PUCL has announced that it will lobby with the Governor and the President to prevent the bill from receiving assent, arguing that its legality is questionable and that it infringes upon the fundamental right to freedom of conscience, free speech, interfaith dialogue, equality, and individual choice. The organisation has warned that the bill’s punitive provisions are excessive and likely to be struck down by the courts if challenged.

Key concerns with the bill

PUCL pointed to several problematic provisions across the bill:

1. Overbroad definitions: The definitions under Section 2 are excessively wide, arbitrary, and untested for reasonableness. Concepts such as “allurement” and “coercion” are defined in ways far broader than similar state laws, and they introduce psychological pressure as a basis for criminal liability, which current police frameworks are ill-equipped to handle.
2. Prohibitory and punitive provisions: Section 3 declares conversions unlawful and, when read alongside Section 5, makes even voluntary adult conversions punishable. The bill also criminalises any form of abetment or “convincing,” which could include ordinary interfaith discussions, thereby stifling free expression.
3. Marriage and interfaith implications: The bill contains new restrictions affecting the right to marry, including potential implications for same-sex marriages.
4. ‘Ghar Wapsi’ and ambiguities: Section 3’s explanations, including provisions for “reconversion” to one’s previous faith, are vague and could be interpreted to support forced reconversions (“ghar wapsi”) targeting Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and Ambedkarite communities. The law fails to clarify temporal limits for prior conversions, leaving room for discriminatory enforcement.
5. Draconian sentences: Punishments are extraordinarily severe: a minimum of seven years imprisonment (extendable to 14 years) and fines of ₹5 lakh for general violations; longer sentences and higher fines apply for women, minors, SC/ST individuals, and mass conversions. PUCL asserts that such mandatory sentencing is unconstitutional.
6. Invasive administrative oversight: The bill mandates intrusive District Magistrate inquiries into every conversion, potentially affecting interfaith marriages. Parties who “counsel, convince, or procure” conversions are criminalised, which constitutes a disproportionate restriction on free speech and interfaith dialogue.
7. Burden of proof on the accused: Section 12 places the burden of proof on individuals accused of facilitating conversions, violating the fundamental principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof.

Conclusion

The PUCL asserts that the Rajasthan anti-conversion bill is an unconstitutional, overreaching law that undermines democratic principles and individual liberties. By attempting to regulate personal faith and interfaith interactions through coercive administrative and punitive measures, the bill threatens to marginalise minority communities and stifle free expression. The organisation is committed to lobbying at the highest levels of the state and central government to prevent the bill from becoming law.

Related:

Protests across Maharashtra denounce the Public Security Act as unconstitutional and anti-democratic

From Whispers to Shouts: How India’s voter roll irregularities are finally being heard

Labour rights, health of workers hit in the name of “reform”: PUCL Maharashtra

The post PUCL slams recently passed Rajasthan anti-conversion bill as “draconian and unconstitutional” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On September 3, 2025 the Maharashtra Cabinet approved a series of labour law amendments to increase the length of the working day, working hours without rest intervals, working hours per week, and limit of the overtime period. These amendments are based on recommendations of a central task force on labour reforms in order to “attract investment, expand industries, and create more employment opportunities.” The Maharashtra decision aligns with states such as Karnataka, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, and Tripura – which have already enacted similar “reforms.”

The PUCL statement states that it must not be forgotten that the State is the biggest employer both in industries and establishments and is therefore required to ensure that workers are not exploited and their fundamental rights to a decent, safe and healthy work environment are protected. Yet it fails to do precisely that.

The State Government has made many lofty claims in support of these “reforms,” that are presumably in the interests of both labour as well as capital. The amendments will facilitate “protection of labour rights” while “improving the ease of doing business.” They will help “attract investment” as well as “increase employment opportunities in the state.”¹ But it is obvious that extending working hours, and removing smaller establishments from the purview of the law is meant to reduce or remove protections for workers, not to expand them, says the PUCL.

Today, even in the industrial sector in India, contractual workers are already working 12-hour shifts (without overtime). In effect, the amendments aim to legalise what is already happening in fact – depriving workers of the legal safeguards against super-exploitation. They seem to be a way of coercing a shrinking permanent workforce into this inhuman work regime. Besides, far from increasing employment, as is claimed, this step will reduce the organised work force to two thirds of its size by replacing 8-hour shifts with 12-hour ones. It is no surprise that the Karnataka State IT/ITeS

1 See the post by the Chief Minster of Maharashtra on the social media platform X:

मंत्रिमंडळ निर्णय : कामगार विभाग@Dev_Fadnavis#Maharashtra #मंत्रिमंडळनिर्णय #CabinetDecision #DevendraFadnavis pic.twitter.com/oTZrwmsHOp

— CMO Maharashtra (@CMOMaharashtra) September 3, 2025

Employees Union (KITU) labelled similar amendments proposed in Karnataka as “inhuman attempt to impose modern-day slavery” upon them.²

In line with the state cabinet’s decision, the proposed amendments will be carried out in the Factories Act of 1948 and the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017. In the Factories Act, the amendments proposed are: (a) Under Section 65, the workday shall be extended from the present 9 hours up to 12 hours; (b) Under Section 55, the rest period which was half an hour after the first five hours shall be made half an hour after six hours; (c) Under Section 56, the maximum number of working hours (spread over) in a day from 10.5 hours to 12 hours; (d) Under Section 65, the maximum number of hours of overtime in a quarter shall be increased from the present 115 to 144 hours (the original limit had been laid down as 75 hours). Under the Shops and Establishments Act the government intends to (a) increase working hours from 9 to 10 hours; (b) exclude establishments having less than 20 workers (the current number of 85 lakh establishments covered by this Act will be reduced to about 56,000).

While the State Labour Secretary has claimed that overtime work will be paid at double the rate of basic wages and allowances for every such increase in working hours, and that such overtime shall be subject to worker’s consent, these assurances have to be tested upon the actual language of the proposed amendments, particularly the fine print. While the decisions have yet to take the shape of a bill/ordinance for amending the Factories Act in the state, it is very likely that the amending bill/ordinance shall be on the lines of similar amendments made in Rajasthan and Gujarat.

In the Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2025, issued on July 1, 2025, for instance, at Section 6, it is stated that Section 59(1) of the Factories Act shall be substituted by:

“Where a worker works in any factory:-

• for more than nine hours in any day or for more than forty-eight hours in any week, working for six days in any week;
• for more than ten hours in any day or for more than forty eight hours in any week, working for five days in any week;
• for more than eleven and a half hours in any day working for four days in any week, or works on paid holidays; he shall in respect of overtime work be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages.”

In effect this means that overtime will not be calculated on a daily basis, but on a weekly basis, and a worker may work for eleven and a half hours each day for four days in a week without being eligible for overtime. This amounts to squeezing out the maximum from workers, and if they do not consent to overtime, subjecting them to artificial breaks in service jeopardising their permanent status.

The Rajasthan Bill contains another dangerous clause, namely 6(v):

“A worker may be required to work for overtime subject to the consent of such worker for such work except worker required to work for safety activities.”

 2 See the statement “12-hour work day in Karnataka’s IT Sector; Modern-Day Slavery in the Making: KITU Urges Employees to Unite and Resist” by the Karnataka State IT/ITeS Employees Union
https://kituhq.org/recent/6836e0f7e83575020247d3d1

Thus, a maintenance worker may be forced to work overtime all the year round. Given the current situation in the country of a large informal sector, underemployment, low wages, and unpaid work – workers will give “consent” out of fear or desperation, not choice. The provision of “consent” will be little more than legal subterfuge to conceal a new form of servitude.

It is a serious concern that while average working hours in wealthy countries have reduced by roughly half over the last 150 years – moving from over 50 hours per week to around 25-35 hours per week in recent times – India is reverting to colonial era standards by increasing working hours. In France, for instance, the standard full-time work week is 35 hours, with a daily cap of 10 hours; hours beyond the 35 hour threshold are considered overtime.

Finally, the PUCL statement states that the working class all over the world has fought a long battle to establish its right to an 8- hour working day so that workers may also have 8 hours of rest and 8 hours of personal time in which to achieve their full potential as citizens and as human beings. It must be recalled that the International Workers Day originates from the demand for an eight hour working day. Labour Day commemorates the sacrifice of union organisers – who were framed after the Haymarket protest on false charges of causing a riot – during a strike and demonstrations of Chicago workers in 1886. It has origins in the American Federation of Labour’s call: “eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s labour from and after May 1st, 1886”. After the International Labour Organisation (ILO) was founded in 1919, the first instrument ratified by it was the one regulating working hours. The second article limited working hours to 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week. India was one of the first signatories of the ILO’s “Hours of Work Convention” in 1921. India has itself witnessed valiant struggles of textile workers in the year 1911 to reduce working hours which finally under the pen of Dr B.R. Ambedkar were enshrined in the Factories Act, 1948 in the form of the 8-hour work day. The government’s decision in effect seeks to extinguish in one stroke the rights that working people have won with great sacrifice and struggle over more than a century.

It is widely acknowledged that long hours of work does not increase worker productivity, on the contrary, they drastically increase incidents of workplace accidents. Such long hours of work can only lead to sweat labour and hazardous work conditions. It will adversely impact health of workers by increasing exhaustion and stress, and increase their exposure to occupation-linked diseases and medical conditions. It is equally well known that workers in establishments with 12- hour shifts are rarely able to unionise. Longer working hours are discriminatory towards women workers because women bear a significant burden of care work in their homes. If the government was serious about increasing productivity, employment opportunities and welfare of workers, they would introduce progressive amendments to reduce working hours without any reduction in wages.

The PUCL Maharashtra has therefore demanded that the full texts of the proposed amendments be made available in the public domain in both in Marathi and English, and in all offices of the Labour Department so that trade unions and organisations can scrutinise the fine print of these so- called “reforms.” We demand that this decision to amend the Factories Act and the Shop and Establishments Act along the lines of other state governments be immediately revoked. Any proposed labour reforms in the state must only be considered after a series of consultations with trade unions and workers’ organisations, after which they ought to be opened to the broader public for suggestions and objections.

The PUCL, has also stated that the organization, in alliance with trade unions and informal sector workers organisations will campaign against the extension of work hours. It will also lobby with the Standing Committee in the Legislative Assembly and with opposition party MLAs to not accept these changes, and if required challenge these amendments in the courts. The statement was issued by Shiraz Bulsara Prabhu, President of PUCL, Maharashtra and   Sandhya Gokhale, General Secretary.

Related:

Beyond the Clock: Deconstructing Telangana’s Labour Law Reform and the Flawed Pursuit of Investment

ILO raises deep concern over recent trend of labour law reforms, asks PM to engage with states

New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) demands that governments retract changes in labour laws

Battle against dilution of labour laws to culminate in Supreme Court? 

The post Labour rights, health of workers hit in the name of “reform”: PUCL Maharashtra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Central to this crisis was the looting of state armouries and the empowerment of militias such as Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun, which transformed localised protests into a full-blown conflict. The Tribunal highlights sharp disparities in relief and rehabilitation between valley-based Meitei camps and tribal camps in the hills, deepening inequality and resentment. It exposes the intimidation of media, manipulation of information, and prolonged internet shutdowns, which deprived citizens of accurate reporting and curtailed accountability. Sexual violence was deployed as a weapon of war, yet survivors continue to face barriers in accessing justice.

The IPT prescribes urgent corrective measures. It recommends the establishment of a Supreme Court–monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate crimes, an audit of weapons looted from armouries, and the publication of all reports of the Gita Mittal Committee and the Justice Ajai Lamba Commission. It calls for survivor-centric justice mechanisms, equitable relief and rehabilitation, reintegration of the health workforce, disarmament of militias, and the creation of a peacebuilding architecture rooted in dialogue, reparations, and truth-telling. This report is both a condemnation of state complicity and paralysis, and a roadmap for rebuilding constitutional order in Manipur.

Background and mandate of the Tribunal

The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), alarmed by the scale and persistence of violence in Manipur, constituted the Independent People’s Tribunal in March 2024. The Tribunal was conceived as a people’s forum of accountability in response to the limitations of official commissions of inquiry. Its mandate was broad: to document rights violations, examine the role of state and non-state actors, identify systemic failures, and propose remedial measures consistent with constitutional principles.

The jury included some of India’s most respected jurists and administrators: Justice Kurian Joseph (former Supreme Court judge), Justice K. Kannan (former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge), and Justice Anjana Prakash (former Patna High Court judge). They were joined by senior bureaucrats, academics, activists, and experts in public health, gender studies, law, and conflict resolution. This multidisciplinary composition ensured that the Tribunal’s findings combined legal scrutiny, social analysis, and humanitarian perspective.

The Tribunal’s authority rested not on statutory powers but on moral legitimacy, independence, and its ability to centre the experiences of survivors. It deliberately sought to amplify voices that had been marginalised in official narratives, particularly those of displaced communities, women survivors of violence, and minority groups.

Methodology

The Tribunal undertook an extensive process of documentation. Between May and June 2024, jury members and experts spent nearly two weeks in Manipur, visiting affected districts, relief camps, and conflict-affected villages. They met survivors across communities—Meitei, Kuki-Zo, Naga, and Pangal—as well as service providers, lawyers, doctors, journalists, public officials, and security personnel.

The Tribunal held follow-up sittings in Delhi and conducted virtual hearings through September 2024. It reviewed hundreds of pages of affidavits, photographs, video evidence, and documents submitted by survivors, civil society organisations, and independent observers. The process was marked by careful triangulation: testimonies were cross-verified with documentary evidence and field observations.

The Tribunal faced limitations inherent to a conflict setting. Severe polarisation and mistrust made testimony collection difficult. Many survivors were reluctant to speak openly due to threats or fear of reprisals. Journalists faced intimidation, and access to certain districts was restricted by security blockades. Despite these obstacles, the Tribunal’s findings rest on a robust evidentiary base, ensuring credibility and accuracy.

Historical and political context

Manipur is an ethnically diverse state with deep-seated historical grievances. The Meiteis constitute approximately 53% of the population and are concentrated in the valley. The Kukis, Zos, and Nagas make up a significant share of the hill population, with the Nagas around 24% and Kukis and Zos around 16%. While the Nagas were not a direct party to the conflict, they too were affected by its fallout.

The immediate trigger of the violence was the March 27, 2023 order of the Manipur High Court, directing the state to recommend Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for the Meiteis. This decision was perceived by tribal groups as a direct threat to their rights over land and resources, since ST status would enable Meiteis to purchase land in the hills. In response, tribal organisations organised a solidarity march on May 3, 2023. The march was peaceful until rumours and orchestrated provocations turned it into large-scale violence.

The Tribunal notes that this was not an isolated communal clash but a conflict shaped by three distinctive factors: first, the politicisation of the state apparatus, which failed to act neutrally; second, the rise of non-state militias like Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun, which carried out targeted campaigns of violence; and third, the looting of state armouries, which gave armed groups access to modern weaponry. These factors combined to transform temporary clashes into systemic violence and ethnic cleansing.

Patterns of violence

The Tribunal found overwhelming evidence that the violence was orchestrated rather than spontaneous. Militias such as Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun mobilised youth, armed them with looted weapons, and coordinated attacks. These groups suppressed dissent within their own communities, enforcing ethnic conformity through intimidation.

Repeated raids on state armouries between May 2023 and 2024 supplied militias with automatic rifles, machine guns, and explosives. These weapons were deployed in assaults on villages, churches, and civilian populations. The Tribunal highlights that the failure to prevent armoury raids, despite the deployment of large numbers of security personnel, reflects systemic complicity or negligence.

Religious persecution was a defining feature of the violence. Over 250 churches were destroyed or desecrated, particularly in the valley. Survivors recounted the burning of places of worship, desecration of sacred objects, and threats directed at pastors and priests. The Tribunal interprets these attacks as deliberate attempts to erase minority identities.

By late 2024, the violence had created stark ethnic segregation. Kukis and Zos had been expelled from the valley, while Meiteis had been driven out of the hills. The state was effectively divided into ethnic enclaves, with movement between districts restricted and controlled by informal ethnic borders.

Humanitarian impact

The human toll has been catastrophic. Around 260 people were killed, and between 50,000 and 60,000 were displaced. Displaced families were forced into more than 350 relief camps scattered across the state. These camps varied in quality: valley-based camps, predominantly housing Meiteis, received relatively better facilities, while tribal camps in the hills were overcrowded and under-resourced.

Survivors in tribal camps reported inadequate shelter, poor sanitation, scarcity of food supplies, and limited access to healthcare and education. Children faced prolonged disruption of schooling, and women bore disproportionate burdens of care. Many camps, originally conceived as temporary, have now become semi-permanent, deepening despair among displaced populations. The Tribunal stresses that the absence of a comprehensive rehabilitation plan has entrenched displacement as a permanent condition.

Gender-based violence

Gender-based violence emerged as a weapon of war in this conflict. The Tribunal documented dozens of cases of sexual violence across communities, although the true scale is likely far higher. Survivors testified to gang rapes, sexual assault during displacement, and threats of sexual violence used as a form of intimidation.

Justice mechanisms failed survivors. FIRs were delayed or not registered, medico-legal examinations were denied or improperly conducted, and survivor protection measures were absent. The Tribunal emphasises that accountability must go beyond individual perpetrators. Command responsibility must be established, holding state officials and militia leaders accountable for enabling or failing to prevent sexual violence. Fast-track courts and survivor-centred justice frameworks are urgently required.

Health and mental health crisis

The conflict devastated Manipur’s health system. Hospitals became inaccessible to communities displaced across ethnic lines. Tribal survivors reported being turned away from valley hospitals out of fear or hostility, while Meitei patients avoided hill hospitals. This led to preventable deaths from untreated conditions.

Mental health needs were acute. Survivors described chronic anxiety, nightmares, and depression, while journalists and aid workers also exhibited signs of trauma. With no dedicated trauma-care infrastructure, the psychological scars of the violence remain untreated. The Tribunal recommends reintegration of health services across ethnic divides, the establishment of trauma-informed care protocols, and the embedding of mental health services in relief camps.

Media and information disorder

The conflict was aggravated by information disorder. Local media often adopted partisan narratives, depicting Kuki-Zo communities as “illegal immigrants.” This framing was dangerous and misleading, given the absence of a refugee law in India and the complex citizenship histories of borderland populations.

Journalists who sought to report independently faced intimidation, arrests, and smear campaigns. The state repeatedly suspended internet access, cutting off communities from communication and depriving journalists of vital tools. Harsh laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act were used to suppress dissent. The Tribunal concludes that such practices not only undermined accountability but also enabled violence to spread unchecked.

Case Study: Jiribam, November 2024

The Tribunal highlights Jiribam as a microcosm of the conflict. In November 2024, the killing of two men, the gang rape of a Hmar schoolteacher, and the disappearance of a Meitei family sparked retaliatory violence. The CRPF’s killing of ten Kuki insurgents further escalated tensions. Retaliatory attacks targeted Meitei farmland and houses, deepening displacement and undermining food security.

The Jiribam case illustrates how tit-for-tat dynamics operate in the absence of credible law enforcement. Each incident triggered counter-violence, fuelling a cycle of retaliation. The state’s inability to protect citizens or prosecute perpetrators ensured that impunity became the norm.

State and institutional response

The Tribunal is unequivocal in its conclusion that the State of Manipur failed to uphold constitutional governance. Despite the deployment of over 100,000 security personnel, the state failed to prevent the looting of armouries, protect vulnerable communities, or restore normalcy. Survivors consistently questioned the neutrality of the police and administration, alleging partisan conduct.

The Justice Ajai Lamba Commission and the Gita Mittal Committee were constituted to investigate aspects of the conflict. However, their reports remain unpublished or only partially disclosed, undermining transparency and accountability. The state has also failed to announce any credible plan for rehabilitation, safe return, or reconciliation, leaving displaced populations in limbo.

Risk outlook

The Tribunal warns of two interconnected risks. First, the prolonged residence of IDPs in camps risks cementing ethnic segregation into a permanent reality. Without structured plans for return and rehabilitation, displacement will harden into apartheid-like separation. Second, the continued availability of looted arms and the empowerment of militias sustain the potential for renewed violence. Without disarmament and accountability, Manipur will remain a tinderbox vulnerable to fresh outbreaks.

Recommendations of the Tribunal

The Tribunal’s recommendations span multiple domains. It calls for a Supreme Court–monitored SIT to investigate crimes, supported by witness protection schemes and independent prosecution units. It urges the publication of all reports of the Gita Mittal Committee and the Justice Ajai Lamba Commission. It recommends fast-track courts for conflict-related crimes, especially sexual violence cases.

In terms of relief, the Tribunal calls for a judicially monitored Special Committee to survey camp needs, ensure equitable resource distribution, and prepare time-bound rehabilitation plans. It stresses the importance of reintegrating health services across ethnic lines, embedding trauma care, and protecting mental health. It also insists on an audit of all weapons looted from armouries, the recovery of arms, and the disarmament of militias.

For peacebuilding, the Tribunal recommends inclusive dialogue forums involving women, youth, and faith leaders, truth-telling initiatives, reparations, and the establishment of a National Peace Commission. It proposes the creation of a Manipur Peace Index to monitor progress. In the media domain, it calls for the end of blanket internet shutdowns, protection of journalists, and active monitoring of hate speech. Land and livelihood disputes must be addressed through impartial tribunals and transparent development policies.

Implementation timeline

The Tribunal outlines a phased roadmap. Within 30 days, the Supreme Court should establish an SIT, the state must initiate camp surveys and weapons audits, and all commission reports should be made public. Within 90 days, fast-track courts must begin operations, indictments should be filed in emblematic cases, and healthcare reintegration pilots launched. Within six to twelve months, displaced populations must begin safe return, truth-telling forums must commence, and the first Manipur Peace Index should be published.

Conclusion

The Independent People’s Tribunal provides a damning indictment of governance failure in Manipur. It documents how state institutions enabled impunity, allowed militias to flourish, and abandoned vulnerable communities. At the same time, it provides a roadmap for recovery grounded in constitutional values, transitional justice, and comparative experiences from global conflicts. Unless corrective measures are taken swiftly, Manipur risks becoming a permanently divided society, where segregation and violence replace democracy and rule of law. The urgency of implementation cannot be overstated.

The complete report may be read below.

Related:

Manipur 2023: Violence unaddressed eight months after conflicts erupt

Snapshot of Manipur Govt’s coercive actions against citizens: 2023

When the Manipur High Court stepped in

How and when the Supreme Court moved on Manipur: 2023

The post Broken State, Divided People: PUCL releases report of Independent People’s Tribunal on Manipur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Responding to this, the PUCL in a detailed statement has outlined how, the views encapsulated in paragraphs 185-188 seek to delegitimize the work of Human Rights organisations around legal aid, fact finding visits and monetary aid. These are vital Constitutional tools that independent organizations use to establish facts, fix accountability and ensure succour for victims of communal strife. By casting aspersions on organisations, the hon’ble court is taking recourse to the baseless narrative of “anti-national” interests working against the State.

This statement by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) provides a comprehensive response to the observations made by the Special NIA Court, Lucknow; against the PUCL and other Human Rights organisations. (FIR 60/2018; Case numbers 1049/2022, 1758/2022 and 2766/2022)/ The statement has been issued by President, PUCL, Kavita Srivastava and V Suresh, General Secretary.

The contentious points in paras 185 to 188 of the judgement delivered in January 4, 2025 are as follows:

• The court observed that ‘the Prosecutors have expressed concern that in NIA courts across the country, when accused in cases under the UAPA or other anti-national/terrorist activities are brought for trial, NGOs—primarily advocating Muslim interests—promptly provide legal aid. This contradicts constitutional principles, as it boosts the morale of undesirable elements.’

• The Court went on to observe that human rights reports by written by various NGOs like Alliance for Justice and Accountability (New York), Citizens for Justice and Peace (Mumbai), Indian American Muslim council, Washington DC, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (New Delhi), Rihaee Manch (Lucknow), South Asia Solidarity group, London and United Against Hate (New Delhi), ‘exert undue pressure on the judiciary and the communal sentiment with stealth creep into the realm of ideas.’

• The Court went on to castigate ‘lawyers from NGOs’ for representing cases of national security, terrorism etc.’ Shocking the Court violates the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court by stating that it’ is not the right of an NGO to provide free legal aid to the accused who are involved in heinous crimes’… NGOS providing legal aid and lawyers is resulting in promoting a point of view which is very narrow and dangerous.’

• The Court concluded that, ‘Citizens for justice and Peace, Mumbai, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, (New Delhi), Rihaee Manch, (Lucknow), United Against Hate (New Delhi), along with NGOs located abroad, like in America and the Great Britian, like the Alliance for Justice and Accountability, New York, Indian American council, Washington, DC), South Asia Solidarity Group (London), were “bogus”, not legitimate human rights organisations. As the Court put it, what could be their interests? Where is their funding coming from, and what are their collective objectives? To investigate this, prevent their unwarranted interference in the judicial process, and to take necessary action to stop them, a copy of this decision should also be sent to the Chairman of the Bar Council of India and the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India”.

 The PUCL in their statement thereafter states as follows

1. Courts should not make adverse remarks against individuals or groups without giving them an opportunity of being heard: Supreme Court of India

Firstly, it should be noted that, none of the implicated organisations were before the Court or were put to notice that observations were likely to be made against them. The Supreme Court has laid down time and again that Courts should not make adverse remarks against individuals or groups without giving them an opportunity of being heard.

In the case of Teesta Setalvad V. State of Gujarat (2004) 10 SCC 88) Supreme Court observed that: “Time and again the supreme Court has deprecated the practice of making observations in Judgments, unless the person in respect of whom comments and criticisms were being made were parties to the proceedings and further were granted opportunity of having their say in the matter, unmindful of the serious repercussions they may entail on such persons. ……Observations should not be made by Courts against persons and authorities unless they are necessary or essential for decision of the case.”

The PUCL has stated that, “We are shocked to note that the ruling has passed prejudiced, unsubstantiated and potentially damaging comments about the role of human rights organisations in general and PUCL in particular, when these comments are not germane to the issues in the criminal trial nor were they based on evidence led during the trial. Apart from the fact that these comments are in the nature of an obiter dicta, the fact that such comments have been incorporated into the ruling in a criminal case, which is bound strictly to the facts on record which have been tested during cross-examination and trial, raises doubts about fairness and impartiality in delivering justice in the specific criminal case.

Further the detailed statement issued by the human rights platform founded by Jayprakash Narayan states that, “It should be pointed out that third parties to the criminal trial don’t have any role or scope to intervene in specific criminal cases. Thus, while parties to the criminal case have the option of filing appeals in higher courts both to challenge the verdict of the trial court and also to challenge comments made in the trial court’s judgment, such is not the case with third parties.”

Besides the PUCL statement makes the following points:

2. Conducting Fact Finding, not unconstitutional or unlawful

Secondly, the incident pertains to communal violence which happened in Kasganj in U.P. in 2018. UP has been a hotbed of growing communal tension and violence since even before the Ram Mandir Agitation that led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid. There have been allegations against the State authorities and the police of helping, provoking, aiding and abetting, communal tension more particularly targeting the minority religious communities. A biased narrative is built up by the authorities invariably blaming the minority community for any violence and then engaged in targeted arrests. It is in this context that it is vital that every such conflagration be investigated by independent civil society organisations to bring forth the true facts. PUCL has been involved in large number of fact findings throughout the country irrespective of the party in power and its fact findings have great credibility. In any case, fact finding, giving legal aid to accused and victims or even providing financial aid to accused or victims can by no stretch of imagination be considered as anti-national activity as sought to be conveyed by the Court. Campaigning on issues, bringing out an alternative viewpoint and public discussion are essential work of civil society organisations, an exercise of constitutional freedom and a key contribution to the idea of an associative democracy.

3. Promoting by peaceful means civil liberties, harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood, agenda of the PUCL 

Thirdly, it should be noted, that even when it comes to the present case as regards PUCL the only action it had taken pursuant to the violence was to act according to the objects of the PUCL Constitution which has as its aim and objects, ‘To uphold and promote by peaceful means civil liberties and the democratic way of life throughout India’

The visit to Kasganj was in pursuance of this object. The aim of the visit is to take forward the fundamental duty enjoined upon all citizens under Art 51(e) which is ‘to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.’ As such, the PUCL has only acted in accordance with the values of the Indian Constitution and such actions do not merit such prejudicial judicial comments.

The judicial censure seeks to mark and target citizens for forming organisations exercising their right under Art 19(1) (c) and getting together and putting forward a collective voice in defence of the ideals envisaged in the Constitution! As Babasaheb Ambedkar put it, ‘constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated’. The PUCL activities under its Constitution, aims to cultivate the constitutional morality embodied in the principle of ‘harmony’ and the ‘spirit of brotherhood’. This we submit is the responsibility of the state as well as members of civil society.

The UN Declaration on human rights defenders has also unequivocally recognised that, ‘Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.’

4. The Public Interest work of the PUCL, through Public Interest Litigation (PILs) in the HC and SC strengthened the basic rights of citizens.

The fact that the PUCL has been a petitioner before both the Supreme Court and High Courts in numerous cases highlights the constitutional work of the PUCL and further exposes the unwarranted and prejudicial nature of the judicial observations. A number of judgments of the Supreme Court which ensure basic rights for citizens including the right to food, freedom from bonded labour and liberation of persons in manual scavenging have had the PUCL as the petitioner. PUCL has also worked towards enhancing the quality of our electoral democracy and has been the petitioner in the Supreme Court decisions recognizing NOTA as a valid option. The PUCL is also the petitioner in the decision of the Supreme Court recognizing that the voter has a right to know the antecedents of their candidate including the assets he or she possesses as well as criminal antecedents.

5. Facts overlooked by the Court 

Fourthly, the judicial comments also violate the judicial discipline of basing conclusions on facts which form part of the record. It should be noted that in terms of ‘facts’,

PUCL did not prepare a fact-finding report, nor did it provide any financial or legal support to families and accused. Though PUCL has in effect done none of the above, we strongly assert that conducting a fact finding is not a crime, providing financial or legal support to families and accused is a humanitarian task and completely within the bounds of the Constitutions.

It is also important for all to know that the PUCL is an unregistered citizens organization and gets no Institutional funding, foreign or Indian and works through contributions of its members and well-wishers and therefore the allegations of funding are baseless.”

Finally, the detailed statements sum up that the stated observations by the NIA court are a) lacking in factual substance; b) attack the credibility of human rights work and c) seek to actively discourage perspectives rooted in the Constitution which seek to expose the state for not abiding by the Constitution. “In the interests of fidelity to the constitutional values of freedom of speech, expression and association, and in the interests of truth and reason, we hope that these prejudiced and invidious observations are suo moto deleted from the reported judgment. “

Related:

Convictions in Kasganj communal riots by NIA Special Court

The post Targeting human rights activism, comments by NIA Court shocking: PUCL appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Stating that the State government has this way initiated the process of killing the institution of the internationally renowned Sampurnanand Open Air Camp (Jail), it demanded restoration of land back to the open camp now.

The PUCL is shocked at the allotment of 2.2 hectares (21,948 sq metres) of land of the 3.04 hectares  (30,400 sq metres) of the Sampurnanand Open Air Camp (Jail) In Sanganer, Jaipur to the Medical and health department for a Satellite Hospital. This act of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), which acquired it brazenly and the Government of Rajasthan (GoR) is a scandal. Of the 3.04 hectares, the open camp (jail) has now been reduced to approx 0.84 hectares (8452 sq metres), with more than two thirds of its land being snatched away.  This would take away, not only most of the houses, which the inmates have made themselves, but also the school, the anganwadi, the quarters, the office, the hall and other physical resources developed.

It is not the case of the PUCL to stop a public hospital from coming up in Sanganer. We are in full empathy of the trials and tribulations of the people of Sanganer, with a paucity of public health institutions in the area. The point is that the hospital must not be made by snatching the land of the open camp (prison).

On 10 December 2023, the PUCL had done some work in the open camp; there were 423 inmates, 400 males and 23 females. The total number of residents in the open camp (jail) on that day consisted of 633 people, which included the family members. This number changes. For instance, as of today 31st August, 2024 the total number of prisoners are 393, as several are out on parole. More than 200 have families and the total strength with families is 900 approximately presently (sometimes, complete families come and stay, otherwise, only a section comes, many times, the prisoner leads a lonely life with no family. In December, there were many single men and women).

Vulnerability of the open air camp prisoners emboldened the state’s land grab attitude

According to the PUCL, the land which the open air camp (jail) has in its possession for the last six decades, was taken away so easily, because the larger perception perhaps of the GoR is that prisoners don’t need so much space, they can be cramped in a small spaces and live in subhuman conditions. Most importantly they knew that the inmates would not raise their voice against  the State, as they would not wish to lose their freedom of being in an open camp (jail) and living with their families. The State took advantage of this vulnerability of the prisoners.

Killing India’s best open camp for prisoners

This act of grabbing the land of the open air camp (jail) in possession of the Jail Institution since 1963, is an attempt to kill India’s best open camp (jail) institution for which it has been lauded in the state, nationally and Internationally. Of the total of the 51 open air camps in Rajasthan which has a capacity for housing 1600 prisoners, the occupancy is only 1339 (84% of the total capacity).

Even the SC in the case of Suhas Chakma vs the Union of India and others, had asked the State of Rajasthan to make a presentation of its open camp (jail)s as a best practice case study for the other states to learn from. It was the time to strengthen the infrastructure of the open camp (jail), including housing, water, sanitation, electricity, the school and anganwadi. Reports in the past have, including those of PAARr and the PUCL have highlighted this dimension, instead, the GOR has indulged in an attack on the open air camp (jail) itself. It should be known that the residents, themselves, make houses, invest in its maintenance, pay electricity and water charges. Would the Government compensate for all this?,

Attack on the idea of restorative justice

Essentially the attack on the open air camp (jail) is actually an attack on the idea of restorative justice and correctional spaces. The idea was to provide a community space for the open camp (jail) inmates. Not merely some house structures, which it will get reduced to now. It was also open to outsiders, for instance children from the neighbouring colonies came to play football and other games in the open space of the open camp (jail), naturally integrating the children of the prisoners and the prisoners themselves with the outside children and adults.

Apart from the above various orders of the Supreme court and the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, should have restrained them for this brazen act.

GoR commits contempt of the Supreme  Court of India order 

The Supreme court of India, in the Civil Writ Petition(s) No. 1082/2020 Suhas Chakma Versus Union Of India & Ors. on the 17th of May, 2024, the bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta, stated in their order clearly in point number “9,….. We are also informed that there is a proposal to reduce the area at Sanganer Open Air Camp at Jaipur. We thus direct that there shall be no attempt of reduction in area of open 4 air camps/institutions/prisons, wherever they are functioning”.

Ignores Rajasthan High Court order

In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2808/2012,  Civil Writ Petition No. 5463/2015, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17462/2017, Suo Motu —-Petitioner Versus State Of Raj, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inderjeet Singh And Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhuwan Goyal in their Order dated 23/07/2024 stated in their interim order that “…..Learned Advocate General seeks eight weeks’ time to submit the status report and asked for the matter to be listed on 25.09.2024. Despite the Rajasthan High Court having been seized of the matter and the amicus curiae, having placed the SC order of 17th May, which the AG very well knew off, it is shocking that on the 30th of July, land was allotted by the JDA to the Medical and Health department.

Allotment letter of the JDA to the Medical and Health Department: A clear violation of the SC order 

The amended allotment letter dated, 30/07/2024, क्रमांक /ज. वि. प्रा / उपा. /ज़ोन – 4 / 2024  / डी -1385 addressed to Director Public Health, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan says that “The 194th meeting of the Land and Property Disposal Committee of Jaipur Development Authority held on 22.07.2024, discussed the agenda presented by the Zonal Deputy Commissioner regarding the free allocation of 21,948 square meters of land from a total of 3.04 hectares, covering Khasra numbers 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, and 131 in Revenue Village Sanganer to set up a satellite hospital in Sanganer. The land was previously recorded in the name of the Refugee Camp but has now been transferred to the name of Jaipur Development Authority by the Tehsildar, Sanganer.

The committee deliberated on the matter and recommended the free allocation to the State Government as per the Land Allocation Policy 2015 provisions, considering the excess area under JDA’s jurisdiction. The committee also resolved that the State Government’s approval and allocation should consider the previous allocations made by the Jaipur Development Authority. Following this, the State Government, through the Urban Development Department’s Deputy  Secretary, issued a letter with reference number 9274934 dated 26.07.2024, approving the free allocation of 21,948 square meters of land from the specified Khasra numbers in Sanganer, subject to the complete adherence to the provisions of the Land Allocation Policy-2015 at the authority level”.

With this allotment of the open camp land to the Medical and health department the Government of Rajasthan has clearly committed contempt of court. The PUCL and other organisations will either assist the Amicus Curiae or as an intervenor, will challenge this in both in the HC and the Supreme court, but will not let this continue.

The PUCL demands that the land be restored to the open camp now, the hospital be made elsewhere.

*Kavita Srivastava, President; Bhanwar Meghwanshi, President, Rajasthan and the jail work team members; Pragnya Joshi, National Council member; Suman Devathiya, Jaipur district General Secretary; Advocate Mamta Nair, Jaipur District Treasurer; Advocate Bobby Datta, Jaipur district, member, PUCL

Courtesy: CounterView

The post ‘Does Rajasthan govt believe prisoners should live in subhuman conditions?’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While welcoming the statement made by the Home Minister made in a Press Conference on July 1, 2024, clarifying that in the changed criminal procedure code, viz., the BNSS, 2023, the maximum period of police custody under the BNSS would remain 15 days, with provision to be spread over a maximum of two months (Indian Express, July 1, 2024), the PUCL stated that this assurance needs a formal amendment.

The Indian Express had quoted Shah saying that, “I want to clarify that in BNS also, the remand period is 15 days. Earlier, if an accused was sent to police remand and he got himself admitted in a hospital for 15 days, there was no interrogation as his remand period would expire. In BNS, there will be remand for a maximum 15 days, but it can be taken in parts within an upper limit of 60 days”.

Stating that this clarification is “very important” as it clarified whether  police custody can be extended beyond the previously provided maximum 15 days (under CrPC) to a maximum of 60 to 90 days (under the BNSS), the statement issued by the national president and general secretary of PUVL, Kavita Srivastava and K Suresh respectively,  states that “it will be apposite if the clarification is brought about in the provision of sec. 187 (3) BNSS through an amendment to sec. 187 BNSS, so that it is not left to the vagaries of interpretation by courts, the police and Public Prosecutors, in the immediate future.”

Incidentally, the controversy has been generated as the new Section 187 BNSS is literally a verbatim copy of the previous Section 167 CrPC, with the omission of eight words, which gave a totally different interpretation to the new provision on police remand.

Sections 167(2) (a), CrPC, 1973 & Section 187(3), BNSS, 2023

“Provided that

(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence….

(3) The Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this sub-section for a total period exceeding—

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence…

The import (danger) that lies behind the deletion of eight words from the CrPC on Police Custody

The effect of dropping the eight words from the CrPC, “otherwise than in the custody of the police’, in the new Section 187 (3) of the BNSS, allows for the interpretation that police custody can be extended from a maximum of 15 days under the CrPC to a maximum of 60/90 days under the BNSS.

Any extension of police custody beyond 15 days is a serious incursion in the rule of law and the criminal justice system.  It is well recognised that the period when the accused is kept directly in the custody of the police is the time when maximum pressure from the police is effected – including the reality of the police using extrajudicial measures like physical torture, emotional pressures and other similar measures to break the will of the arrested persons.

It is in recognition of this salutary principle that sec. 167 (2) Proviso of the CrPC provided for a maximum of 15 days of police custody from the time of arrest, after which the arrested person has to mandatorily be kept in judicial custody.

This means that the accused person will have to be lodged in judicial custody in the nearest central prison once the police custody period of 15 days ends. This thereby ensures a measure of protection from the police as the accused person is technically under the oversight of the judiciary, even though they may be in prison. This provision has been recognised by the Supreme Court in several cases to be an elementary part of the rule of law and administration of criminal justice system.

A further feature of the law on the subject is that police remand under u/s 167 of the CrPC cannot be granted at the asking of the police but is a judicial decision taken by the jurisdictional Magistrate who is required to look into the papers including the FIR and the status of investigation and to pass a judicially-reasoned order as to whether the request of the police seeking physical custody of the accused should be granted or not. In any case, the maximum period was limited to 15 days from the time of arrest.

Effect of deletion of words

This very important protection has been totally thrown out through the changes brought about in the law relating to remand, spelt out in sec. 187 of the BNSS. A careful reading of sec. 187 reveals the following:

(i) The bar of maximum of 15 days of police custody within the first 15 days from time of arrest is removed permitting the Magistrate to order police custody for a period of 15 days anytime during the initial 40-60 days of detention (sec. 187(2) BNSS).

We have already expressed our serious apprehensions and opposition to the change highlighted in point

(i) Above through our critique dated 24th June, 2024, as it creates an anomalous situation when an accused person who has been released on bail pursuant to being placed under judicial custody, can be apprehended again under `police custody’. This apart, constant change in nature of police custody and judicial custody can result in violation of fundamental rights of the accused under Art. 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

(ii) The bar of police custody being for a maximum of 15 days has been removed allowing police custody for a period of 60/90 days.

Finally, the PUCL statement concludes by stating that “An oral clarification does not have force of law and hence an amendment is crucial.”

Why the amendment to Section 187 BNSS is crucial

PUCL states that while Shah’s clarification through a statement in the press that the maximum period of `Police Custody’ remains 15 days is very welcome, it is however not sufficient for the following reasons.

–A verbal clarification does not have the force of law.

— Legal interpretation in courts of law will only be based on the actual words and terms used in sec. 187. As pointed out, the courts are bound to consider the fact that the Parliament has consciously omitted the 8 words “…otherwise than in police custody” (which existed in sec. 167(2) Proviso) in new sec. 187(3) BNSS, and therefore interpret that Parliament intended to expand police custody from maximum of 15 days to 60/90 days.

In the light of this recent clarification/statement, that police custody will continue to remain a maximum of 15 days, Shah and Meghwal have been urged, that, “it would be in the fitness of things if an amendment is carried out in sec. 187(3) BNSS, by including the terms which existed in the CrPC, “…otherwise than in police custody” which will make it explicitly clear that the police custody can be only for a maximum of 15 days. Such an amendment will make it abundantly clear that the new Parliament wanted to settle this issue and bring an end to the controversy over maximum length of police custody.

Related:

New Criminal Laws: Future risks for democracy and rights in India

From colony to police state? India’s new criminal laws receive dissent

The post Amend Sec 187(3) BNSS in line with Sec 167(2) CrPC: PUCL to HM and Law Minister appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The PUCL condemns the decision of the Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena to grant Delhi Police sanction to prosecute writer Arundhati Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain, (former Professor of International Law at Central University of Kashmir), in a 2010 case for offences under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. This decision of the LG follows the earlier decision to grant sanction to prosecute Roy and Husain for offence under sections 153A, 153B and 505 of the Indian Penal Code in October of 2023.

It bears noting that the sanction given by the LG for prosecuting Roy and Husain for offences u/s 153A, 153B and 505 IPC is hit by Sec. 468 CrPC which bars courts taking cognisance of cases after a delay of 3 years when the offences carry a maximum sentence of 3 years. It seems plausible that the LG’s sanction to prosecute for offences under section 13 UAPA (which carries a sentence of 7 years), after a gap of fourteen years is to get over this legal hurdle.

The invocation of the UAPA by the LG, is politically motivated, patently unconscionable and vindictive. Prima facie, it does not flow out of any concern for national security or national interest, but seeks to deploy the UAPA as a tool to serve one’s political masters. This is obvious from the fact that it is not even the LG’s case that the speeches made by Arundhati Roy and others at a convention on Kashmir, ‘Azadi: The Only Way’, organised in New Delhi in October 2010 has provoked violent disturbance in 2024, thereby necessitating urgent legal action under the UAPA!

A mature constitutional democracy ought not to prosecute speech, which by itself has no direct causal connection to violence or disorder. It is shameful that an FIR was even registered for speech which by all accounts did not incite or provoke any form of violence and even more reprehensible that the LG has granted sanction to prosecute, that too in 2024!

To persist in prosecuting the authors and writers under this old FIR, casts a long shadow on India as the world’s largest democracy

We condemn this knee jerk reaction to grant sanction to prosecute an alleged offence committed almost fourteen years ago as nothing other than an attempt by the administration to intimidate and browbeat courageous writer and thinkers who dare to speak truth to power.

To persist in prosecuting these authors and writers under this old FIR, casts a long shadow on India as the world’s largest democracy. A country which persecutes its writers and truth tellers, for words which it deems unpalatable, forfeits the claim to be the ‘mother of democracy’

We demand that the prosecution be withdrawn with immediate effect against both Arundhati Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain under both the UAPA as well as the IPC provisions for a speech made almost fourteen years ago.

We also demand that the UAPA, a law rife with unconstitutional implications be repealed.

— Kavita Srivastava (president), Dr V Suresh (general secretary), PUCL

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Sanction to persecute Arundhati Roy under UAPA politically motivated: PUCL appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was argued that the content of the hate speech made by Shri Narendra Modi is not only false but is calculated to promote hate and enmity on the grounds of religion and community, disharmony and feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill will between different religious groups and communities. Moreover, the speech has been made at an election rally to procure votes from the citizens on communal lines.

Besides, the speech clearly constitutes acts prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and harmony between different religious groups in Rajasthan and in the country as a whole. Similarly, it should also be noted that the speech of Shri Narendra Modi constitutes deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings and adding insults or attempting to insult the religion and the religious beliefs. In a way, Shri Modi’s speech is instigating Hindus against the Muslims by calling them ‘infiltrators’.

• Therefore it was urged that action be initiated under the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 against Shri Narendra Modi and the BJP candidates Mahendrajeet Singh Malviya and Dr. Manna Lal Rawat, for the hate speech made at the Vijay Shankhnaad Sabha held on April 21, 2024 in Banswara, Rajasthan.
• The complainants also urged that urged that cognisance be taken of the violation under Sections 123(3), 123(3A), and Section 125 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 and Rules 1 and 3 of the Model Code of Conduct and initiate strict action including but not limited to disqualifying Shri Narendra Modi and the candidates Mahendrajeet Singh Malviya and Dr. Manna Lal Rawat and issuing prohibitory orders against their campaign.
• Criminal action was also demanded against the organisers of the Sabha, CP Joshi, the State BJP President and other members of the BJP who were present or involved in the meeting.

Filing a complaint registering a case against Narendra Modi In Jaipur

This complaint that was lodged with the Jaipur Police Commissioner Biju George Joseph by Kavita Srivastava and Bhanwar Meghwanshi was regarding the hate speech made in Banswara on April 21st by Shri Narendra Modi, star BJP campaigner. The police commissioner showed his reluctance in registering an FIR, making the argument that he had no jurisdiction over an alleged crime that occurred in Banswara. The complainants urged that a zero number FIR could be lodged and also it was pointed out that Sections of 153 (A), 295 (A) and 505 IPC, require no jurisdiction. The Police Commissioner however, did agree to forward the FIR to the Banswara SP, which was done on April 23 (see letter attached) .

According to the complaint, made by the two, the Prime Minister was campaigning in Banswara for BJP candidates Mahendrajeet Singh Malviya and Dr Manna Lal Rawat and the content of his public address at the Vijay Shankhnaad Sabha there was not only false, but was deliberately made to promote hate and enmity on the grounds of religion. It instigated Hindus against the Muslims by calling the latter ‘infiltrators’ and alleging that the Congress was planning to seize the property and assets of Hindus and distribute it among the Muslims. In his speech, Modi incited the public by prodding them with questions like “whether such an act of extorting gold and taking away the mangal sutra of women (Hindu) would be acceptable to them?”. He repeatedly said that he had come to inform them, when he actually implied that he had come to warn them of the dire consequences in case his party does not come to power.

The complaint says that the hate speech has been widely circulated and covered in the media, and having been made from the highest office of the nation, it is bound to have serious and lasting consequences, apart from influencing the elections on divisive and communal lines. Hence it urges for concrete measures to ensure no repeat of any such attempts by any party in the future.

PUCL, Rajasthan Unit and Rajasthan Election watch has stated that the outfits will pursue the matter with the ECI and similarly the FIR will also be pursued by the complainants.

Related:

Complaints filed against PM Modi for promoting religious hatred during his Banswara rally, accusing opposition Congress of working to distribute country’s wealth to Muslims

CPI-M files complaint in Mandir Marg Police station Delhi, asks for FIR against PM Modi, VCK’s Thirumavalavan Thol writes to ECI for the poll code…

The post Rajasthan: Election Watch & PUCL file complaint with Jaipur police demanding that FIR be registered against the Banswara hate speech of PM, Narendra Modi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

PUCL has maintained through its statements and public position in the last four years that this divisive piece of legislation is a betrayal of the ideals of our freedom struggle, disregards the inclusive and plural history of India and squarely violates the letter and spirit of the Indian Constitution.  It is illegal, constitutionally immoral and unconstitutional as it makes an arbitrary and discriminatory link between religion and citizenship. The Indian Constitution through its citizenship provisions (articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) and the Citizenship Act, 1955 (before the amendment brought in by the CAA 2019) do not  make religion the basis of citizenship.

However unlike both the constitutional provisions as well as existing statutory provisions on citizenship, the CAA 2019 is a statute which is discrimination writ large. While the aim of providing a pathway to citizenship to ‘illegal immigrants’ is to be welcomed, such a pathway cannot violate the Indian Constitution.  The problematic heart of the CAA 2019 is that it chooses to provide eligibility for Indian citizenship to ‘illegal immigrants’ residing in India from the viewpoint of their religion and expressly excludes from its purview Muslims, while including persons belonging to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community.  Further only those from the above religious backgrounds from three countries, namely Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan can seek the benefits of the law.

Arbitrary, discriminatory

It is important for every Indian to ask, what is the logic of selecting only three Muslim-majority countries and excluding immigrants from the Muslim community?  If one thinks the logic is to create a pathway for citizenship for persecuted minorities, as narrated by the Home Minister in umpteen speeches, this narrative is debunked and exposed by the arbitrary nature of the exclusion of Muslim community and persons from several non-Muslim neighbouring countries from benefit of the law.

It is a well-known fact that there are religious and non-religious persecuted people found in India’s entire neighbourhood including China, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives and Nepal, who too should have been considered, if the intention of the law was indeed to provide succour to persecuted minorities in the region. It should be pointed out here that over 100,000 Sri Lankan refugees of Tamil origin who fled racial persecution in Sri Lanka, (many of whom are Hindu by religion) and a large proportion of whom have been residing in camps in Tamil Nadu for over 40 years. These stateless Srilankan Tamils have been seeking citizenship in India with several generations born and bred in India. They are arbitrarily ignored by the 2019 amendment to the Citizenship Act which considers only persons from the above 3 countries. Moreover, the community that has faced the worst religious persecution in South Asia, being the Rohingya Muslims who have faced military crackdowns over decades, and over the years more than 1.5 million have been forced to flee Myanmar and rendered refugees, are also excluded from the ambit of the law.

It bears noting that people persecuted in Pakistan include the Ahmadiyyas  who are considered heretics and are not allowed to adopt and practice their religion. The only reason they are excluded from the benefits of the law is they claim to be Muslims, albeit persecuted Muslims.  In Bangladesh the LGBTQI community has  been subjected to relentless persecution, but no LGBTQI person can claim the benefit of this law. They stand excluded because the benefit of the CAA 2019 is only on the basis of religion.

The benefit of CAA 2019 is not on the basis of persecution which is a constitutionally permissible ground of classification, but on the ground of belonging to a religion. This prima facie discriminatory piece of legislation goes against the core value of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution and also violates Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, under which the protection by the State of persons, both citizens and non-citizens has been underscored. Therefore discrimination against persons solely on the grounds of religion is unacceptable.

Imminent threat of NPR-NRC

As the Home Minister of India indicated, the CAA should not be seen in isolation but as part of a  chronology, with it being followed by the National Population Register (NPR) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).  First the NPR, being the register of all persons residing in a place, is to be prepared, which is to be followed by the NRC process under the Citizenship Rules, 2003. For conducting NRC, the Local Registrar is empowered to verify and scrutinise the particulars collected of every family and individual and identify those having ‘doubtful’ citizenship, to send for further enquiry. In an empowerment of third party vigilantism, the rules give the power to anyone to ‘object to the inclusion or exclusion of certain names’, from the first list.

The NPR and NRC process will create two categories of citizens in India, Citizens and Doubtful citizens. Those who are not included in the NRC upon failure to provide sufficient documentary proof, could be rendered without citizenship and essentially treated as foreigners or stateless. Depending upon the kind of proof of citizenship required, a threat of detention will hang over the heads of many millions who do not have the documentation required to prove citizenship.

CAA ignores religious and non-religious persecuted people of China, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives and Nepal

The NPR and NRC process gives the Local Registrar unprecedented and unchecked power to target certain communities and individuals. Based on the animus the state has shown towards Muslims there is also a legitimate fear that this power will be exercised with a discriminatory intent. The NPR and NRC will adversely affect not only Muslims who do not have documentation, but also other categories of persons without documents such as single women, LGBT persons estranged from their families, divorced women, homeless people, tribals or poor people. The fears around the NRC are not abstract as seen from the experience in Assam NRC of 2018 which required citizens to prove their citizenship based on documents. The process resulted in 1.9 million Indians being struck of the citizenship rolls, with more than sixty percent of those who were declared non-citizens and illegal migrants being Hindus.

The NPR and NRC process will entrench the discrimination embedded in the CAA. Persons from communities eligible under the CAA will be able to take benefit of the law and apply for citizenship, meanwhile persons belonging to the Muslim community who have been excluded from the benefit of CAA, will be rendered remediless and termed “infiltrators” who cannot be given citizenship under the 2003 amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955. Those whose citizenship is considered doubtful will potentially be deprived of their right to vote and be subjected to a process of deportation as foreigners. As it is extremely unlikely that any neighbouring country will accept these detainees, they will be indefinitely detained in camps. Thus the animus towards the Muslim community which is at the heart of the CAA/NPR/NRC has serious implications for the future of the Indian polity.

Public opposition ignored

The law has seen overwhelming public opposition. Massive and peaceful protests and sit ins were held in 2019-2020 after the law was passed by citizens, youth from across universities and led by Muslim women from all over the country. The protests focussed on raising awareness about the discrimination and uncertainty of existence Muslims would have to face in their own land of birth and that of their ancestors, if unable to produce requisite documents.

In Delhi, the assertive Muslim youth who coordinated the peaceful and democratic protests, ended up in Jail for exercising their constitutional right to expression and assembly. Several youth have been unjustly and falsely implicated in the communal violence in Delhi in February, 2020 in which 54 persons were killed, with more than 21 being booked under UAPA.  The message sent out to the people was that they should be prepared for reprisals if they challenge the Government’s decisions even through constitutional means by exercising their right to protest in opposition to discriminatory laws that violate the Preambular promise of equality and secularism.

The government’s optics in notifying rules for implementation of the law on 11th of March, 2023, the first day of the holy month of Ramzan for the Muslims, communicates a harsh message of intolerance to a minority community facing the brunt of humiliation on a daily basis with increasing communalism . The notification of the law, which comes around the eve of the Parliamentary elections of 2024, indicates that the ruling party at the centre is promoting divisive politics which will fray the bonds that bind India together.

PUCL strongly condemns this  deeply polarising  decision that has been taken  just weeks from the election and demands that the law be repealed. PUCL has filed an urgent application to stay the implementation of the law in the Supreme Court and challenge the rules notified to implement CAA 2019. PUCL will continue to work to raise awareness of how  discrimination in citizenship laws  is the beginning of the end of the constitutional idea of India.

— Kavita Srivastava, President, V Suresh, General Secretary, PUCL

Courtesy: CounterView

The post CAA disregards India’s inclusive plural ethos, ‘betrays’ ideals of freedom struggle: PUCL appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“It appears that several persons attended the peaceful prayer gathering on the Juhu beach. However, after the prayer gathering ended and the participants had dispersed, the Juhu police picked up 17 individuals around 10.30 a.m. [November 14]. They were taken to the police station and illegally detained there until 7 p.m. after which they were released,” said the statement, adding that four among those picked up by the police were minors who had been allowed to leave only at 4 p.m. after their parents were called.

The PUCL has stated that the detained individuals had gone immediately after the prayer gathering ended to collect posters that they had earlier voluntarily kept in the police cabin near the Juhu beach as it had been decided that the gathering was meant to be ‘silent’, without any posters or banners.

“The police present there, however, started questioning them and asked them to pose with the posters and placards and then photographed them. The police then told them they would escort them to the bus stop to ensure they leave safely. As they proceeded, they suddenly found that a police van had arrived. They were forcibly pushed into the van, detained and taken to the Juhu police station. The youngsters were frightened and many were crying,” said the PUCL statement, laying down the sequence of events.

According to PUCL, none of those detained were allowed to contact their parents or seek any legal help and call up a lawyer, condemning the police’s “gross violation of basic rights.”

“The 17th person to be picked up by the Juhu police was social activist Feroze Mithiborwala. He was picked up after the prayer gathering had ended and was made to remove posters from his bag, though he had never displayed any posters at the prayer gathering,” said the PUCL statement.

Condemning the police action as “excessive and arbitrary,” the statement said it was “a clear case of harassment.”

“Disturbingly, the attitude of the police was also intimidatory towards the young members of the minority community, especially the young girls, who had peacefully participated in a prayer gathering,” said the statement.

It censured the “arbitrary police action” which, in effect, had resulted in a complete restriction in Mumbai on public protests and peace gatherings “against the unprecedented violence and suffering faced by Palestinians, for which daily protests were taking place globally.”

The entire text of the statement may be read here:

Democracy demands that right to protest be protected not punished!

“People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Maharashtra expresses grave alarm and concern at the increasing trend of criminalising public protest or any form of public expression on social issues and deplores the manner in which police in Mumbai speedily lodge cases against those participating in such democratic events. Especially in the context of the ongoing Israeli war on Palestine resulting in civilian deaths, the Mumbai police has in effect imposed a de facto ban on any form of peaceful public protest by citizens demanding an end to the violence, including the holding of peace gatherings and prayer meetings, even candlelight vigils in public places like the Azad Maidan. In no other part of India do we see this sort of obstruction to the right to protest, as is being seen in Mumbai.

“The recent example of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Juhu police under sections 37 (1), 37 (3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act (MPA) against 13 individuals, 11 of whom are students, on November 14, 2023, for alleged violation of prohibitory orders, is a case in point. All of them were picked up on November 14, 2023, after they responded to a multi-city call emanating from an Instagram account ‘solidarity movement’, to observe Children’s Day in India with a quiet prayer recital of the names of children who were killed in Palestine. It appears that several persons attended the peaceful prayer gathering at Juhu beach. However, after the prayer gathering ended and participants had dispersed, Juhu police picked up 17 individuals at around 10.30 a.m. They were taken to Juhu police station and illegally detained there until 7.00 pm when they were released. 4 of them who were underage youth (2 boys and 2 girls), were allowed to leave only at 4 p.m. and their parents were called. PUCL Maharashtra has learnt that of the 17 individuals – all from the minority community, picked up by the Juhu Police, 16 individuals being 4 minors, 11 students and 1 mother of a student, had gone immediately after the prayer gathering ended to collect the posters that they had earlier voluntarily kept in the police cabin near the beach as it was decided that the gathering was meant to be silent i.e. without any posters or banners. The police present there however started questioning them and asked them to pose with the posters and placards and photographed them.

“The police then told them they will escort them to the Bus Stop to ensure they leave safely. As they proceeded under the directions of the police, suddenly they found a police van had arrived and they were forcibly pushed into the van, detained and taken to the Juhu Police Station. The youth were frightened and many were crying. At the police station, none of them were allowed to contact their parents or seek any legal help and call up a lawyer. All this is in clear gross violation of their basic legal rights. The 17th person picked up by the Juhu Police was social activist Firoz Mithiborwala. He too was picked up by Juhu police after the prayer gathering had ended and was also made to remove posters from his bag, though he had never displayed any posters at the prayer gathering. But the police were not willing to listen to any reason.

“In this manner, the 13 people illegally detained were finally released only at 7.00 pm on November 14, 2023, after being served with notices. They were asked to return the next day i.e. on November 15, 2023 at 11.00 am to submit their Aadhar Card xerox copy and 2 photographs. Then, on that day, the rest were allowed to leave by around 1.00 pm, but Feroze Mithiborwala was detained there till 6.30pm once again, when he was extensively questioned. Clearly, the police action was excessive and arbitrary, and this is a clear case of police harassment. Disturbingly, the attitude of the police was also intimidatory towards the young members of the minority community, especially the young girls, who had peacefully participated in a prayer gathering for peace.

“The youth were asked to provide all their personal details and their parents were later summoned to the police station. Activist Firoz Mithiborwala was repeatedly questioned whether he had organised the meeting, despite his repeated denial that he had only come in response to an online call and knew none of the youth involved. Even a copy of the FIR was only provided to them after an application from their lawyers. There was no occasion or ground for the police to file an FIR, that too selectively against the 13 people after the peaceful gathering had dispersed and when there was no disturbance to public order or violation of law. Moreover, in any event, none of the 13 people were involved in organizing the event but had only responded to a humane call on social media for the prayer gathering.

“Right to protest is a fundamental right of citizens guaranteed under the Indian Constitution and essential to our democracy. However, the increasing number of such instances show that the right to protest of citizens is not only being infringed upon, but even attempting to assemble peacefully in Mumbai is being met with harsh and intimidatory police action and criminal sanctions, creating an atmosphere of fear in which democracy cannot thrive or find expression.

“There has been continuous imposition of prohibitory orders under Section 37 (1) and (3) of the MPA, thereby providing ground to the police to criminalise peaceful gatherings and protests, and to selectively restrict protests. Meanwhile, most applications / intimations to the police for holding protests by citizens’ groups and civil society organisations are being denied and met with sanctions, including the peace gatherings and anti-war public protests on the ongoing Israeli war on Palestine. The police has been serving notices under Section 149 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) to the applicants/organisers while denying permission to protest and the applicants/organisers have also on occasion been put under preventive detention under Section 151 of the CrPC. Just last month, the Mankhurd Police had arrested two young Mumbai activists and charged them under Section 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, among other offences for violation of prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the CrPC and Section 37 of the MPA, and also detained 4 persons under Section 151 of the CrPC, in connection with a protest against the Israeli government’s ongoing violent attacks impacting civilians in Palestine. It is unfathomable that the arbitrary police action has in effect resulted in a complete restriction in Mumbai on public protests and peace gatherings against the unprecedented violence and suffering faced by Palestinians, for which daily protests are taking place globally and even in other states in the country calling for ceasefire. Infact, it is even more shocking that public demonstrations calling for an end to the ongoing violence in Palestine are being penalized in such fashion, considering India’s own history of freedom struggle from colonial rule and its long-standing recognition of the statehood of Palestine and the self-determination struggle of Palestinians.

“PUCL Maharashtra expresses concern on the misuse of penal law against peaceful protestors, thereby criminalizing and silencing voices of democratic expression and dissent. PUCL Maharashtra demands that the FIR lodged against the 13 civilians by Juhu police on November 14, 2023 be dropped forthwith and that the constitutional right of citizens to protest and to give peaceful expression to their views or feelings be protected.

“Besides, PUCL Maharashtra notes with distress, that there appears to be a concerted attempt to silence peaceful protests against war and violence. PUCL Maharashtra demands an end to the excessive, continuous and restrictive imposition of prohibitory orders under Sec 144 of the CrPC and Section 37 of the MPA. These orders, ostensibly issued to maintain public order, actually result in a curb on the constitutional right to public protest or gatherings and instead facilitate the criminalization of peaceful and democratic protests. This creates a chilling effect, amounts to censorship and is against the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, association and assembly. PUCL Maharashtra reiterates its demand that the legitimate right of citizens to protest be protected fiercly in the interest of our nation which is built on the fulcrum of that very right.*

The statement has been issued by Mihir Desai, President Lara Jesani, General Secretary PUCL Maharashtra.

Related:

“Don’t pray for Palestine,” Delhi Police reportedly warns mosque imams

Withdraw FIRs filed against protestors for participating in pro-Palestine protests: PUCL

The post Mumbai police’s FIR against individuals at prayer gathering commemorating children killed in Palestine condemned: PUCL appeared first on SabrangIndia.