts under whose jurisdiction individual or mass detentions have taken place

● Ensure that the names, duty records and registers of all arresting/detaining officers and Station In-Charges on all the necessary dates are collected, listed, and secured

● Inspect the General Diaries, FIR and arrest registers of the police stations to scrutinise whether the needed entries recording arrests/detentions were made

● Inspect any register listing preventive arrests and detentions as above

● Seize and examine all relevant CCTV footage from the police station premises

● Ensure that all the mandatory procedures on arrest and detention laid down in Sections 41 of the CrPC, particularly with Sections 41B and 41D, and Sections 50, 50A, 51, 54, 55A, 56, 57, and 60A of the Code were followed by the police

● Ensure that the constitutional rights of all arrested persons guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India were fully adhered to (namely informing the arrested persons of the grounds for arrest, right to a lawyer/legal representation, and being produced within 24 hours in front of a judicial magistrate

● Ensure that the NHRC guidelines on arrest were complied with

● Demand and examine copies of Inspection Memos that are to be drafted by the police that are to list any injuries or marks on the bodies of any arrested/detained person (DK Basu guideline)

● Inquire whether the district Legal Services Authority was informed by the (each) police station of the arrests and detentions

● Ensure that every detained/arrested person was produced before a judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest – case diary entries, GD entry

● Match time of arrest in police records with time of production in court roznamcha – and also in arrest memos

● Examine all orders given by Judicial Magistrates on remand/detention/release

● Examine that orders on preventive arrest or detention were issued in writing and laid out legal grounds for preventive arrest or detention

● Ensure that any person preventively arrested under Section 151 CrPC was not detained in custody beyond 24 hours

● Determine that no arrested person was subjected to excessive force or acts of torture

● Whether women police were at the place of arrest and in police stations

In cases of police high-handedness and targeting –

● NHRC to conduct spot inspections of all shops/businesses sealed by police to ascertain damage to property

● Seize and examine all available CCTV footage – any videos by credible media sources

● Call for lists of the names and designations of all police personnel on duty and involved

● Match up with vehicle and wireless log records

● Speak to independent eyewitnesses at the scenes

● Determine whether the police conducted preliminary investigative steps to list the shops/businesses to be sealed, and what these were, including all written orders or documents

In cases of Internet shutdown –

● NHRC to call for all orders or directions that required the competent authorities to prevent citizens and other entities from accessing internet services, particularly to ascertain the duration and locations pinpointed, if any, for which such prevention of access was ordered

The petition may be read here:

Related:

UP: NHRC sets up inquiry in minor boy’s death by suicide after spending 3 months in jail

Assam Police Firing: Support for victims grows

Madras HC calls Tuticorin Police firing a scar on democracy!

The post Inquiry into rights violations by UP police during 2019 anti-CAA protests: NHRC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has instituted inquiry into death by suicide of a minor boy who was sent to district jail on charges of possession of drugs. The Commission has taken cognisance of a complaint it received that a 15-year-old boy unable to bear the torture of being sent to a jail as an adult on charges of drug possession, committed suicide when released on bail after three months in Etah, Uttar Pradesh on September 21. The father of the boy has reportedly alleged that his son was illegally arrested and tortured to extort money by the police.

The Commission has directed the SSP, Etah to have the allegations inquired by a Senior Rank Police Officer, and submit an action taken report to the Commission, within four weeks.

The NHRC has sought the following information in the report:

1. As per rule 7 of the JJ Act and section 94 (c) of the JJ Act, Date of birth is the primary proof of age; therefore, under what circumstances, the Juvenile was treated as an adult.

2. Non-consideration of the matriculation certificate as proof of the DOB is in violation of judgment in the matter of “Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of MP (2012) 9 SCC 750”; therefore, under what circumstances this was ignored.

3. What protocol is being followed for assessing the age and date of birth of the accused by police?

The Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of MP (2012) 9 SCC 750 had highlighted the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act which stipulates that an age determination inquiry be carried out under section 7A of the Act. This provision requires the court to obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates and in absence of that obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended. “Once the court, following the above mentioned procedures, passes an order; that order shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or juvenile in conflict with law. It has been made clear in subsection (5) or Rule 12 that no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof,” the court has said.

The Commission has thus cited this case to understand whether this process was followed by the court that remanded him to custody. Interestingly, the Commission has also sought to know what protocol does the police follow to determine the age of a suspect who claims to be a minor or is visibly a minor.

There are provisions for that as well under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act which states that when any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police such person shall be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person.

Alternatively, if such a person is not released on bail due to exceptions, then the officer in charge is required to place such person in an observation home until the person (apparently a child) can be brought before a Juvenile Justice Board. Neither of these procedures seemed to have been followed by the police in this case, despite the boy or his family making claims of his juvenility.

The Commissions has also directed its Investigation Division to conduct an on the spot enquiry, analyze the case and suggest the institutional measures, which could be recommended to the government to ensure that the children are not being treated as adults for prosecution.

The Investigation Division has also been directed to look into the role played by all the concerned stakeholders in this case, including the Judge, before whom the child was produced within 24 hours of the arrest, and the role of the doctor who examined the child. This report is expected in 6 weeks.

Background

The boy was arrested by the police on March 9 and his father stated that he had ventured out to buy pizza and was arrested. The police had said that they found 500g diazepam on him and his father alleges that he was kept in lockup and beaten up by the police for 4 days while the cops demanded Rs. 2 lakh to release him.

He was then produced before the court as an adult and was remanded to custody under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act on March 12. He had to spend 3 months in jail before his parents managed to secure bail for him on July 25 on the grounds that the police had not filed a chargesheet.

After he returned home, his parents said he seemed changed and was not the cheerful teenager he always was. The father has filed a complaint for abetment of suicide against sub-inspectors Mohit Rana and Shiv Kumar, head constable Upendra Kumar and constable Ravish Kumar.

Related:

The life and murder of a Bihar Christian youth, and State impunity in India

Meerut: Hindu Jagran Manch leader booked for assault on Muslim youth

Gurugram police set up SIT, 14 days after alleged rape and murder of 13 year old girl

The post UP: NHRC sets up inquiry in minor boy’s death by suicide after spending 3 months in jail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has responded to a complaint by one Mohammed Injamamul Haque of Assam about the clashes that took place along the Assam-Mizoram border, and issued notice to the Central government as well as the state governments of Assam and Mizoram.

The violence took place on July 26 at an autorickshaw stand in Vairengte, Mizoram along the border with Assam. Trouble began when a large number of Assam Police personnel including an Inspector General (IG), Deputy Inspector General (DIG), Superintendent of Police (SP) as well as a District Collector reached the area purportedly to investigate alleged Mizo incursion into Assam territory. They faced opposition from local Mizo groups. 

Policemen clashed with armed protesters, while chief ministers of both states had a war of words on Twitter. While Mizoram CM Zoramthanga claimed that an Assam Police vehicle ran over a local check post of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Assam Chief Minister accused Mizoram Police of opening fire using Light Machine Guns (LMG). Six Assam police personnel were killed in the violence.

In its notice the NHRC says, “The Commission has considered the matter. Facts of the case are disturbing. The allegations made in the complaint are serious in nature involving deaths and injuries to public servants.” It goes on to say, “The case, therefore, involves a grave violation of human rights of the deceased and injured. Such types of cases are viewed very seriously by the Commission. In these circumstances, let a notice be sent.”

The matter will now be heard after four weeks.

While both Assam and Mizoram have been maintaining an uneasy détente since a meeting held on August 5, the dispute is unlikely to die down, given how it has persisted for decades. But this meeting also took place after an escalation that involved Assam issuing travel advisories against travel to Mizoram and even ordering all incoming vehicles from Mizoram to be checked, purportedly to curb drug trafficking. Then there was the alleged blocking of NH 306 by Assam that prevented trucks carrying Covid-19 medication, oxygen cylinders and other essentials from entering Mizoram. This highway is said to be the lifeline of Mizoram.   

Brief Background of the border dispute

SabrangIndia has previously reported, the problem stems from an unresolved border-dispute between the states. In colonial times, Mizoram was a district of Assam and was called Lushai Hills. In 1875 a notification was issued that differentiated Lushai Hills from the Cachar plains. Today, three districts of Mizoram — Kolasib, Aizawl and Mamit — share a border with southern Assam’s Cachar, Hailakandi and Karimganj districts. It is alleged that in many places the border is not properly demarcated leaving it porous, thus leading to encroachment. The border dispute talks had to be put on hold due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but intermittent violence has been reported in the region even during the lockdown.

In fact, as we had reported earlier, on October 17, 2020, clashes had broken out in the exact same area when people from Lailapur broke the status quo and allegedly constructed some temporary huts. People from Mizoram side then went and allegedly set fire to them. In the same month, on October 9, 2020, similar clashes had broken out along the border between Assam’s Karimganj district and Mizoram’s Mamit district when a hut and betel nut plantation belonging to two Mizoram farmers were set on fire. Though the area has been cultivated historically by Mizoram farmers, the spot falls in the territory of the Singla Forest Reserve that falls under the jurisdiction of Karimganj district of Assam.

More news from the North East:

Turmoil in the North East: Assam – Mizoram border dispute escalates

Turmoil in the North East: 5 killed as conflict re-erupts on Assam-Mizoram border

Turmoil in the North East: Assam-Mizoram border dispute heats up

Turmoil in the North East: The Naga Pact and its ramifications

Turmoil in the North East: The demand for Bangalistan

Turmoil in the North East: A Bru Story

Turmoil in the North East: Ethnic divide widens in Meghalaya

Meghalaya: Four arrested in Bara Bazar ethnic violence case

The post Grave violation of human rights: NHRC on Assam-Meghalaya border clashes appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The high-powered recommendation committee has proposed Justice Arun Mishra’s name to head the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). While a formal announcement is awaited The Hindu has today reported that it is likely that Justice Mishra who retired as a Supreme Court judge on September 2, 2020, will lead the top human rights body of the nation. The last chairperson, Justice HL Dattu retired in December 2020, the acting chairperson is Justice Prafulla Chandra Pant, a former Supreme Court judge.

Justice Arun Mishra’s name was proposed by a selection panel that included Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Harivansh, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Mallikarjun Kharge.

According to news reports, senior Congress leader Kharge had recommended that the NHRC chief be a “representative from either a Dalit, Adivasi or a minority committee,” as many complaints of human rights violations come from these sections, and thus the Commission should have the appropriate representation. The other names that were discussed included former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court Mahesh Mittal Kumar and former Director of Intelligence Bureau, Rajiv Jain, stated news reports.

Justice Mishra’s legal career began in 1978 when he enrolled as a lawyer. He was elected youngest chairperson of Bar Council of India in 1998-99, and was appointed judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in October 1999. He has served as Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court and Calcutta High Court as well and was elevated to the Supreme Court on July 7, 2014. His “tenure at the Supreme Court was marked by various controversies, prominent being the Judge Loya case and the Prashant Bhushan contempt of court case” commented the legal portal, Bar and Bench. 

After he retired last year as the second senior most judge at the Supreme Court, Justice Mishra’s legacy has been conservatively defined as a controversial one: he was the chosen Judge for hearing some high-profile matters despite being considered a more ‘junior’ but influential judge. In fact, as far as influence goes, in 2019, Justice Mishra’s brother, Vishal Mishra, an advocate in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was made a judge of the High Court before he completed 45 years of age, which is the official minimum age for such an appointment under the draft memorandum of procedure (MOP) for judicial appointments.

Justice Mishra is known to have ruled in favour of the government and his presiding over the case of Justice Loya’s death seemed to have triggered a press conference in 2018 in the lawns of Justice Chelameswar’s residence protesting against sensitive matters being posted by Chief Justice Dipak Mishra before “one particular junior judge”.

According to an Indian Express report, the matter pertaining to Judge BH Loya’s death was assigned to a Bench presided over by Justice Mishra (by former CJI Dipak Mishra), ignoring nine other judges senior to him. Judge Loya, a special CBI judge, was hearing the case of the alleged fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife and others, that involved the present Home Minister of India as an accused. As Judge Loya’s sudden demise came as a shock, a petition was filed in the top court seeking a probe by an independent agency. Following the press conference, he felt obligated to recuse and this politically sensitive case was later heard by the then CJI, Dipak Misra, and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y.Chandrachud.

The case (W.P Civ. 19 of 2018), was then dismissed where the three-judge bench said, “There is no reason to disbelieve the sequence of events leading to the death as narrated by the four judicial officers namely Shrikant Kulkarni, Shriram Modak, R. Rathi and Vijay Kumar Barde and the assertions of Bombay High Court Justices Bhushan Gawai and Sunil Shukre”. It also slammed the petitioners by saying, “The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors is, as we have indicated, lacking in bona fides and reveals a misuse of judicial process.” Justice B.R. Gavai went on to be elevated to the Supreme Court in 2019.

Here’s a look at some of his other controversial pronouncements at the Supreme Court:

1. Indore Development Authority, the land acquisition case

In February, 2018, a three-judge bench presided over by Justice Arun Mishra in Indore Development Authority v Shailendra by a 2:1 split decision, set aside a 2014 decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v Harakchand Misirmal Solanki delivered by another three-judge Bench.

In the 2014 decision of Pune Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court Bench of Justices R.M. Lodha, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph had held that land acquisition could be declared void under section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act if monetary compensation had not been deposited in the bank accounts of the land owners or with the court. The judgment had agreed that money in the government treasury would not be treated as a form of payment to a landowner.

But in 2018, when Justice Mishra took up this case, he disagreed with the 2014 decision, and also went to the length of labelling it per incuriam, i.e., he held that the 2014 judgment was delivered through lack of due regard to the law or the facts. So, the Indore Development case held that paying money into the government treasury will be treated as payment for the land acquisition process even if the payment had not been made to the farmer.

Further, Justice Mishra also ruled that land acquisitions will not lapse just because a land owner refused to accept compensation within the prescribed 5 years. It held that in a scenario wherein compensation had been tendered, but the person refused to accept it, it would amount to discharge of obligation under section 31(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 

This created a lot of confusion as most cases between 2014 and 2018 were settled following the Pune Municipal precedent and some cases were also pending. Post Indore Development Authority, a similar land acquisition matter came up before a three-judge bench on February 21, 2018 in Haryana v. GD Goenka Tourism Corporation, where Justices Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph (who sat on the Pune Municipal Corporation case) raised concerns.

This led to setting up of a constitution bench by the then CJI, Dipak Misra on February 26, 2018 to decide whether and if the 2018 coordinate bench of three judges (with one dissenting opinion) could have overruled the earlier decision of a unanimous three-judge bench in 2014. This judicial interpretation came after the controversial Judge had refused to recuse himself from hearing the case despite a convincing case being made for such a recusal. Ideally Justice Mishra should have recused himself from sitting on this Bench to reconsider a judgment delivered by him but he did not.

According to the judgment, Justice Arun Mishra decided not to recuse in the “interest of the judiciary and the system”. Finally, on March 4, 2020, the five-judge bench overturned Pune Municipal Corporation and held that land acquisition proceedings could not lapse merely due to a failure to pay compensation to landowners. It held that a lapse would only occur if the government failed to take physical possession of the land. J. Arun Mishra’s views were upheld.

2. 100 Percent Tribal reservation case

In Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and Others v State of Andhra Pradesh (2020), he presided over a constitution bench of five judges, and quashed, in a unanimous judgment, a government order followed in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana that provided 100% reservation to Scheduled Tribe candidates out of whom 33.3% was reserved for women for the post of teachers in the schools in the scheduled areas in Andhra Pradesh.

It held that there was “no rhyme or reason” with the State Government to resort to 100% reservation. This judgment led to widespread protests amongst the tribal population that believed that the verdict was against the entire Fifth Schedule of the Constitution that protects tribal interests.

As per some media reports, the government order of 2000 was issued after complete understanding of the situation and thorough comprehension of the situation of teacher absenteeism in the tribal areas. Non tribal teachers have been reluctant to travel extra miles to teach and settle in tribal areas with no facilities and an established language barrier. This hampers the promotion of education in tribal areas of India but the judgment was tone deaf on these issues.

3. Jammu and Kashmir detention cases  

Post the abrogation of Article 370 withdrawing Kashmir’s special status, several habeas corpus petitions have been filed in the court against alleged illegal detention. In a 2020 letter written by the Executive Committee members of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Bar Association to the then Chief Justice, they highlighted that more than 600 habeas corpus petitions have been filed before the High Court and not even 1% of such cases have been decided.

Habeas corpus petitions protect a very important right, a right against detention, which is also internationally recognised. Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights lays down the Right to liberty and security which includes the right of persons detained to challenge their detention. Justice Mishra dealt with cases pertaining to the alleged detention of Jammu and Kashmir leaders like Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti and Saifuddin Soz but showed a lax attitude in dealing with the matters on an urgent basis.

According to a LiveLaw report, when a habeas corpus petition was filed by Omar Abdullah’s sister against his detention in February 2020, Justice Mishra adjourned the matter for two weeks and was quoted saying, “if the sister could wait for such a long period (one year), then 15 days won’t make a difference”.

Congress leader and former Union Minister Professor Saifuddin Soz’s detention case was closed by Justice Mishra after accepting the central government’s claims that he isn’t under detention. Soon after, media reports surfaced showing Soz under house arrest.

4. Haren Pandya Murder case

Justice Arun Mishra was assigned the crucial Haren Pandya murder case, in which the Bench comprising him and Justice Vineet Saran, reversed the acquittal of the accused persons by the Gujarat High Court which held that the CBI had botched up the investigation. These 12 people were implicated by Gujarat police in the murder of former Home Minister, Haren Pandya.

Justice Mishra believed the CBI’s version that the motive to kill “was to spread terror amongst Hindus. It was part of an international conspiracy. Mr. Haren Pandya was a BJP leader who earlier held the post of Home Minister. He had played an active role in post-Godhra riots at Ahmedabad.” (Cri. Appeal No. 140-151 of 2012)

The judgment was heavily criticised for ignoring inconsistencies and relying on only one sole eye witness to reverse the acquittals. It declined to order further investigation or re-investigation and said that, “The petition (appeal against conviction) is not maintainable and has been filed with an oblique motive.”

5. Prashant Bhushan contempt case

Free speech is arguably one of the most important fundamental and human rights in a democracy, but it has also remained one of the most controversial rights over the past few years with several judicial interpretations.

Human rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan was slapped with contempt charges after he tweeted against the then CJI Bobde, insinuating that he was enjoying joy rides on an expensive motorcycle while the Supreme Court was in lockdown. The Supreme Court held him in contempt and said that his tweet was a scandalous and malicious statement.

The judgment by the Arun Mishra Bench did not only neglect the right to free speech but also dismissed legal precedents. The plea against Bhushan was filed by one Mehek Maheswari, who initiated the contempt proceedings without securing the mandatory consent of the attorney general under section 15 of the Contempt of courts Act, 1971, and the administrative order which converted it as a suo motu petition.

This was against the established precedent of Biman Basu case of 2010, where the top court held that the contempt proceedings taken by the Calcutta High Court is not maintainable because first, the mandatory consent of the attorney general was not taken and second, the original contempt petition did not pray for the high court to take suo motu action against the appellant.

6. Eviction of slum and tribal dwellers

On August 31, 2020, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, unsurprisingly headed by Justice Arun Mishra ordered the removal of nearly 48,000 slum dwellings around the 140-km of railway tracks in Delhi within three months with no “interference”, political or otherwise. (MC Mehta vs Union of India 1985).

This was in direct contravention of the landmark judgment in Oliga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) that held that the right to shelter and livelihood is a facet of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The judgment in Olga Tellis was delivered by a five-judge bench, which the three-judge should have ought to follow but did not. In addition to this, the order did not provide details of alternative rehabilitation, etc and was passed in the middle of a pandemic against the most disadvantaged.

After J Mishra’s retirement, the appeal against his order was taken up in the SC and the central government had assured that coercive action won’t be taken against the slum clusters, reported The Hindu.

Back in February 2019, he had also ordered for the eviction of tribals and forest dwellers whose claims over land were rejected under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights Act), 2006. But within two weeks this was stayed by a Bench consisting of the Judge himself after dozens of countrywide protests against the ill-thought-out judgement and sharp criticism. Sokalo Gond, Nevada Rana, All India Union of Forest Working Peoples and CJP have filed a substantive Intervention Application against the SC order of Evictions and pointing out how evictions are statutorily incompatible with the Forest Rights Act of 2006.

7. Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad cases

When one of the accused Gautam Navlakha, a senior journalist and activist moved the Delhi High Court for bail amid Covid-19, (Bail App 986 of 2020), it noted that the NIA acted in “unseemly haste” to move Gautam out of the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court while it was considering his bail application. The exact wordings of the order dated May 27, 2020 are reproduced below:

“While ordinarily this court would not see too much cause for hurry in this case, in view of the inexplicable, frantic hurry shown by the NIA in moving the applicant from Delhi to Mumbai while this matter was pending and the NIA had itself sought time to file status report, this court does get a sense that all proceedings in this jurisdiction would be rendered utterly infructuous if an element of urgency is not brought to bear on the present proceedings. Prima-facie it appears that while on the last date, this court had granted adequate time to the NIA to file its status report in response to the interim bail plea; and while the NIA has filed an affidavit opposing that plea, the NIA has acted in unseemly haste to instead remove the applicant out of the very jurisdiction of this court ; and, if the applicant is right, without even informing the Special Judge (NIA), Mumbai or the Special Judge (NIA), Delhi of the pendency of the present proceedings.”

The NIA then moved the top court. It was none less than Justice Mishra who heard the matter (Cri Appeal 471 of 2020), and predictably, set aside this High Court order, and directed for the expunging of remarks made by the High Court against the NIA.

Related:

SC directs 48,000 shanties to be razed along railways track in Delhi
Prashant Bhushan contempt case: The judgment behind the Re. 1 penalty
SC decision quashing ST reservation reflects Manuwadi mindset: Review petition 
Re-investigate Judge Loya’s death: Sharad Pawar
Even without an investigation, Supreme Court concludes that Judge Loya’s death was natural 

The post NHRC chairmanship contender Justice Arun Mishra’s legacy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has issued more advisories to various ministries and States on the adverse impact faced by labourers and migrant informal sector workers titled Advisory to identify, release and rehabilitate bonded labourers during Covid-19. This has been prepared in consultation with civil society organisations and other stakeholders covering the aspects of prevention, identification, rescue, as well as rehabilitation of the bonded labourers.

Last year, under the Supreme Court’s directions, the National Human Rights Commission had issued “Comprehensive Guidelines for All States/ UTs for Identification, Release and Rehabilitation of Bonded Labourers during Covid-19 Situation.” But with the new challenges of the second wave, the NHRC has an additional set of guidelines in place to cover the aspects of prevention, identification, rescue, as well as rehabilitation of the bonded labourers, ensuring that prompt actions are taken by the government authorities to protect the most vulnerable section.

Prevention  

The human-rights body has suggested that Panchayats may be asked to maintain a record of information about persons residing in the village and those who migrated to towns/cities for work. The record will also maintain details of the labourers, middlemen, location of the workplace, etc. The District administration is supposed to coordinate with the railway authorities in the district to monitor if labourers are being trafficked and investigate it immediately, especially if it involves children.

The advisory also reads, “State Government should consider creating dedicated funds for providing free ration and healthcare to the vulnerable and daily wagers who lost jobs due to Covid-19 pandemic. The state should direct the district administrations to identify households in extreme vulnerable conditions and provide essential social security cover. This will prevent trafficking for bonded labour.”

NHRC has given more responsibility to the District administration that can consider coordinating with local NGOs working on labour issues to provide information on illegal migration.

Identification

Panchayats have been advised to immediately monitor and inform the District Magistrate (DM) if they have identified or received any complaints from family members on child/bonded labour conditions in the workplace of the labourer. Further, the District Magistrate should constitute/ activate the Vigilance Committee as per the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 to carry out a survey of offences committed.

The DM should also constitute teams with relevant department officials to inspect industries/ brick kiln/other workplaces twice a month and identify if labourers are working under bonded labour conditions, as per NHRC.

Rescue

The DM and Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDM) have been advised to complete the investigation within 24 hours upon receiving a complaint of the bonded labour system. Due to the current pandemic, the DM/SDM need to ensure that the rescue team is trained on Covid-19 precautions and a thermal screening of the team should be made mandatory before conducting a rescue /spot inquiry.

During the process of rescue, the rescue team should ensure that the face masks and sanitisers are provided to the labourers and physical distance is adequately maintained among the labourers. After the rescue process is completed, NHRC has advised that the DM or SDM should ensure and arrange for basic health screening and Covid tests of rescued bonded labourers.

“If any rescued labourer is suspected of Covid-19, arrangements should be made to immediately escort the labourer to the nearest health facility to access free testing and treatment. Released Bonded Labourers should be vaccinated and if possible, vaccination should cover all age groups”, reads the advisory dated May 31.

Efforts should be made by the officials to recover the unpaid wages of the labourers on the spot as delay in payment of wages can make them vulnerable to re-bondage. The labourers also need to be provided with Release Certificates on priority and within 24 hours of the rescue. Transport facilities have to be arranged if the workers are willing to go back to their homes, suggested NHRC.

Rehabilitation

As prescribed in the Central Sector Scheme 2016, immediate cash assistance upto Rs. 20,000 should be provided by the District Administration to the rescued person out of the District Bonded Labour Rehabilitation Fund at the disposal of the District Magistrate. The District Administration has also been advised to ensure that additional cash and non-cash benefits other than the provisions in the CSS-2016 scheme be made available for the rescued labourers as part of social security cover to avoid the possibilities of re-bondage.

The Administration has been asked to undertake all measures to provide a safe and healthy environment for children of rescued bonded labourers/child labourers in coordination with relevant Government departments. Health screening, psycho social counselling and education shall be an integral component of this rehabilitation package.

In cases where the rescued bonded labourers are not willing to go back to their native place, proper protocols should be followed in places of their work and they must be ensured access to basic benefits, according to NHRC.

Legal Aid

For offences under laws other than Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, where statements under Section 161 CrPC are required to be recorded, the DM/SDM have been instructed to ensure that the same is done at the earliest, prior to repatriation and with appropriate Covid guidelines.

Given the risks involved in travel during the ongoing pandemic, the DM/SDM along with the police authorities have been asked to make efforts to ensure that the testimony of the released bonded labour is recorded by the concerned court through video conferencing.

In a scenario wherein a person released from bondage has been repatriated, but if later physically summoned by the Magistrate for evidence in trial, he/she should be provided with adequate safety and the proper health care norms should be followed during and post-trial.

Additional recommendations for the Centre and States/UTs

1. The Principal Secretary, Labour Department, could appoint a State Nodal Officer not below the rank of Under Secretary to coordinate with the Ministry of Labour and Employment for status on submitted proposals and reimbursement of cash assistance under various components of the Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labourers, 2016.
2. The district administration should ensure that the district bonded labour rehabilitation fund with a permanent corpus mentioned in the Scheme is available for immediate cash and travel assistance to released bonded labourers, post rescue.
3. The State Labour Department shall create a helpline number connected with the labour officials in the district, to provide immediate help to labourers in distress at workplaces.
4. The State Government should arrange virtual trainings for the State/ District officials working on bonded labour issues. The training should be conducted at least twice in a calendar year on the following: Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labourers, 2016 and Standard Operating Procedures to identify, rescue, release and rehabilitate bonded labourers.  
5. The State Government should maintain a database of bonded labour rescues and rehabilitation. It should also mention the number of surveys/inspections conducted by the authorities to identify bonded labour.
6. The Union Labour Ministry and State Labour Departments should update their websites regularly and ensure that data is properly managed with updated information.
7. Efforts should be made by the District Administration to work closely with the Education Department to encourage enrolment of children into schools, to minimize the number of children falling out of education system and into child labour.

The NHRC advisory dated March 31, 2021 may be read here: 

Related:

NHRC’s advisories on Covid-19
Covid-19: Which states fared worst and why?
Right to Health: The forgotten Constitutional mandate

The post NHRC issues new advisories for bonded and migrant labourers amid Covid-19 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a brutal crackdown on all citizenship law protestors, Teesta Setalvad had approached the National Human Rights Commission on December 20, 2019, to bring to the Commission’s notice, the alleged detention of 32 women protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at Delhi Gate.

In response to the complaint, the Commission received a report dated October 9, 2020 from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), Delhi. The Commission’s response read, “It is reported that on the date of incident the mob was raging, shouting slogans, and started pelting stones on the police officials. The mob was trying to break the barricades and became violent upon which water cannon was used to disperse the crowd but instead of dispersing the mob started vandalism and torched a car parked on road. FIR No. 250/2019 under section 147/148/1866/353/332/427/102-B/34 of IPC and 3/4 of PDPP Act was registered in the said matter. 43 persons were detained and relieved after the initial enquiry subject to verification of their role. The case is transferred to Crime Branch, Delhi.”

NHRC further said that it believed that the Police were taking appropriate action in the matter. The Commission also informed that the Police are expected to complete the investigation at the earliest, and take the case to a logical conclusion within reasonable time. As the Police are investigating the matter, the Commission said that there was no need for further continuance of the proceedings before it and hence, closed the case.

NHRC, in the past, has also provided an appalling response to the Jamia Millia Islamia University violence, that broke out in December 2019, amid raging Citizenship Amendment Act protests. SabrangIndia had reported on the Commission holding the students responsible for protesting without permission.

“If the protest was peaceful then there is no answer as to how a large number of private and government property were destroyed and many vehicles were burnt down. It is beyond doubt that students of Jamia Millia Islamia University, local residents, doubtful character, political leaders were actively involved in various violent protests in Jamia area”, concluded NHRC.

Teesta Setalvad, has approached the Commission again (46997/CR/2021), requesting it to disclose the report provided by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Vigilance). NHRC’s response is awaited.

Related:

Students protested without permission; tear gas was “avoidable”: NHRC report on Jamia violence
SC defers plea against State Assemblies anti-CAA resolutions
Delhi Police agrees to release Safoora on humanitarian grounds; HC grants bail
Six months since Jamia violence, police brutalities not forgotten

The post NHRC refuses to take action against illegal detention of women anti-CAA protesters appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Platform for the Rights of Disabled (NPRD) has petitioned the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) asking for ‘reasonable accommodations’ for 83-year old Fr. Stan Swamy who has been lodged in Taloja jail in connection with the Bhima Koregaon conspiracy case.

The petition says, “It is with great pain and anguish that we beseech you to ensure compliance of rights of prisoners with disabilities as also providing them with reasonable accommodations as mandated by international conventions to which India is a signatory as also domestic laws.”

Fr. Stan suffers from Parkinson’s disease, which makes it difficult for him to hold a cup or a glass to drink water. He had moved court to be provided a straw or sipper for this purpose, but the National Investigative Agency (NIA) was given 20 days to respond to the request.

The petition explains the nature of Fr. Stan’s suffering saying, “Parkinson’s, as you may be aware, is a progressive nervous system disorder that also impacts movement. Those living with Parkinson’s often have tremors (involuntary, uncontrollable muscle contractions manifesting as shaking in body parts, most often the hands).” It further says, “Given this condition (tremor in both hands etc) he has been using a sipper as also a straw for intake of water and fluids. He was carrying these essentials (straw and sipper) with him when he was arrested by the NIA. The NIA refused to hand them back and the jail authorities refuse to provide him these inexpensive but essential assistive items.”

The petition also showcases other issues that Fr. Stan is forced to struggle with, saying, “He has trouble eating because of the tremors. He is unable to take bath, bring water or wash clothes on his own. Fr. Stan also has serious hearing problem and needs hearing aid for both ears. He was operated twice for hernia in the recent past and hence may not be in a position to go through a strenuous schedule as demanded in the jail. He used to take daily steam inhalations too.”

The petition says, “We would like to underline that the current conditions in which Fr. Stan is being held are violative of his right to life, dignity, equality, protection from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, non-discrimination and right to health.”

It then goes on to remind the NHRC of India’s obligations on account f being a signatory to multiple international human rights related conventions. It says, “India is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Resolution 70/175 on Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Also known as the Nelson Mandela Rules), all of which reaffirm the right to life with dignity of prisoners. Fr. Stan, as we have pointed out earlier, has Parkinson’s, a condition recognised as a disability and listed in the Schedule — “Specified Disability” — in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.”

The entire letter may be read here:

Related:

Jharkhand MP writes to President demanding Fr. Stan Swamy’s release
Stand with Stan, Now!
Bhima Koregaon case: Stan Swamy’s bail plea rejected
Hunger fast against Stan Swamy’s arrest: Ranchi

The post NPRD petitions NHRC to provide Fr Stan Swamy ‘reasonable accommodations’ in jail appeared first on SabrangIndia.