As of now, it has been reported that seven people were killed during the violence. The report details that six were killed by police bullets, and one allegedly by the bullet of a civilian and local resident named Sanjay Sonkar. The report also documents that locals attest that the actual number of casualties would be around 18-20, as people are fearful of coming out and speaking given the fear of police brutality. 

As reports of “police excess” continue to come in, the fact-finding report specifies that no ‘written’ shoot-on-sight order was given, and in fact, and authorities were acting on ‘internal information’ when they fired. The report also suggests that there was a “planned conspiracy with marked outsiders that led to violence and arson”, including the burning of the police station, each of which is being used to falsely implicate and terrorise Muslim residents of the area.   The report states that, “the entire incident appears to be a well-planned conspiracy.” Even, Sumit Hridyesh, MLA of Haldwani, has asserted and said that the incident was the result of a well-planned conspiracy. Hridyesh had earlier also stated that the authorities acted in a hurry to demolish the mosque and madrasa. 

One reason for stating that “this entire incident appears to be a well-planned conspiracy,” was how deliberately “electricity (was cut off) around 5 p.m. anticipating that all the inverters would be exhausted by 7 or 8 pm in the evening. Consequently, the entire region experienced a blackout due to the power outage even as firing induced violence continued. (details below)

Background

Banbhoolpura is an area that holds a considerable Muslim presence. Observers have repeatedly stated that the violence that took place earlier this month was entirely unprecedented in Haldwani. However, Uttarakhand has been in the news prior to this incident for anti-Muslim incidents and hate speeches in the state. As the report states, this incident is not without precedent. Accusations of ‘love-jihad’, ‘mazaar-jihad’, and ‘land-jihad’ on Muslims have been spearheaded by several politicians from BJP. 

Similarly, the report details that prominent faces in the state government, including elected officials along with radical right-wing organisations have been involved in making speeches and comments that keep communal fires stoked. 

“The state government led by the Chief Minister Pushkar Dhami and radical right-wing citizen groups have together contributed to a highly polarising narrative with many disturbing elements. One strand of this discourse is about creating Uttarakhand as a ‘Devbhoomi’ the holy land for Hindus which would have no place for other religious minorities.” The report details that the CM Dhami has been mostly silent about unauthorised Hindu structures on forests and Nazool lands, while on the other hand he has boasted about the government’s destruction of 3000 Mazaars (shrines). 

The administration, according to intelligence provided by the Nainital Local Intelligence Unit, was well aware that unrest would occur if they went ahead with the demolition. The report details that officials gave conflicting statements and just three days prior to the incident, the government suddenly stopped drone surveillance that was being conducted earlier in the area. 

On January 30, 2024, the report chronologically documents that eviction notices were served which gave a two-day notice for the Mosque and Madrasa in Haldwani. However, despite pleas from local Ulemas and a legal intervention by Sofiya Malik in the High Court, a rather hurrief demolition was embarked upon. The High Court heard the petition of Sofia Malik who holds the leasehold over the land. The bench heard the matter on February 8 and gave the date for the next hearing on February 14 without passing any interim order. However, even while the matter was sub judice and before the High Court, the Municipal office sealed the structures on February 4, 2024.  

The day of violence

Thereafter, despite the matter being sub-judice, on the evening of February 8, 2024, the Municipal office, accompanied by police presence, started the demolition of the sealed Mosque and Madrasa.  As per the report, a large number of women came together to protest against the demolition. However, the women were allegedly abused, manhandled, beaten and forcefully removed. 

In the midst of this unrest, the police unsealed the Masjid and Madrasa. They even chose to ignore their earlier instructions to give the sacred items in the buildings to the Maulana.  The report details that the persons who were throwing stones at the police were masked, and from a different locality.  During this time, the report also details that some sanitation workers, mainly from the Valmiki Community, gave the police their support and reportedly organised members from their community against Muslims. This resulted in the conflict turning communal, states the report. During the vandalism and attacks on Muslims, chants of ‘Jai Sri Ram’ were also reported by locals, states the report. 

The report states that “some individuals wearing masks arrived at the police station and began stone- pelting and setting vehicles on fire. They appeared to have no fear of the police or gunfire as air-firing had been occurring until that point. All the vehicles and the Police van caught fire shortly afterward. Such an incident has never occurred in this city before…”

Prior to the time the police station was set to fire, the locals reported that the electricity was cut around 5 pm, by 7 pm, with inverters exhausted, the entire area was in a blackout. It was also around 7 pm that multiple incidents happened simultaneously. About three people were fatally shot and killed around this time. Furthermore, the report describes that it was during this power outage that unidentified people came and set the police station on fire, “During the blackout, some individuals reportedly arrived in masks and set the police station on fire. They appeared to be unfamiliar with the surroundings suggesting they were from different localities. Furthermore, their speech tones and accents were markedly different from those of the people of Banbhoolpura.”

 “During the blackout, some individuals arrived and set the police station on fire. They appeared to be unfamiliar with the surroundings suggesting they were from different localities. Furthermore, their speech tones and accents were markedly different from those of the people of Banbhoolpura.”

A total of approximately 1000 rounds of firing are reported to have been fired and locals learned later that night of the ‘shoot at sight’ order.

Narratives of police brutality

The next day, the report documents how, reportedly, the police carried out a harsh assault on residents near Malik ka Bageecha. Over 100 people were detained, and women and children too endured brutal beatings and assault. The wife of a journalist named Saleem Khan, was also reportedly brutally assaulted and injured.  Thus, despite four days having passed, when the team visited on February 14, 2024, the entire area continued to be deserted, and people are further being subjected to violence and brutality, as per the report. While, official records assert that only 30-36 people are detained, the report says that the reality paints a different picture the police have established detention centres where scores of people are being held against their will. According to former IFS officer Ashok Sharma, the police even used a local school to hold detained people which served as an ‘interrogation and detention centre.’

Watch Former IFS officer Ashok Sharma talk about what he witnessed and what he learned during his visit to Haldwani. @PCITweets pic.twitter.com/d0EpL5Ix0h

— FOEJ Media (@FoejMedia) February 15, 2024

Furthermore, even as the curfew set in, reports of police brutality continued to come in. These included reports of police entering homes forcefully and assaulting women, children, and men on the night of February 8, 9 and 10 as families continued to flee the region. 

Harrowing narratives from Haldwani continue. A Newslaundry report brings testimonies from the ground where an 18 year old Muslim boy named Kaif got his skull fractured after, he says, the police barged in his house and beat him, “About five cops broke the door of our house and barged inside. Then they thrashed me with lathis. I pleaded with them to spare me but they kept saying that I was pelting stones on February 8…they did not listen to me. Why would I pelt stones at the police? I don’t have a father, I have to earn for my family. I am a construction worker. I hardly earn Rs 100 a day. But they did not listen to me even once.” 

Related:

Haldwani: Police allege planned mob attack, as local Muslims state police harassing and detaining family members without evidence

Demolitions as retributive state policy used against minorities in India: Amnesty

 BJP MLA Nitesh Rane leads Hindutva Rally in Govandi, demands demolition of “illegal Masjids and Madrasa”

The post Haldwani minorities fear deaths to be higher than official figures, narrate tales of police brutality & complicity: Fact-finding report appeared first on SabrangIndia.

October 23, 2023, Delhi

The Telegraph reported that students from JNU, Jamia Millia Islamia and Delhi University detained as they try to hold protest near Israeli embassy and police had erected barricades to stop them from reaching the embassy at Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Road. The report detailed that scores of students from JNU, Jamia Millia Islamia and Delhi University had gathered to take part in the protest. Police had erected barricades to stop them from reaching the embassy at Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Road. When some of the students tried to march towards the embassy, they were detained as they did not have the required permission to hold the protest, said a police officer, adding that “no one was allowed to violate law and order”.  All India Students Association (AISA) Delhi unit president Abhigyan said several students were detained and taken to a police station.

October 21, Mumbai

This protest reported on social media from Mumbai took place on October 21.

Mumbai, India
Another big protest was organized in Mumbai in solidarity with Palestine.

Free Free Palestine pic.twitter.com/U4B8T2DJ4W

— زماں (@Delhiite_) October 21, 2023

October 17, 2023

In Delhi, again, the state police, along with the Rapid Action Force had, on October 17, detained two busloads of protesters who came for a “Citizens’ Vigil” against Israel’s offensive on Gaza.

Kashmir

On the two Fridays (October 20 and before that October 13) since the war began, Muslims were barred from offering prayers at Jamia Masjid in Srinagar, Kashmir. Police closed down the iconic masjid, apprehending protests in support of Palestine. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, the chairman of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, who was recently allowed to offer Friday prayers and deliver the Friday sermon at Jama Masjid, was once again put under house arrest on October 15 and is not being allowed to step out of his house, The Wire has reported.

October 15-18, 2023, Mumbai

While the Indian Express reported that two activists say cops beat them up during protest against Israel that took place on October 13, police has denied the accusation and claimed that the protesters “assaulted” policemen. The Mankhurd police Friday night arrested two young activists who were protesting against the Israeli government. 

Police also allegedly beat up one of them in custody. While the two protesters were arrested, others were booked. The arrested activists were identified as Ruchit Lad, 28, an architect from Mulund, and Supreeth Ravish, 26, a teacher from Mankhurd (arrested under sections 353 and 332 and sections of rioting under IPC). Both are activists of Revolutionary Workers Party of India (RWPI). According to Mankhurd police, RWPI had planned to organise a protest in Matunga-Dadar area in connection with the Israel-Palestine clash. But, as they were not allowed, Supreeth and Ruchit on Friday, October 13, evening held placards in Lallubhai compound area in Mankhurd and protested against the Israel government. Other youths soon joined them.

It was when the youths were produced before the court thereafter that Ruchit –one of them–alleged that he was assaulted in the police station. “The magistrate recorded the statement of Ruchir and ordered for medical to be conducted and the report be made available Monday. The application for police custody was rejected and the activists were remanded to judicial custody,” said advocate Shahbuddin Shaikh, who represented the two accused to the IE.

Meanwhile the TISS Students’ Union in a press statement issued thereafter stated that it stands in solidarity with the two activists who have been detained by the Mankhurd Police following a peaceful protest against Israel’s violence in Palestine. The Students’ Union of TISS Mumbai stated that it stands in “unwavering solidarity and condemns, in the strongest terms, the recent arrests of two dedicated Mumbai activists, Supreeth our alumnus (MASW – PH, 2018) and Ruchir, by the Mankhurd Police. Supreeth and Ruchir were detained in the wake of their participation in a protest against the Israeli government’s ongoing violence on civilians in Palestine.” The statement also says that “the charges filed against these activists, including sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, in addition to other related sections such as those for alleged violations of section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 37 of the Maharashtra Police Act, are a source of significant concern. The misuse of these provisions is particularly troubling when applied to peaceful protestors and civilians. Such abuse poses a serious risk to the suppression of democratic voices and individuals advocating for justice and accountability. “The statement also points out that such actions are a violation of article 19(1)(b) and it must be vigorously protected in the interest of our nation and its welfare. 

Meanwhile in Pune, October 13, even as the war between Israel and Palestinian militant outfit Hamas is on, various organisations in Pune came out in support of Palestine on October 13. 

Activists of the Revolutionary Workers’ Party of India, New Socialist Alternative, Naujawan Bharat Sabha, Stree Mukti League, with support from Indian Christian Womens’ Movement and Disha Vidyarthi Sanghtna staged protest at the Pune District Collectorate against the “colonial occupation of Palestine by Zionist Israel”.  According to reports in The Indian Express, protesters condemned Israel by shouting slogans of “Palestine Zindabad” and were holding several banners like “Death to Zionist Occupation, Death to Imperialism”, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” They also distributed pamphlets, which claimed that the October 7 attack on Israel from Gaza was in self-defence of Palestinian citizens. “We do not support the Hamas ideology. But we support the Palestinian freedom movement,” it stated.

A delegation of protesters thereafter submitted a letter to Resident Deputy Collector Jyoti Kadam. “PM Modi is supporting Israel in the ongoing war. We condemn it. We demand that our government end all ties with Israel and stands by Palestine,” said Parmeshwar Jadhav of RWPI, part of the delegation. He told the media, “Some of our activists faced detentions by police in Mumbai, Delhi and in Andhra Pradesh. We demand their immediate release,” said Jadhav. He said no activists in Pune were detained.

 October 9, 2023, UP

First, in response to the Israel-Gaza war, several students of the Aligarh Muslim University took out a rally on October 9. This peaceful rally, organised as an expression of solidarity with Palestinians, saw four students in trouble as the police booked them under Sections 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, language, etc.), 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), and 505(statements inducing public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

The state chief minister, Ajay Bisht aka Yogi Adityanath, soon after the AMU protest, directed the police to take “stern action” against actions or social media posts in support of Palestine. According to a report in the Deccan Herald, senior district police officials have been told to speak to the Muslim clerics and make it clear that “any attempt to incite passion on social media or a similar call from the religious places will not be tolerated”.

A cop, belonging to the Muslim community, posted in Lakhimpur Kheri district in Uttar Pradesh, had merely shared a pro-Palestine post on social media. Within days, he was suspended from duty and an additional superintendent of police rank officer was appointed to carry out an inquiry about the constable and “his political inclination”. 

In similar incidents, the police in Kanpur booked two young Muslim clerics, Suhail Ansari and Atif Chowdhary, for posting content in support of Palestine on social media. While Ansari was arrested, the police raided Chowdhary’s residence.

Background

Irrespective of which parties dominate the government is in power and what the political party’s stand has been on the ongoing conflict in West Asia, protestors in many states are facing criminal action for acts of “unlawful assembly” to promote “enmity between two groups”. India’s position on West Asia – reiterated by the Narendra Modi government – on the Israel-Palestine conflict is that it supports a “negotiated solution resulting in a sovereign, independent, viable and united State of Palestine, within secure and recognised borders, at peace beside Israel as endorsed in the relevant UNSC and UNGA Resolutions”.

It is the right to protest peacefully however which is guaranteed but appears in many instances to have been denied.

Ironically even in Congress-ruled Karnataka, the police’s actions were no different than UP, Delhi or Mumbai.

The police from the Cubbon Park jurisdiction in Bengaluru booked 11 persons, including a member of the Bahutva Karnataka (a citizen’s group), and other unnamed people for holding a solidarity gathering in support of Palestine on MG Road. While the police haven’t booked them for “promoting enmity”, the sections applied are largely for gathering without permission and for “public nuisance”. 

Related:

New York, Chicago, Madrid, Athens, Sydney, Paris, the people march for #Palestine

The post India: Criminalisation of protests, police action against supporters of Palestine appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On July 19, 2023, the Bombay High Court heard a plea by a lesbian couple seeking protection from their opposing family members, who had filed a “missing persons” complaint to hinder and object to the relationship [1].

By approaching the Maharashtra Police with the complaint, the family was informed about the women’s whereabouts. The couple approached the High Court seeking remedy. The couple had been changing their residence constantly due to threats from family members; they had hence been assured by the state government during a previous hearing that protection would be provided through a constable in plain clothes. However, no such measure was taken. As the Court was informed on July 19 by the petitioners’ advocate Vijay Hiremath, the police had informed the women that they hadn’t received any such order from the High Court, and hence denied the women their guaranteed protection.

While hearing the case, the Court acknowledged the need for such cases to be handled with empathy and sensitivity. The Court also recognized that it is not merely for this singular case, and that sensitization of the police force is needed across the board in the state of Maharashtra.

The bench (comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse will next hear the matter again on July 28.

Analysis

The Bombay High Court’s order certainly comes at a time when sensitization to people’s struggles – especially when said people are a part of minority communities – is much needed.

Madras High Court Judgement (2021)

However, this is not the first time such an order was made by a High Court; on June 7, 2021, the Madras High Court delivered a landmark judgement [2] by issuing guidelines and directions to the police force, judiciary, the central ministry and other law enforcement/legal aid workers regarding the sensitization of employees towards the LGBTQIA+ community.

Justice Venkatesh’s remarkable 104-page judgement sought to not just address social stigmatization and bias against members of the LGBTQIA+ community, but also provided concrete guidelines to enable change to be brought about. These guidelines were directed towards the police and the government, and sought to establish sensitization programmes within the police and prison authorities, district and state legal authorities, the judiciary, physical and mental health professionals, and government ministries [3].

The Madras High Court realized that such revolutionary changes can take time for a thorough implementation to take place; hence, in order to monitor the developments and ensure the guidelines and properly acted upon, the court kept the petition pending. Indeed, this was a wise move, for it allowed Justice Venkatesh to continue to forge the path of inclusivity and equality for which he had laid the foundation through his initial judgement. A couple months after the June judgement, the Court passed a new order to protect members of the LGBTQIA+ community against harassment and insensitive news reporting on social media [4].

These repeated efforts by the Judiciary to change societal views of the LGBTQIA+ community were proved fruitful with the Tamil Nadu government’s attempt to inculcate the spirit of Justice Venkatesh’s judgement by amending TN Subordinate Police Officers’ Conduct Rules, 1964 [5]. The Rules now include the new Rule 24-c, which explicitly prohibits police officers from harassing LGBTQIA+ persons.

Bombay High Court Order (2023)

The Madras High Court’s judgement was a milestone event, and one step further in the direction towards building and nurturing a society where people are free from prejudice and hatred to love whomever they wish to. The Bombay High Court’s order reflects an acknowledgement of the same, with the Court asking Advocate Vijay Hiremath to use the rules set out by the Madras High Court to suggest amendments for the Maharashtra Police’s manner of handling LGBTQIA+ sensitive cases.

“You see what rules are given by Madras High Court and see rules for Maharashtra Police. Then you see what needs to be done and then make submissions. The implementation can happen effectively if you incorporate the guidelines across the State. We want to look at the broader picture,” said the two-judge Bench hearing the case [1].

And looking at the broader picture is a must indeed – impactful change cannot be contained at the individual level. The foundations of the Bombay High Court’s call for an across-the-board sensitization of the Maharashtra police force towards LGBTQIA+ persons and their lives are strong; being cemented in the clearly influential Madras High Court ruling, there is hope for the manner in which Justices Dere and Godse have approached the issue at hand. After all, even the Constitution of our nation was formulated based on the experiences and realities of constitutions from across the world – clearly, utilizing a well-established and functional framework is beneficial to not just the implementers of the framework, but also those affected by said framework.

Taking action on the lesbian couple’s plea, however, does more than just signify the judiciary’s willingness to accommodate people from all walks of life into the nation – it also implies an acknowledgement of the need to provide the LGBTQIA+ community with appropriate protections to safeguard their rights. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws to all, and taking protective measures to uphold LGBTQIA+ rights is a necessary step to ensure access to the right to all people in the nation. Moreover, the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution (which guarantees the right to life and liberty) has been expanded by the Courts to include the right to human dignity and the right to freedom of marriage [6], in addition to the right to privacy (as held by the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors [7] verdict). The Bombay High Court’s order reflects the cruciality of upholding these rights for LGBTQIA+ persons.

Moving Forward

Gender sensitization and LGBTQIA+ rights are slowly, yet steadily, gaining attention and action from the public and the state. With even the Supreme Court of India initiating steps to increase inclusivity of the community’s members not just within the police force and the judiciary (by releasing an LGBTQIA+ Sensitization Module) [8] but also within its own premises [9], a change for the better has already been set in motion. The recent Bombay High Court’s order is a breath of fresh air from the despairing news bombarded at the public on the daily, for along with it comes the proof that Indian society is on its way to become inclusive in action, and not merely in name as it stands today.

(This article has been researched by Nidhi Kaushik, an intern with the organisation.)

Reference List

[1] https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/maharashtra-police-force-should-be-sensitized-to-protect-couples-in-conflict-with-families-bombay-high-court

[2] S. Sushma, D/o. Mr. V. Senthil Kumar and Another Versus Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Others [2021] 5 MLJ 9

[3] https://sabrangindia.in/article/madras-hc-issues-guidelines-sensitisation-stakeholders-lgbtqia-matters/

[4] https://sabrangindia.in/article/madras-hc-bats-lgbtqia-again-issues-more-directions-police-media/

[5] https://sabrangindia.in/article/madras-hc-commends-tn-govt-new-police-rules-glossary-referring-lgbtqia-persons/

[6]https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/freedom-of-choice-in-marriage-essence-of-personal-liberty-hc/articleshow/95076428.cms

[7] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors, (2017) 10 SCC 1

[8] https://feminisminindia.com/2022/12/02/a-guide-towards-inclusion-supreme-court-releases-an-lgbtqia-sensitization-module-for-the-judiciary/

[9] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-initiates-steps-for-inclusive-infrastructure-and-sexuality-sensitisation-for-lgbtqia-community-at-its-court/article66730359.ece

The post Police need sensitisation on couple’s autonomous life choices: Bombay HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Bombay High Court has quashed two FIRs filed against Congress Party worker Sandeep Kudale for making remarks against minister of Higher and Technical Education, Chandrakant Patil (BJP). Kudale was arrested in December 2022 and kept in custody for 2 days.

A bench of Justices Prithviraj K Chavan and Revati Mohite Dere, safeguarding Kudale’s right to freedom of speech and expression, held that the comments made by Kudale may have been distasteful but do not warrant his arrest. The bench also cautioned the police to apply their mind before registering FIRs and making arrests. The court also ordered that Rs. 25,000 be paid to the petitioner from the salary of the police personnel who registered the FIR.

Kudale had recorded video while standing in front of Patil’s home as he had allegedly made comments against Dr BR Ambedkar and Jotiba Phule. He criticised the statements of Patil and said, “beggars like you will never understand the might of (Jotiba) Phule.”

The offences invoked against him under both FIRs were under sections 153A (1)(a) and (b) [Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth etc] and 505(2) [Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes] of the IPC

Appearing for the petitioner, Subodh Desai submitted that the FIRs are politically motivated, lodged with the sole intent of harassing and browbeating the petitioner, who is a member of the Congress Party. He further submitted that he has been falsely implicated only because he questioned the statement of a sitting Cabinet Minister of the State.

The court cited Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2007) 5 SCC 1 whereby the apex court had held,” The intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-A of IPC and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused” (Para 16)

In Balwant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214 where appellants had raised slogans of “Khalistan Zindabad” after assassination of Indir Gandhi, the court held that “only where the written or spoken words have the tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or affect public tranquility, that the law needs to step in to prevent such an activity” (Para 9)

In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 7 SCC 431 the apex court was considering  whether section 153A and 505(2) can be invoked against persons spreading news that Indian army was committing atrocities against Kashmiri Muslims, the court held, “The common feature in both sections being promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will “between different” religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes and communities, it is necessary that at least two such groups or communities should be involved. Merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract either of the two sections.” (Para15)

Findings of the Court

On the basis of the judgements relied upon the court reached the following findings:

(1) It is not an absolute proposition, that one must wait for investigation to be completed before an FIR can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.PC, as the same would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case;

(2) The intention of the accused must be judged on the basis of the words used by the accused along with the surrounding circumstances;

(3) The statement in question on the basis of which the FIR has been registered against the accused must be judged on the basis of what reasonable and strong minded persons will think of the statement, and not on the basis of the views of hypersensitive persons who smell danger in every hostile point of view;

(4) In order to constitute an offence under Section 153A of the IPC, two communities must be involved. Merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract Section 153A;

(5) The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153A of IPC and prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused;

(6) An influential person such as “top government or executive functionary, opposition leader, political or social leader of following or a credible anchor on a T.V. show” carries more credibility and has to exercise his right to free speech with more restraint, as his/her speech will be taken more seriously than that of a “common person on the street”;

(7) A citizen or even an influential person is under no obligation to avoid a controversial or sensitive topic. Even expressing an extreme opinion in a given case does not amount to hate speech;

(8) The Apex Court has reiterated the test of imminence in Amish Devgan’s case by holding that the likelihood of harm arising out of the accused’s speech must not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched.

Observations by the Bombay HC

The court concluded that no offence was made out against the petitioner. As per the court, even if we take the contents of the video as it stands, no offences as alleged are made out against the petitioner, in both the aforesaid petitions.

“By no stretch of imagination, can it be said, that by the said words, the petitioner, even remotely promoted or attempted to promote, on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or on any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religions, racial, language or regional groups of caste and communities. Nor can it be said that the petitioner by the said utterances, committed any act prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religions, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, which would disturb or likely to disturb public tranquillity” (Para 18)

Further, considering the contention of the Advocate General that the act of the petitioner was likely to disturb public tranquillity, the court held that any activity carried out by a group of individuals which results in disruption of peace in the society, is referred to as an offence against public tranquillity. And in this case, there was no unlawful assembly, rioting, affray, etc.

The court further held that it does not appear that the video was made with any mala fide intention nor does it appear that he had the intention to promote hatred or enmity or to create law and order issues. “The comments would have to be weighed and considered in the context of what provoked the petitioner to make the said comments,” the court said (Para 20).

Making a remark language used in the video of the petitioner, the court said, “The language i.e. one of the words used by the petitioner in one of the videos, at the highest, can be said to be distasteful, but certainly not warranting registration of the FIR, much less, petitioner’s arrest.” The court opined that the police cannot invoke section 153A so lightly. (Para 20)

The court also emphasized upon right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a) and said that the same is “valuable right and is the backbone of a healthy and vibrant democracy”

“In a way, it enshrines the principle of “liberty of thought and expression” given in the Preamble. The petitioner, as revealed from the contents of the FIR, had only expressed his views/opinion/dissent, pursuant to what the Minister said. The act of the petitioner was well within his right to express his opinion, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Merely because the petitioner’s comments hurt the complainant’s sensibilities, was not a ground for the police to register the FIRs, much less arrest him.” (Para 21)

The court noted that despite there being no prima facie offence against him, the petitioner was kept in custody for 2 days. Cautioning the police against using these sections lightly, the court said,

“The police, before arresting, must first apply their mind, as to whether any offence is made out or not, as an arrest visits serious consequences on the person arrested. The offences alleged have serious connotations/ramification and the police have to be mindful of the same. Invocation of the said sections has serious repercussions not only on that person’s life, but also his family life, causes incalculable harm to one’s reputation and even career. It cannot and must not be lightly invoked.”(Para 22)

Further stressing upon right of a person to express one’s views and pointing to unnecessary registration of FIRs, the court said,

“Law cannot be used as a tool or as an instrument of oppression, by registering FIRs, to harass people by preventing/intimidating them, from expressing their views/opinions/dissent, which the Constitution of India, guarantees to them. The right to express one’s views is a protected and cherished right in our democracy and cannot be taken away by imposition of Section 153A of the IPC and by arresting a person as done in the present case. Section 153A cannot be resorted to silence people from expressing their views/opinions/dissent, so long as Article 19(2) is not violated. Cases under Section 153A are on the rise and the onus is on the police/State to ensure that the said provision is not misused by anyone, much less, political parties.” (Para 23)

The court thus quashed both FIRs against the petitioners and having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, directed the State government to pay costs of Rs.25, 000 to the petitioner for his unjustified arrest to be recovered from the salary of the police personnel who registered the FIR. The matter has been posted for hearing on March 30 for recording compliance in payment of costs.

The post Comments can be distasteful but does not warrant FIR, police officer fined Rs 25,000: Bom HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In fact, Dabangg (2010), is a film made originally in Hindi, which got re-made in the Telugu language with the title, ‘Gabbar Singh’; whereas Singham is a remake of the original film from the Tamil Film Industry. Then there is the director Rohit Shetty’s ‘Cop Universe’[1] of Singham (2011), Singham Returns (2014), Simmba (2018) and Sooryavanshi (2021) — all of blockbuster[2] fame, all made in the Hindi language. Apart from the fact that all these films — while receiving mediocre critical reviews became box office successes, these cop movies generally underline a theme of the messiah supercop, they are films with scenes that glorify unlawful torture and “encounters” (read extra-judicial killings) and all this, in the interests of the ‘greater good’. Or, more specifically, to portray, and underline, just how powerful the supercop protagonist is. This article discusses this depiction and portrayal within the lens of existing law. Before we go further, this is not an exclusive discussion on “encounters” within Bollywood movies. Encounters, as has been long established, are extra-judicial in nature and all the instances of such extra judicial killings, except the ones undertaken in self-defence, are illegal and unlawful, and should be condemned —irrespective of what crimes the accused may be guilty of.

Cop Universe, in fact is an idea and a philosophy as far as the money churning director/producer Rohit Shetty is concerned, Apart from the four films and one forthcoming (Singham Again, forthcoming), this production house has an animated web series, Little Singham and two mobile games, Singham (2014) and Singham Returns (2018). Where and how far these have reached to transform Indian minds addicted to this version of occupation and entertainment, while further deepening people’s commitment to an unlawful violent police force, remains to be measured. The production house is also soon to be releasing one more web series, The Indian Police Force.

All such instances of extra-judicial killings depicted in the scenes by Inspector Sadhu Agashe in Ab Tak Chappan, (2004, Hindi language) played by Nana Patekar are both illegal and would, or should, attract some introspection and questioning. This article is not only about the depiction of extreme scenes and “acts of encounters”. It is also about the excesses of the police, including the violence on peaceful protesters, the use of violence and torture to extract confessions, everyday violence and unchecked use of “encounters” in tackling crime, which are seriously questionable under existing law.

Anurag Kashyap directed Black Friday, (2004, Hindi), a movie that revolves around the investigation into the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts. As the narrative unfolds, the point at which the investigation stops (or is unable/unsuccessful) in tracking down the location of where Yakub Khan/Yeda Yakub is, the investigation team brings in the brother and sister-in-law of the accused protagonist, Yakub Khan. They are both tortured, as depicted in the film despite the woman being unwell. The prolonged use of torture goes on until the investigating team “finds” Yakub Khan. When a journalist asks DCP Rakesh Maria – a role played by Kay Kay Menon — about these Human Rights violations-he responds by saying- “Human rights? – Yes. Tell those people to try solving this case. More than 400 innocent people were blown to shreds in the blasts. There was no criminal among them. What about their human rights? For every ten guilty, we may bring in someone who’s innocent. I’m not perfect, nobody is. They aren’t small-time criminals. They think this is jihad. They’re the worst kind, they work like terrorists. Chop off their fingers and they still wouldn’t say a word. They won’t open their mouths until you strip them of their dignity. They can’t bear to see their women, children and near ones humiliated.” This is the justification presented in this film, for torture.

Apart from the mocking at the principles behind Human Rights as being an “impediment” to the investigation rather than looking at both processes and their honest and decent application (keeping human rights parametres in mind) as complementary processes, this statement, as reflected in the  words of a senior policeman heading the team, goes against everything the criminal justice system of this country embodies. Moreover, it does not question how the use of quick fix methods (mentioned above) actually undermine the quality of investigations and the investigation process.

First and foremost, Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code deals with Voluntarily causing Hurt to extort Confession, or to Compel Restoration of Property.

Section 330 states that “Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer or any person inter­ested in the sufferer to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Under this section, the investigating officer would/should be punished for his conduct. However, torture has been the go-to method during investigations, first in real life and also depicted in film making. Existing law, however, outlaws the use of torture.

In Mardaani 2, (2019, Hindi)[3], Rani Mukherji sits on the table while a person is hung, upside down, as police officers hit him with lathis, to elicit (read, forcefully extract a confession) for information on a hitman. This scene of visible torture to elicit information is one of the most normalised and sometimes glorified portrayal of violations of Indian criminal law, not just in Bollywood but other regional language film industries too, like in Telugu cinema.

The film called Krack (2021) which was originally made in Telugu, has since been dubbed into Hindi and has been made available on Youtube. It has garnered 36 million views. In this movie, in one of the scenes, the protagonist-cop reaches a location where protestors have gathered to chant slogans against a movie and are calling for a ban on it. The cop unilaterally concludes that the sentiments of the protestors require law and order maintenance and he proceeds to lathi charge the protesters without any previous, navigation, warning or provocation. The protesters have been protested peacefully.

The cop proceeds to also physically thrash the media that is placed there. Ironically, the power of the cop is established by hitting unarmed and unprovoked protestors. Although there are no concrete provisions specifically regarding ‘lathi charge’ within the Indian law, there are enough limitations placed on exercise of use of force. Different judgements of both the Supreme Court and various high courts have emphasised and on the need for proportional use of force. The (mis) use of an unprovoked lathi charge on a group of peaceful protestors cannot surely be interpreted as proportional. Not only is such an act shown as one committed in the normal course of action/duty of a policeman, but it is also glorified.

In Anita Thakur v. State of J&K, the Supreme Court awarded compensation to those who were at the receiving end of Lathi Charge by the police because even the police personnel continued the use of force beyond limits after they had ‘controlled the mob’.

Police excess is a recurring theme in Telugu films, sometimes even used to evoke funny/humorous reactions and at others used to create an aura of heroic masculinity around the police officer. A Telugu movie called Golimaar (2010) directed by director of Lige, Puri Jagannath, is about a police officer who shoots people with utmost impunity, all in the name of punishing criminals. The plot does not come as a surprise, going by the title-Golimaar. The Hindi dubbed version of this film has 12 million views on Youtube.

The Telugu film industry is not alone in the repeated usage of this theme. The Tamil film industry has its own share of glorification of police violence with impunity. A Tamil film Kaakha Kaakha, (2003, original in Tamil, re-made in several languages) starring Suriya and Jyothika in the lead roles, was a film filled with glorification of police encounters. A scene in the film where a team of cops discuss the forthcoming arrest of an accused, suspected of rape embodies the pinnacle of police impunity. One of the officers mentions that there has been no complaint on the suspect accused –even while the information department had received some information on him. Undeterred by this absence of evidence, the protagonist policeman goes on to kill the suspect since he thinks the victim will not –otherwise– be able to give her statement as a witness. There is another questionable scene that portrays all the officers laughing and giggling while a Human Rights Enquiry is held against their actions. This film,  Kaakha Kaakha was remade into multiple languages, owing to the original being a box office success in the Tamil film industry. In Hindi, it was remade with the title, Force, starring John Abhraham and Genelia D’Souza.

Imagine going to a police officer, to say something and him just hitting you. It seems like an inherently unlawful act. Now, let us add some element of complexity into this hypothetical scenario. Imagine you were going to the police officer to offer him a bribe, when he caught you while driving in excess of speed limits or without a licence and thereafter, the policeman (or woman) simply slapped you for your audacity. You might think that this is a ‘reasonable act’ while it is not. Even though Section 171E of the Indian Penal Code penalises the act of offering a bribe, slapping the person is not the punishment. In the movie Singham Returns, Bajirao Singham played by Ajay Devgan slaps a boy who offers him bribe and goes on to lecture the miscreant boys about how their lumpen activities are condemnable and they should, instead, work hard for their future. The scene normalises instant punishment i.e., an abrasive act by a police officer. It is interesting to note that Ajay Devgan, playing the sincere and rule following character of Amit, in Gangajaal (2003, Hindi language) would not have done that.

In the movie Khakee, (2004, Hindi language) a scene tries to make it seem like it is okay for a police person to search the house without a warrant or a reasonable cause. This unlawful criminal trespass and illegal entry has now become common practice. In this movie, Akshay Kumar, while being in an extra-marital relationship with a woman, tries to conceal this fact –when the woman’s husband returns home. He does so by making it seem like he came to the house to search for cocaine stashed in the house![4]

Usually, in law, there are only two scenarios in which a police person is permitted to enter into a private residence. One is when he has obtained a warrant from the magistrate, under Section 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code [CrPC]. The second way is that the Police officer conducting investigation, is empowered under Section 165 of the CrPC to search any place, within the local limits of the Police Station of which they are in-charge or to which they are attached, where they reasonably believe to find anything necessary for the purpose of investigation being conducted by them, without obtaining a search warrant.

The officer conducting the investigation is required to conduct the search in person; however, if that is not possible, they can authorise in writing any subordinate officer to conduct the search by specifying the thing for which search has to be conducted and the place where such search is to be conducted. However, despite it appearing like the police has been given discretionary powers, there are limits on this power by mandating the record of reasons for not obtaining a warrant instead and such reasons should be forwarded to the magistrate. The person whose house is being searched should receive a copy of reasons as to why the search is being conducted.

In the case of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh, the police did not follow Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act while conducting a personal search of the accused. Section 50 stated that the personal search of the person ought to be carried out in the presence of a gazetted officer or in front of a magistrate and non-compliance with such established procedure, the court said, would deny to the accused the right to fair trial.

This is not to say that these incidents do not happen in real life. Police excess is a daily phenomenon that manifests itself in various extremities. Films such as some of those looked at here simply glorify and normalise these excessive and unlawful acts.

In the protests against the Sterlite Copper Plant in Thoothukudi, 12 people were killed in police firing and the inquiry committee formed to interrogate the incident has pinned the blame directly on police officials. In Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh,   6 farmers were killed in police firing. During the Covid-19 lockdown, the torture of P. Jayraj and J.Bennix-a father-son duo, by the police, leading to the duo’s death shook the nation. These real-life instances of police excess in the are deplorable and are, periodically condemned. Commerce-driven, mass Indian culture –as illustrated by these blockbluster films in Hindi, Telugu, Tamil and other languages — however, appear to be on some sort of mission to normalise and glorify the police excess including brute torture, criminal trespass and violence.

Conclusion

Popular media has always celebrated aggressive masculinity that listens little to reasoned and nuanced arguments and even less, provokes any thought or questioning. Some of the most problematic tendencies/elements that have emerged among a section of Indian youth in the post liberalisation era – like stalking, cyber abuse/crimes etc – have been pointedly glorified by commercial cinema. The reliance on a police officer as protagonist and showcasing police’s abrasive behaviour as some sort of heroic act goes back further, is a time-tested, age old formula. Such portrayals in a commercial mass medium like cinema has successfully normalised police excesses that are visible and growing, every day. Although some movies such as Article 15- directed by Anubhav Sinha, did, try to chalk out an alternative theme with respect to the Police, the proportion and rate of this alternative portrayal remains at a less than desirable level.

The post The folly of Supercop characters: A look at how films propagate the normalisation of Police Excess 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.

SabrangIndia had reported previously that the Supreme Court had, in a case pertaining to rights of sex workers, directed the UIDAI to provide them with Aadhaar cards without requiring address proof, and maintaining confidentiality of their data. A closer reading of the order now brings to light directions given to the police to treat sex workers with respect and compassion.

Supreme Court Bench presided by Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.S. Bopanna was hearing the matter pertaining to the right of sex workers to live with dignity and held, “This basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children, who, bearing the brunt of social stigma attached to their work, are removed to the fringes of the society, deprived of their right to live with dignity and opportunities to provide the same to their children.”

The Bench directed the Police Officers to treat the sex workers with dignity and had mentioned in the Order dated May 19, 2022: 

“The police and other law enforcement agencies should be sensitised to the rights of sex workers who also enjoy all basic human rights and other rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all citizens. Police should treat all sex workers with dignity and should not abuse them, both verbally and physically, subject them to violence or coerce them into any sexual activity.”

The Bench further made directions regarding any sex worker being the victim of sexual assault saying, “Any sex worker who is a victim of sexual assault should be provided with all facilities available to a survivor of sexual assault, including immediate medical assistance, in accordance with Section 357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with “Guidelines and Protocols: Medico-legal care for survivor/victims of sexual violence”, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (March, 2014).”

The Bench also directed the Press Council of India regarding no disclosure of identities of sex workers, “The Press Council of India should be urged to issue appropriate guidelines for the media to take utmost care not to reveal the identities of sex workers, during arrest/ raid/ rescue operations, whether as victims/accused and not to publish or telecast any photos that would result in disclosure of such identities. Besides, the newly introduced Section 354C, IPC which makes voyeurism a criminal offence, should be strictly enforced against electronic media, in order to prohibit telecasting photos of sex workers with their clients in the garb of capturing the rescue operation.”

The Order was based on the recommendations made by panel constituted by the Court in 2011 to examine the conditions of sex workers and to ensure that they can live with dignity.

On May 19, the Court made it crystal clear in its order that the following recommendations, to which the centre agreed, should be strictly followed by all States and Union Territories:

• Any sex worker who is a victim of sexual assault should be provided with all facilities available to a survivor of sexual assault, including immediate medical assistance, in accordance with Section 357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with “Guidelines and Protocols: Medico-legal care for survivor/victims of sexual violence”, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (March, 2014).

• The State Governments may be directed to do a survey of all ITPA Protective Homes so that cases of adult women, who are detained against their will can be reviewed and processed for release in a time-bound manner.

• It has been noticed that the attitude of the police to sex workers is often brutal and violent. It is as if they are a class whose rights are not recognised. The police and other law enforcement agencies should be sensitised to the rights of sex workers who also enjoy all basic human rights and other rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all citizens. Police should treat all sex workers with dignity and should not abuse them, both verbally and physically, subject them to violence or coerce them into any sexual activity.

• The Press Council of India should be urged to issue appropriate guidelines for the media to take utmost care not to reveal the identities of sex workers, during arrest, raid and rescue operations, whether as victims or accused and not to publish or telecast any photos that would result in disclosure of such identities. Besides, the newly introduced Section 354C, IPC which makes voyeurism a criminal offence, should be strictly enforced against electronic media, in order to prohibit telecasting photos of sex workers with their clients in the garb of capturing the rescue operation.

• Measures that sex workers employ for their health and safety (e.g., use of condoms, 12 etc.) must neither be construed as offences nor seen as evidence of commission of an offence.

• The Central Government and the State Governments, through National Legal Services Authority, State Legal Services Authority and District Legal Services Authority, should carry out workshops for educating the sex workers about their rights vis-a-vis the legality of sex work, rights and obligations of the police and what is permitted/prohibited under the law. Sex workers can also be informed as to how they can get access to the judicial system to enforce their rights and prevent unnecessary harassment at the hands of traffickers or police.

The Court also said about these recommendations, “As the legislation has not been made till date even though the recommendations were made by the Panel in the year 2016 and the said recommendations have to be implemented, we are exercising our powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to issue the following directions which will hold the field till a legislation is made by the Union of India.”

The Court has observed during the trial, “….basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children, who, bearing the brunt of social stigma attached to their work, are removed to the fringes of the society, deprived of their right to live with dignity and opportunities to provide the same to their children.”

The Court held on its above observation, “It need not be gainsaid that notwithstanding the profession, every individual in this country has a right to a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional protection that is given to all individuals in this country shall be kept in mind by the authorities who have a duty under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.”

The Court stated in its Order stated that the other recommendations which have to be considered by the Union of India will be taken up after the summer break and granted six weeks time to the Union of India to file its response to the recommendations made by the panel and kept the matter for next hearing on July 27, 2022.

The recommendations made by the panel are as follows:

1)     Sex workers are entitled to equal protection of the law. Criminal law must apply equally in all cases, on the basis of ‘age’ and ‘consent’. When it is clear that the sex worker is an adult and is participating with consent, the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action. There have been concerns that police view sex workers differently from others. When a sex worker makes a complaint of criminal/sexual/any other type of offence, the police must take it seriously and act in accordance with law.

2)     Any sex worker who is a victim of sexual assault should be provided with all facilities available to a survivor of sexual assault, including immediate medical assistance, in accordance with Section 357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with “Guidelines and Protocols: Medico-legal care for survivor/victims of sexual violence”, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (March, 2014).

3)     Whenever there is a raid on any brothel, since voluntary sex work is not illegal and only running the brothel is unlawful, the sex workers concerned should not be arrested or penalised or harassed or victimised.

4)     The State Governments may be directed to do a survey of all ITPA Protective Homes so that cases of adult women, who are detained against their will can be reviewed and processed for release in a time-bound manner.

5)     It has been noticed that the attitude of the police to sex workers is often brutal and violent. It is as if they are a class whose rights are not recognised. The police and other law enforcement agencies should be sensitised to the rights of sex workers who also enjoy all basic human rights and other rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all citizens. Police should treat all sex workers with dignity and should not abuse them, both verbally and physically, subject them to violence or coe4rce them into any sexual activity.

6)     The Press Council of India should be urged to issue appropriate guidelines for the media to take utmost care not to reveal the identities of sex workers, during arrest, raid and rescue operations, whether as victims or accused and not to publish or telecast any photos that would result in disclosure of such identities. Besides, the newly introduced Section 354C, IPC which makes voyeurism a criminal offence, should be strictly enforced against electronic media, in order to prohibit telecasting photos of sex workers with their clients in the garb of capturing the rescue operation.

7)     Measures that sex workers employ for their health and safety (e.g., use of condoms, etc.) must neither be construed as offences nor seen as evidence of commission of an offence.

8)     The Central Government and the State Governments must involve the sex workers and/or their representatives in all decision-making processes, including planning, designing and implementing any policy or programme for the sex workers or formulating any change/reform in the laws relating to sex work. This can be done, either by including them in the decision-making authorities/panel and/or by taking their views on any decision affecting them.

9)     The Central Government and the State Governments, through National Legal Services Authority, State Legal Services Authority and District Legal Services Authority, should carry out workshops for educating the sex workers abut their rights vis-a-vis the legality of sex work, rights and obligations of the police and what is permitted/prohibited under the law. Sex workers can also be informed as to how they can get access to the judicial system to enforce their rights and prevent unnecessary harassment at the hands of traffickers or police.

10)  As already recommended in the 6th interim Report dated 22.03.2012, no child of a sex worker should be separated from the mother merely on the ground that she is in the sex trade. Further, if a minor is found living in a brothel or with sex workers, it should not be presumed that he/she has been trafficked. In case the sex worker claims that he/she is her son/daughter, tests can be done to determine if the claim is correct and if so, the minor should not be forcibly separated.

The Court in its Order had asked the UIDAI to maintain the confidentiality of the sex workers during the process of issuance of the Aadhar Cards and reportedly said, “There shall be no breach of confidentiality in the process, including assignment of any code in the Aadhar enrolment numbers that identify the card holder as a sex worker.”

The entire Order may be read here:

Related:

SC directs Aadhaar cards be issued to sex workers without insisting on the residential proof
Sex workers can’t be harassed, can’t be confined to shelter homes: SC
Courts upholds dignity of sex-workers in two important orders
Human Trafficking Bill and the government’s Saviour Complex
Covid-19: Gauhati HC directs DLSA to provide immediate ration to sex workers, their family

The post Police should treat sex workers with dignity and should not abuse them: SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

After a shocking case of caste violence involving an acid attack in Saharanpur, Jaunpur’s Dalit community accused the Badlapur police of brutally flogging their women on March 20, 2022. A viral video on social media shows how the women received heavy blows along their thighs and backs.

Women laid bare the red welts all over their upper legs and backs in the video that went viral on March 24. According to The Quint Hindi, the women suffered these injuries when the police arrived to resolve a local dispute. Instead of concluding the matter peacefully, they alleged that the police stripped them and the young children present there to brutally assault them.

Given the heinous nature of the crime, the video sparked widespread outrage among people. Bhim Army Chief Chandrashekhar Azad condemned the BJP-led government and asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi and UP Chief Minister Ajay Bisht (Yogi Adityanath) whether this was the future for Dalits in their “Ram Rajya”. Similarly, Opposition party Samajwadi Party shared a blurred version of the video demanding strict action against the police.

जौनपुर यूपी में पुरुष पुलिस प्रशासन द्वारा दलित महिलाओं के साथ अभद्रतापूर्ण व्यवहार व उनके कपड़े उतारकर पीटना अमानवीय कृत्य है। @narendramodi @myogiadityanath जी क्या अब दलितों का दमन करना ही आपका ‘राम राज्य’ है।
हमारी मांग है कि दोषी पुलिसकर्मियों पर सख्य क़ानूनी कार्यवाही हो। pic.twitter.com/Zg8n03trst

— Chandra Shekhar Aazad (@BhimArmyChief) March 25, 2022

दलितों पर अत्याचार में नंबर 1 भाजपा शासित उत्तर प्रदेश में एक और शर्मसार कर देने वाली पुलिसिया करतूत आई सामने।

जौनपुर के बदलापुर में पुलिस द्वारा दलित महिलाओं की बर्बर पिटाई विचलित कर देने वाली घटना है।

मामले में दोषी पुलिसकर्मियों पर हो सख्त कार्रवाई, पीड़ितों को मिले न्याय। pic.twitter.com/8hg8bHHIjM

— Samajwadi Party (@samajwadiparty) March 24, 2022

SC women were brutally thrashed by UP police in Jaunpur. Black marks of beating on their body are mind distracting.

Where are @NCSC_GoI, @NCWIndia? We urge CM Yogi to intervene and take strict action against the police goons.
pic.twitter.com/JemWZTQW7y

— Mission Ambedkar (@MissionAmbedkar) March 25, 2022

However, like the Saharanpur incident, local police claimed that the incident was distorted by the injured person. In a video statement, the Circle Officer said that a dispute was reported in Ram Deoria village of Badlapur. He claimed that the women were not attacked and went through a medical test before being sent to jail. He further said that women were not assaulted in the police station either. The officer stressed that the women were not treated indecently.

थाना बदलापुर अंतर्गत ग्राम देवरिया में दो पक्षों में हुई मारपीट का वायरल वीडियो के संबंध में क्षेत्राधिकारी बदलापुर की बाइट। pic.twitter.com/wI6W4DpuIS

— Jaunpur police (@jaunpurpolice) March 24, 2022

Yet, another video of the night of the incident shows how the police were openly hostile against the people who suffered injuries. In the clipping, a person requests the police to take a bleeding woman to the hospital for proper attention but the officers respond with crass words.

ग्राम बीकैपुर पोस्ट सोनहीता थाना सुजानगंज तहसील मछली शहर जिला जौनपुर स्वर्ण द्वारा दलितों पर अत्याचार किया गया पुलिस मौके पर आकर क्या कर रही है खुद देख लीजिए . pic.twitter.com/lfEvvetyd0

— Neha_paswan (@iNeha_paswan) March 25, 2022

According to Jagran, villagers Jialal Gautam and Jiyawan Gautam were in a conflict as to who cut the banana tree. The PRB team arrived at the place to diffuse the situation but the villagers allegedly attacked the officer. After Head Constable Rajesh Yadav and driver Raj Bihari were injured, the police registered a case against a dozen people on the complaint of Jialal’s daughter Radha and head constable Rajesh. As such, the police arrested six women and two men.

Related:

UP: Goons carve trishul on a man’s face!
Hate Watch: Dalit, Covid health worker, killed for sporting moustache in Rajasthan
Centre excludes overseas humanities and social science courses from SC/ST scholarship
How a state suffocated by Saffron got a new breath from Blue
Hate Watch: Dalit man thrashed, dragged like an animal by so called “upper caste” goons

The post UP: Jaunpur police allegedly flog Dalit women appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A group of Muslim women were thrashed in a public place in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh on February 13. The video of the violence went viral on Wednesday, February 16 and the police have now claimed, after the outrage, that there was an altercation or scuffle between the two.

However, the clip that has gone viral shows Uttar Pradesh police personnel brutaly hitting Muslim women who were reportedly a part of a a protest against the “hijab ban” in colleges that started in Karnataka, and has now had a ripple effect in many other parts of the country. After facing criticism from the people, the police have said they are “investigating the video”. A first information report, or FIR, has also been filed by the police against the protesters over the Sunday incident.

According to news reports, in its FIR, the police stated they came to know that some 15 Muslim women had gathered in Ghaziabad’s Sani Bazaar Road with anti-government posters, and were protesting without taking necessary permission. Police stated that when its team reached there, the women protesters started shouting slogans.

Ghaziabad Police, in their statement issued on Wednesday, have also claimed that the protesters assaulted the police personnel who had reached the site. They said, “Inspector-in-Charge of Khoda received information about demonstration by some people on Shani Bazar Road. On getting the information, Inspector-in-Charge of Khoda reached the spot and it was found that some women were protesting on the road. When the women police personnel asked about the permission to protest from the protesting women, no permission was shown by the protesting women, and the women police personnel and other policemen were assaulted by the protesting women and other persons present on the spot.”

pic.twitter.com/UUY2HkdvPG

— GHAZIABAD POLICE (@ghaziabadpolice) February 16, 2022

However, while police claim that the women constables tried to persuade the protesters to return home, and that the cops were heckled, and that some men who were with the protesters also started verbally abusing the constables, the video clip shows that the protesters were hit by the cops. According to news reports, the police FIR also claimed some male protestors verbally abused the police women, and have identified one of the accused as Raees. In the video, the only time the burqa clad woman is seen reacting is when she attempts to deflect the police hitting her with a stick.

Related

Hijab ban case: Hijab in line with freedom of expression, submits petitioner
Hijab Case: Will action be taken against Karanataka BJP for sharing details of minor Muslim students?
Hijab controversy now hits schools!

The post Ghaziabad: Police beat up Muslim women protesters, claim ‘scuffle’, but viral video shows otherwise appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Delhi Court has questioned the Jamia Nagar Police, Delhi, for allegedly refusing to file FIRs against Dasna temple priest Yati Narsinghanand and Karni Sena Chief Suraj Pal Amu. 

Faisal Ahmed Khan, a Law professor, had filed two complaints against them for anti-Muslim communal speeches made by both these right wing leaders on separate occasion. However, even after three days, the police did not register FIRs against either of these hate offenders.

Khan, thus, approached Saket district court on August 7 seeking directions to the police to register the FIRs. Khan sought two separate FIRs, and for both to be charged under sections 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 298 (uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 505-1 (whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report), 505-2 (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill will between classes), and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, reported The Wire.

When the case came up for hearing, Metropolitan Magistrate Rajat Goyal directed the Station House Officer (SHO) of Jamia Nagar Police station, Delhi to file an Action Taken Report (ATR) in both cases.

The Court has posed the following questions for the police to answer in both cases:

1.       Whether any complaint has been made by the complainant in the police station
2.       If yes, whether any action has been taken on the said complaint
3.       Whether any investigation or inquiry has been conducted in this regard and if yes, then what is the status of the investigation/inquiry
4.       If any cognisable offence is made out, whether any FIR has been registered or not

The court has given the SHO time till September 27 to file the report.

Interestingly, Satish Kumar, Jamia Nagar Police Station SHO, told The Wire said that the “two matters were not of Jamia Nagar jurisdiction.”

Complaint against Yati Narsinghanand

Khan has complained against the statement made by Narsinghanand, in which he alleged that students of certain educational institutions, including Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Jamia Millia Islamia and Darul Uloom Deoband, cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India or uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Khan’s application to the Magistrate states that Narsinghanand, also President of Akhil Bharatiya Sant Parishad, called for a total boycott of Muslims and their religious texts and establishing a nation free/devoid of Islam or anything associated with it.

SabrangIndia’s sister organisation, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has previously approached different authorities like the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy), National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) against Narsinghanand’s actions. Recently, the NHRC has also registered a case against Narsinghanand for his hate speech against Islam made in April this year, on the complaint filed by Haji Mohd. Sameer Boghani, president of the Madariya Sufi Foundation.

Narsinghanand has been a notorious saffron-clad hate monger who has become too brazen for even BJP’s comfort. In July, he uploaded a video on his Facebook account threatening to destroy all mosques in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. He says in the video, “Agar kissi mandir ko hilane ki koshish jihaadiyo ne ki, toh uska itna tagra jawaab denge jiski koi had nahi.” (Translation: If any Islamic militant attempts to destroy our temples, we will respond in a manner that has no limits.)

In March, CJP wrote to MEITY and Ministry of Minority Affairs (MMA) against his speeches where he continues to appeal to all Hindus to protect their Dharam (religion), daughters and women as there is a Muslim “jihadi” everywhere, who is killing Hindus in every region of the world. In his video he has claimed that  the purpose Jihad is to kill a kaafir (non-believer) or a non-Muslim, and to take control of a non-Muslim man’s wife and property and also that Jihad is a synonym of ‘cancer’ which needs to be ‘operated’ or surgically removed, insinuating that Jihad needs to be destroyed worldwide as it is the most ‘dangerous thing’.

The Magistrate Court order in the Yati Narsinghanand case may be read here:

Complaint against Suraj Pal Amu

The complaint against Amu is for the speech he made at a Mahapanchayat attended by 50,000 people held in Indri, Nuh Haryana on May 30. The speech by Amu quoted in Khan’s application reads, “Those who are real Hindus please raise your hands. If there are any children of Pakistanis sitting here, they may also raise their hands. ‘Asif was killed by Patwari, Advani’…He was neither murdered by Patwari, nor by Advani. If he has been murdered, it is because of his deeds, dare to say this. We are not guilty, our boys are not guilty. They make nude photos/ videos of our sisters and daughters and we cannot even murder them?” Patwari and Advani mentioned here are persons accused in the Asif Khan lynching case, who was killed in Mewat. In Another Mahapanchayat held in Pataudi, five weeks later, Amu urged the crowd to destroy mosques and stop every attempt that is made at building mosques, states the application.

Promotional flyers for the event in Pataudi described it as a Mahapanchayat against “recent increase in cases of love jihad, market jihad, land jihad and religious conversions in the villages surrounding Pataudi,” with a focus on the subject of “love jihad”, the allegations that Muslim men lure Hindu women away from their families and forcefully convert them to Islam, reported NDTV.

“They (Muslims) cut their moustaches, we can cut throats… We will pick them (Muslims) off one by one (chun chun ke thokenge),”  Amu reportedly said in his speech at Pataudi mahapanchayat. “Agar Bharat hamaari maata hai, toh Pakistan ke hum baap hain, aur ye Pakistani… ko hum yahan ke gharon mein kiraye par makan nahin denge… In…ko is desh se nikaalo, yeh prastaav paas karo (If India is our mother, then we are the father of Pakistan, and we will not give houses here on rent to the Pakistanis… Remove them from this country, pass this proposal),” he added.

When Varun Singla, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Manesar, was questioned why the police had not lodged a complaint against Amu and event organisers for the inflammatory speech, he said no action can be taken since no complaint was filed, reported NDTV. This, despite hundreds of policemen present at the event and police can by themselves take cognisance of cognisable offences and lodge an FIR.

Amu, after making the speech, appears to have been rewarded when he was appointed spokesperson for BJP Haryana.

The Magistrate Court order in the Suraj Pal Amu case may be read here:

Related:

CJP approaches MEITy and Minority Affairs Ministry against Yati Narsinghanand
Yati Narsinghanand continues to spread hate
CJP approaches NCM against Vikas Sehrawat for his abusive statements against Muslims
UP: Right wing outfit Kranti Sena conducts drive to ban Muslim Mehendi artists and barbers

The post Delhi Court questions Police for alleged refusal to file FIR against right-wing hate mongers appeared first on SabrangIndia.