Raipur: People in Gudelguda village in Jharkhand are filled with anger and resentment. Two women were shot at by CRPF officers on February 2 in in the forest of Rengaiguda village, around 450 kms from Raipur, under Polampalli police station limits, when a joint team of security forces was returning after an area domination operation.
 
While a woman named Podiyam Sukki died of the gunshot wounds, another woman Kalmi Dewe was wounded and is currently being treated at a hospital. The police have been calling them Maoists but villagers have rejected these claims and said that they were not involved in any skirmish.
 
Gudelguda villagers claimed that the CRPF jawans deliberately shot at the women. They even said that they forcefully made one of the wounded women wear a Naxal uniform while she was screaming in pain and that the police were trying to pass this incident off as an encounter when the firing was one-sided.

 
What the police says
 
Sukma SP Jitendra Shukla said that two women had sustained bullet injuries on Saturday in Polampalli region of Sukma district, one of whom died during treatment. they came under crossfire during an encounter between Maoists and CRPF men. The women were rushed to CRPF field hospital.
 
SP Jitendra Shukla in his press conference on Sunday said that in the forest, the encounter between the soldiers and the Naxalites lasted for about 10 minutes. “A firearm, Rs 9058 cash, cortex wire, detonator, gelatine sticks and other materials were recovered from the site of the encounter. During the encounter, both women were gathering woods in the forest nearby. After hearing the firing, both of them ran in the direction of the shootout and Podiyam Sukki was shot in the stomach while Kalmi Dewe was hit in the thigh,” he said.
 
He also said that a case has been registered against unknown people in connection with the death and a magisterial inquiry is going on.
 
Though police admitted that the women were common villagers from Gudelguda, villagers came forward with a different narrative that there wasn’t any encounter that took place as there’s also no forest close to Gudelguda village.
 
Police have paid Rs 25000 compensation to Sukki’s family and Rs 20,000 to Dewe.

 
What the eyewitness says 
Following the incident, Dainik Bhaskar’s journalist Neeraj Bhadauria published the statement of Podiyam Hungi, the eyewitness in the incident. She recounted the details of the day.
 
“I, Podiyam Sukki and Kalmi Dewe had gathered at 7 am to collect timber from the forest near the village. We had an axe in our hands. We had just reached 500-600 meters away from the village when we saw jawans in the area. We immediately returned to the village. The moment we turned back, we heard a gunshot. We started shouting that we have come here to gather wood. I was at the back and Podiyam and Kalmi were ahead. Podiyam was shot from behind and so was Kalmi. I supported Kalmi and took her back to the village. I heard Podiyam screaming for water,” she said.
 
“When we returned with water, we saw that the jawans were trying to dress Podiyam in a Naxal uniform. When the villagers protested, they said that they would take her to the hospital. Podiyam was incessantly requesting for water and shivering. The jawans said that they will wrap her in a plastic bag and we protested saying that she will become breathless in it. Only three shots were fired during the whole incident. There was no skirmish or encounter,” she said.
 
When we went back with water for Podiyam Suqi, some young men were trying to wear her uniform. The villagers protested against this, the soldiers told him to take him to the hospital. During this time, dry water was demanding and shaking hands. Then the soldiers started to build them in the membrane (plastic bag), then we said that his breath would stop in the membrane. During this entire incident, only three bullets had gone, there was no such thing as an encounter. “
 
Soni Sori reaches the village 
Soni Sori, a social activist working for tribal rights, reached Gudelaguda on Sunday with a 15-member investigating team on the second day of the incident.
 
Talking to Times Of India, tribal leader Soni Sori, who visited the village narrated first hand information collected from locals and said, “There were three women who went to collect fire woods on Saturday morning, about 500 metres from village and on spotting the CRPF men on a distance, they immediately turned back to return village in fear. But there came three rounds of firing from security forces despite that the women waved and showed them the woods and axe from far to claim they were common villagers and not Maoists. By then two women had sustained bullet injuries already.”
 
As per the statement of villagers, Sori said that the jawans came to the women and on realizing they were village women, they carried the severely injured Podiyam Sukka saying that she was being taken to the hospital. The third woman somehow took the injured one Kalmi Dewe to village and group of other women rushed towards CRPF team to check on Podiyam.
 
Sori added that the group of women were shocked to see that CRPF men were trying to dress Podiyam in Maoist uniform while she was wailing in pain and was very much alive. When the women objected, the jawans tried packing her in plastic sheet excusing to rush hospital. The women were told that they could also bring injured Kalmi to the field hospital.

 
Sori said that Podiyam was dead by the time villagers reached the hospital. Calling it a fake encounter, tribal leader Soni Sori demanded judicial inquiry in the case.
 
Sukma police then have lodged an FIR against unknown persons over the killing and officials said that there would be magisterial probe ordered in the case while compensation was also given to families of both women.
 
But villagers and Soni Sori said that they were not demanding magisterial probe in the case but action against the offenders who fired at women.
 
Sori said that when the police have admitted that the women came under crossfire, they should act against those who fired at them.
 
Sukma Bandh called to protest this incident 
Sarv Adivasi Samaj president, Prakash Thakur, stated that there was no encounter in the area and that the police’s claim of women being shot during a crossfire was categorically false. “Sukki died due to gunshot wounds and a gun was deliberately fired at her. All tribal communities demand strict action against the guilty policemen and call for a Sukma Bandh,” he said.
 
Questions arise after the encounter 
The story being peddled by police officers has so many holes that it is proving itself wrong. A newspaper reported that “Our team inspected the site of the incident. The place where women were shot, there is no thick forest. On one side there is a field and on the other side, there is a pond. It can be understood that there is no place to hide or practise hidden firing during the encounter. After looking at the site of the incident, many questions raise themselves.”
 
Two days after the shootout in Gudelguda, women’s axe and other tools were lying on the spot. But the marks of blood stains were missing from the site of the incident. Social workers, tribal communities and villagers believe that evidence was being tampered with to disturb the investigation.
 
In the last 15 years that BJP formed a government in the state, many such cases were reported. In many of them, police officers were found guilty but were never investigated or punished. This is the first such case in the newly formed Congress government. Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel had talked about investigating the atrocities against villagers on suspicion of being Naxals. All eyes will be on how the new government will deal with this Gudelguda incident with sensitivity.
 
 

The post Sukma fake encounter: Jawans were dressing up victim in Naxal uniform after shooting her appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per the reports that appeared, the “firing” lasted for around one and a half hours and the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Bastar Range, Vivekanand Sinha said that the operation was carried out by District Reserve Guard (DRG) personnel and that the “operation was launched over last few weeks.”

However, local activists and journalists have highlighted that this was a fake encounter and that those killed were innocent villagers.

LingaramKodopi, a journalist and documentary film-maker from Chhattisgarh wrote after meeting the concerned villagers from four villages, “Yesterday, in the morning, 15 Adivasis from Sukma District, Mehta Panchayat’s four villages, namely:

1) Adivasis youngsters from Nulkatong:

1. HidmaMuchaki/ Lakhma;
2. Dev Muchaki;
3. MukaMuchaki;
4. MadkamHunga;
5. MadkamTiku;
6. SodiPrabhu/ Bheema;
7. MudkamAayatha/ Sukka;

(All these killed are within the age group of 14 to 17 according to the information of the locals)
2) Adivasis from Gompad village:

1. MadkamHunga;
2. KadthiHadma/ Deva;
3. SoyamSita;
4. MadkamHunga/ Sukka;
5. Vanjam Ganga;
6. KavasiBheema
    

3) From Kindrampada:
1. MandaviHunga

4) From Velpocha:
1. VanjamHunga/ Nandi

As one can notice, the reports by LingaramKodopi indicate that of the 15 Adivasis killed in the alleged encounter, as many as 7 were minors as per local information. The Adivasi leader and member of political party, AamAadmi Party (AAP), SoniSori, who also visited the area, confirmed this and said that the killed Adivasis were farmers, who were, in fact, working in their fields when they were attacked by state forces.
Kodopi further recorded, “MadkamBhudhari who hails from Nulkatong, one female, was shot in the leg. VanjamHunga who is from Velpocha village was taken by State Police and is being stated as a Naxal. Apart from her, three other youngsters are in their custody.”

Kodopi informs that many villagers from the area are being beaten by the police which includes pregnant women. He, along with another civil rights activist, RamdevBachel met the villagers. He further reports that the villagers allege that this was no encounter and that all the people killed are local villagers. Also, that naxals weren’t present in the villages as was being reported in the mainstream reports. Lingaram appealed that “anyone who would like to know the truth can come and see for themselves by travelling and meeting the people in these four villages of the Metha Panchayat.”

He reminded in his note that two years back, on June 14, 2018, a woman named MaddamHidme’s daughter was raped, and killed. Later it was alleged that she was a Naxalite. In this context, the AamAadmi Party (AAP) had also organised a rally from Aug 9-15 in 2016. Her case is still going on in Bilaspur High Court and villagers await justice still.

In the latest case, the villagers have not even been returned the bodies of their relatives and it is claimed by the state forces that the post-mortem is still going on, as per Linagaram’s note. He says, “Yesterday the 15 Adivasis were killed and brought in polythenes. The Chief Minister, Raman Singh is commending Sukma district SP Abhishek Meena, DM Awasthi, ADJ Naxal ops and others on this ‘great achievement’. Later, they may even be rewarded with National awards. Perhaps, the CM doesn’t know that those killed aren’t Naxalites, but innocent villagers.”

 
Questioning if Adivasis didn’t fit in the imagination of Indian nation, he alleged that the BJP government is hell bent on ruining the true spirit of the nation and wants to establish a state of hooligans, with the help of RSS. As the Chhattisgarh elections loom over the state, he asks if the citizens will contribute in changing this rule of lawlessness?

While on the one hand the world celebrated August 9 as the Indigenous people’s day, Adivasis in India are exploited with impunity, especially in regions such as Chhattisgarh. Highlighting this situation, Kodopi also added, “While the world celebrates Indigenous people’s day, these four villages, Gompad, Kindrempad, Nulkatog and Velpocha’s would be mourning their 15 Adivasi youth killed.”

He drew attention to hypocrisy of the Chhattisgarh state in celebrating the Indigenous peoples day with the leadership and involvement ofministers such as Cabinet Minister of Chhattisgarh state, KedarKashyap, Chairman of Scheduled Tribes Commission, Chhattisgarh state,VikasMarkam, Chairman of the National Commission of Scheduled Tribes, Nandkumar Sai and others, who are well aware of what is happening with the Adivasis and yet they have chosen to close their eyes to their plight. In fact, he believes that they are complicit in the exploitation of the Adivasis.

He appealed that of the eight crore Adivasis, the conscious ones should come forward and raise voice for their community and the protection of Adivasis.

Leader SoniSorihas urged the state to immediately bring to halt the multiple fake encounters taking place in the state in the name of Naxalite operations.
 
 
 
 
 
 

The post Chhattisgarh: Villagers and activists allege fake encounter of Adivasis on August 6 in Sukma by Security forces appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the brutal attack on a team of 90 CRPF personnel who were on duty, sanitising a stretch of the public road being constructed in the Burkapal-Chintagufa area of Sukma district, at least 25 CRPF personnel died in ambush, while scores of others were injured.

According to surviving CRPF jawans, an unspecified number of militants are also said to have been killed in the attack. Later, the media reported on the preliminary findings of an internal inquiry conducted by the CRPF to determine what went wrong that cost so many human lives.

Based on media reports on preliminary findings of an internal inquiry conducted by CRPF to determine what went wrong that cost so many human lives, well-known right to information (RTI) activist VenkateshNayakinvestigated, using the Right to Information (RTI) Act, from the CRPF whether it considers “unfortunate deaths of serving CRPF personnel” in the incident as a “prima facie” case of “violation of the human rights of the CRPF personnel”.

Nayak, who is with the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi, also sought a photocopy of the report of the inquiry conducted by CRPF into the circumstances surrounding the attack.”

An official CRPF reply has denied that the murderous attack amounted to human rights violation, stating, “There appears to be no violations of human rights”. The reply received by Nayak under RTI can be read here.

It added, the inquiry report into the incident contained “various security and tactics related issues” and therefore “cannot be shared under RTI Act because it might adversely affect CRPF's strategic response.”

Explains Nayak in an email alert to Sabrangindia, “The Constitution of India guarantees several fundamental rights to all citizens. However, when a citizen enters any of the notified security forces, some of their fundamental rights are curtailed, so long as they are in service.”

“Article 33 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to restrict or abrogate any of these fundamental rights in the case of citizens joining the armed forces (army, navy, air force etc.) and forces involved in the maintenance of public order (such as the police)”, he adds.

According to Nayak, the CRPF Act, 1949, including the Schedule of The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, validate restrictions on CRPF personnel.

However, insists Nayak, “They continue to have the fundamental right to life while in service. Clearly, the murderous attack in April by left-wing extremist groups amounts to violation of their human rights by non-state actors. By denying this reality, the CRPF may be doing injustice to its own personnel.”

Ironically, says Nayak, the CRPF reply comes in the face of attack occurs, at a time when “self-appointed conscience-keepers of the ‘nation’ and advocates of a belligerent brand of ‘nationalism’ operating through TV news channels (official spokespersons of ruling political parties and news-anchors alike) accuse human rights advocates of not raising their voice against the violation the human rights of security personnel.”

Suggesting the RTI reply make these “pontificators of nationalism” to question the government's attitude towards such incidents, Nayak wonders, “Why does the Government and in this case, the CRPF, fight shy of treating these attacks as ‘human rights violations’ of their personnel?”

What the CRPF treats as "human rights violations" under the RTI Act is one of the questions that will come up for examination next month in two of my Writ Petitions filed before the Delhi High Court.
 
 
This is how VenkateshNayak went about his investigation:
 
CRPF denies that the Sukma attack amounts to violation of the human rights of its personnel
 
A couple of weeks after the attack, I sought the following information from the CRPF, under The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act):
 
"Apropos of the enclosed news report, I would like to obtain the following information under the RTI Act, from your public authority, as prima facie,it pertains to allegations of violation of the right to life of the CRPF personnel who were killed in the attack that occurred on 24 April, 2017 in Sukma, Chhattisgarh:
 
1)    A clear photocopy of the report of the inquiry conducted by the CRPF into the circumstances surrounding the said attack on the CRPF personnel along with annexures, if any.
 
I am a citizen of India. I have attached an IPO (bearing #38F 122978) for Rs. 10/- towards payment of the prescribed application fee. The reports of the unfortunate deaths of serving CRPF personnel in the said incidents prima facie may constitute allegations of violation of the human rights of those CRPF personnel. Therefore I believe this is a fit case for disclosure of information under the second proviso of Section 24 of the RTI Act. Kindly obtain the approval of the Central Information Commission prior to disclosing the information described above as is the statutory requirement under the said proviso of the RTI Act." [emphasis supplied]
 
Recently, in June, taking refuge under Section 24 of the RTI Act, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), CRPF has sent a reply denying that the murderous attack amounted to human rights violation. 
 
Section 24 of the RTI Act exempts 26 intelligence and security organisations from ordinary obligations of transparency like other public authorities. However they are duty bound to give information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Information about allegations of human rights violations can be given only with the approval of the Central Information Commission. Exempt agencies like the CRPF simply do not provide any information at all even if it is related to allegations of corruption or human rights violation. Often they simply deny the existence of such allegations.
 
The CRPF CPIO's reply to my RTI application is reproduced below:
 
"b) In the instant matter, there appears to be no violations of Human Rights as well as facts of the case do not attract the allegations of corruption. Moreover your application does not make any reference to such allegations. Hence this department is not liable to provide any information in this regard to you under RTI Act-2005." [emphasis supplied]
 
The CPIO of CRPF also said that the inquiry report into the incident contains various security and tactics related issues and cannot be shared under RTI Act because it might adversely affect CRPF's strategic response. (The CPIO's reply, the RTI application, the attached news report of the deadly ambush are in the attachment.)
 
 
What is problematic with the CRPF's RTI reply?
The CRPF's CPIO has held that the deaths of the 25 personnel in the ambush do not amount to violation of their human rights by non-State actors even though I had specifically pointed out this connection in my RTI application. This reply is hugely problematic for the following reasons:
 
1) Part III of the Constitution of India guarantees several fundamental rights to all citizens. Some fundamental rights such as the rights to life and equality before the law, are guaranteed even for individuals who are not Indian citizens. However, when a citizen enters any of the notified security forces, some of their fundamental rights are curtailed, so long as they are in service. Article 33 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to restrict or abrogate any of these fundamental rights in the case of citizens joining the armed forces (army, navy, air force etc.) and forces involved in the maintenance of public order (such as the police).
 
The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966enacted by Parliament, restricts three categories of fundamental rights of every member of a notified police force:
 
i) Personnel of police organisations notified in the Schedule of the Act cannot become a member of any trade union, labour union or political association or any other society, association, institution or organisation unless they are part of the force or have been set up for social, recreational or religious purposes [restriction on the fundamental right to form associations or unions guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c)];
 
ii) Police personnel are prohibited from communicating with the press or publishing a book, letter or document unless it is about the discharge of official duties and with proper authorisation or if it is purely artistic, literary or scientific in character [restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a)]; and 
 
iii) Police personnel are prohibited from participating in any meeting or taking part in any demonstration organised by any body for political purposes [restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 19(1)(b)].
 
As the CRPF Act, 1949 is included in the Schedule of The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966– all three restrictions apply to CRPF personnel as well. As this is a law duly enacted by Parliament, such restrictions are treated as being reasonable and have been upheld by Courts in umpteen cases.
 
However, nowhere in The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 is the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution restricted for CRPF personnel or the members of other police forces listed in the Schedule. They continue to have the fundamental right to life while in service. Clearly, the murderous attack in April by LWE groups amounts to violation of their human rights by non-State actors. By denying this reality, the CRPF may be doing injustice to its own personnel.
 
2) There is another reason why this denial is problematic. Every time such an attack occurs, self-appointed conscience-keepers of the "nation" and advocates of a belligerent brand of "nationalism" operating through TV news channels (official spokespersons of ruling political parties and news-anchors alike) accuse human rights advocates of not raising their voice against the violation the human rights of security personnel. Instead of barking up the wrong tree, these pontificators of nationalism must question the Government's attitude towards such incidents. Why does the Government and in this case, the CRPF, fight shy of treating these attacks as "human rights violations" of  their personnel? Surely, there must be a reason for it. If such attacks causing the deaths of security personnel are not treated as "human rights violations" committed by non-State actors, why paint human rights advocates as villains even though they always condemn such incidents in unequivocal terms?
 
 
In response to another RTI application of mine, sent in May 2014, during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime, the CRPF denied that there was any human rights violation when its personnel posted on election duty in Chhattisgarh and Bihar, died due to attacks launched by LWE groups. This policy of denial continues under the present National Democratic Alliance (NDA) regime. It is high time the Government made a clean breast of its understanding of attacks on security personnel- as "human rights violations" or merely as "criminal offences". Surely, "the people" in the "times now", as citizens of the "Republic" have the right to know – what rationale determines the Government's attitude towards such murderous attacks? (pun intended)
 
 
 

The post No, the Attack by Naxals on the CRPF Killing 25 personnel in Sukma is Not a Human Rights Violation: CRPF appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Human Rights Commission has issued notices, returnable within four weeks, to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh and the Union Home Secretary over allegations that on the April 2, 2017 at 04.00 a.m. some un-indentified CRPF/Police personnel entered a house at Patel Para of Chintagufa Village in district Sukma of Chhattisgarh looking out for a man said to be a member of Sangham. They dragged out the 15 year old sister of the man and raped her. 

Allegedly, they also severely beat her family members when they tried to rescue the girl. The victim and her mother are being kept in custody by the police and pressure is being mounted upon the victim to change her statement. The reporter of the newspaper, who had reported the incident, is also allegedly being questioned. Reportedly, the police authorities have denied the allegations saying that these have been leveled with an intention to defame and demoralize the police force.

The Commission has observed that the allegations, if true, raise an issue of violation of human rights. The CRPF/Police personnel are public servants to protect the citizen's rights and not to violate them. The perpetrators are required to be booked under law. There is extreme need to provide protection and proper counselling along with relief and rehabilitation to the victim and her family members. 

The Commission took cognizance of the matter on the basis of news clippings and the copies of the complaints by the victim's mother to the SP and by Bhartiya Mahila Federation, Sukma to District Collector, brought to its notice by Ms. Nandani Sundar, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Delhi seeking its intervention. 

The post NHRC Notice to DGP, Chhattisgarh & Union Home Sec: Rape Allegations by CRPF/Police in Sukma, Chhattisgarh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On the April 4, 2016 Judge Prabhakar Gwal received an automated message on his phone. It said he had been dismissed from his post as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sukma, Chattisgarh in “public interest”. The official letter, that he later received, stated that the State Government on the recommendation of the full bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh had dismissed him under Article 311 (2) of the Indian Constitution”. The order stated no reasons or charges for his dismissal apart from that his removal was in public interest. Prior to his dismissal, JudgeGwal had faced a series of irregular transfers; show cause notices, though what lead to this dismissal is still unclear.

In the last few months, the state of Chhattisgarh has been in the news several times. Issues that have been covered range from mass violence and atrocities against the Adivasi population to the harassment of lawyers, journalists and activists questioning the State’s actions in the Bastar region. Mr Gwal’s dismissal comes in the wake of these incidents.

The last major case that Gwal was working on was that of the illegal detention of Deva Sodi. Deva Sodi, an Adivasi resident of Sukma district, was illegally detained in Dornapalthana. When the case came up before him, Gwal issued notice to the thanaprabhari (police station representative) who replied saying that Deva was no more in his custody but had been returnedto one of his friends few days back. Noticing irregularities in the police version and procedures, he passed an order stating that the police version was false. During the inquiry, after more than 15 days, Deva was shown as arrested in a thana along with his brother (who was the complainant in the illegal detention case) in multiple cases. During the hearings of the illegal detention petition, Gwal issued letters/notices to the Inspector Generalof Bastar, Mr. SRP Kalluri and the Superintendent of Police, Mr. D Sharavan in Sukma to ask why Deva Sodi had not been produced from Dronapalthana.

Today, Gwal feels that his conduct of fair and speedy trials in Sukma and the issuing of orders against the police led to unhappiness in the police and state department and would have contributed to his abrupt and illegal dismissal.

A few days after he received his dismissal notice, Gwal also received the response to a Right to Information application that he had filed earlier in the month. The RTI response revealed that in February, the Superintendent of Police of Sukma had written to the High Court and the District Judge, Dantewadatwice complaining about Gwal. The first letter, dated February 8, 2016 complained to the District Judiciary against Gwal stating that among other things he has been granting bail to “naxal accused” and such decisions have “adversely affected the morale of the security forces” and “weakens the judicial process”. It first claims that Gwal had mentally harassed police officers. The letter begins by stating that Bastar is a difficult area and in such adverse circumstances the forces go around and puts their lives in danger arresting “naxalites”. But when the police present the arrested people in Gwal’s court he on the very first remand asks them to present chargesheets as soon as possible. The letter states that Gwal questions the actions of the police and genuineness of the arrest. The police feel that Gwal threatens them with action against them in cases where the judge thinks police has made a false arrest.

In the second letter , amongst other things, the police officer accuses Gwal of granting bail to the people they arrest as naxalites. The officer states again that the police put their lives in danger when they go into the jungles and capture and arrest people but Gwal grants them bail, which has demoralized the forces. The officer in the end asks for appropriate action to be taken against the judge.

In any other state the fact that a judge has granted bail to prisoners would not be matter in which the police forces could file complaints. In some instances, it could even lead to contempt of the court. If the prosecution/the police disagrees with a certain judgment or order, then the right recourse is to file an appeal in a higher court. These letters are shocking in that they clearly reveal that the attitude of the police in Bastar remains polarizing – that everyone must agree with the police and their version. For those who don’t agree, or dare to speak out, they have to face the consequences, even if it is a Judge.

This was not the first time when Gwal was at the odds with the police or the state. Gwal has previously been in the news for his judgment in a PMT (Pre Medical Test) paper leak scandal in Raipur. In August 2015 he passed a judgment that convicted 6 persons for the leak. He also passed orders for the registration of an FIR and subsequent investigation into the role of the then SP and Present IG of Raipur, Deepanshu Kabra and another police officer for their role in attempting to suppress evidence in the case. After this, an attempt was made to intimidate him by a local BJP MLA who had been a subordinate of the SP.

Gwal had filed a complaint of intimidation againstthe BJP MLA and DeepanshuKabra in his personal capacity at the local police station. After this all hell broke loose and instead of action against the BJP MLA and Kabra, the High Court issued a show cause notice to Gwalwhich claimed that he has violated rules under C.G. Civil Service Conduct Rule, 1965, under which they claimed that he was required to seek permission of the High Court before filing such an FIR against the BJP MLA and the police officer. An adverse order was passed against him without any inquiry and his one-year annual increment was cancelled as penalty.

Gwal had filed a complaint of intimidation against the BJP MLA and Deepanshu Kabra in his personal capacity at the local police station. After this all hell broke loose and instead of action against the BJP MLA and Kabra, the High Court issued a show cause notice to Gwal which claimed that he has violated rules under C.G. Civil Service Conduct Rule, 1965

In what appeared to be a punishment posting, Gwal was then transferred to Sukma district as CJM, in the Bastar division. In September 2015 he took up his posting where he faced unfair treatment from the start from the police and the local administration who failed to provide him the usual protections given to judges in conflict areas. In his tenure as a judge in Sukma, he realized early on how the police were carrying out large scale arrests and surrenders of what seemed to be innocent Adivasis. Not only did he conduct fair and speedy trials, he also brought to the notice of the higher judiciary the conduct of the police in the Bastar region.

In keeping with his fearless attitude and his adherence to the facts and the law,  Gwal also passed orders indicting a school in Sukma district for taking inordinately high fees. After he took cognizance in this case he received a call (of which he has an audio recording) from the District Collector who said that he should consult him before passing such judgments.After receiving this call, Gwal wrote to the District Judge and Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh, notifying them about the phone call from Collector where he explained that there was an attempt to interfere in judicial process and to influence the court. No action was taken upon his complaint. Instead he received multiple show cause notices as a response to his complaints against some of the sitting judges in the lower judiciary.

In a conflict zone like the Bastar division, where systems and guarantees of due process, and law and order, appear to have broken down, it takes a great deal of courage to be able to challenge vested interests and the powerful and to remain independent in a polarized atmosphere. The casual removal of a district judge, in contravention of procedure appears to reveal the interference of the government and the police in the judiciary.

Today Prabhakar Gwal is back in Chhattisgarh where he fears for his life and for that of his family. He adds though, that he will continue his fight and will use the appropriate legal channels and methods to challenge his dismissal. A Dalit man from a rural background, he practiced for ten years as an advocate in Chhattisgarh before becoming a judge. “If nothing else works out,” he says,  “I will just go back to my village and farm.”

(The author is a law student at Delhi University. This article is a result of interviews carried out with PrabhakarGwal during his time in Delhi)
 
See also

1. Statement of the Indian association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL) The Unconstitutional Termination of Sukma Chhatisgarh CJP Condemned dated April 24, 2016
2.  Article in Patrika, dated April 20, 2016

The post Dismissal of a Judge in Bastar: Where protecting of Adivasi Rights is Not in the ‘Pubic Interest’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.