Bru refugees who had fled Mizoram in 1997, in wake of an ethnic conflict, and come to Tripura, may finally find some closure. The Tripura High Court, in an order passed on September 26, has directed that the names of all eligible voters from among the refugees resettled in various villages be included in the electoral rolls.

This will ensure that they have a voice in the governance of the areas where they are building their lives afresh. But this was an uphill battle, and their potential disenfranchisement was only avoided due to the intervention of the Tripura High Court.

Who are Brus?

Brus, also known as Reangs are tribal people who practice Jhum cultivation. In the late 90s, a movement emerged to create an autonomous Bru territory carved from western Mizoram, parts of Tripura and even Bangladesh. In September 1997 the movement gained momentum and on October 21, 1997, a forest guard was killed in the Dampa Tiger Reserve allegedly by members of the Bru National Liberation Front. This led to clashed with the Mizos, and eventually 37,000 Brus were forced to flee Mamit, Kolasib and Lunglei districts of Mizoram. While 5,000 people returned over 9 phases of repatriation since then, but around 32,000 continued to live in six refugee camps in Tripura.

The Jan 2020 agreement

In January 2020, a quadripartite agreement was signed between the Government of India, the state governments of Tripura and Mizoram and Bru representatives. The agreement was signed in the presence of then Tripura Chief Minister Biplab Kumar Deb, Mizoram Chief Minister Zoramthanga and leaders of Mizoram Bru Displaced Peoples Forum (MBDPF), the largest forum of Bru migrants. A Rs 600 crore package was announced for the resettlement of Brus. According to this agreement, the refugees were to be given:

• Rs 1.5 lakh housing assistance to the migrants into three instalments

• Rs 4 lakh one-time cash assistance for sustenance to be handed over after 3 years

• Rs 5,000 monthly cash assistance

• Free ration for two years to migrants who wish to be permanently settled in Tripura

But there have been subsequent challenges in ensuring that these resettled Bru people are given the same rights as any other Indian citizen. One of their greatest challenges has been that getting their names enrolled in the voters’ lists of the villages where they have been resettled.

Enrollment of resettled Brus as voters

Village council elections in the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) are due in the first week of November. Given how many of the areas where Bru refugees have been resettled fall under ADCs, it is vital to enroll Bru voters in these areas.

On September 16, the State Election Commission published a draft voters list for 2,634 constituencies in 587 village committees, covering 8,86, 334 voters including 4,40,132 women voters. But did not contain names of eligible relocated Bru refugees.  

Aggrieved by this, a group of Bru settlers moved the Tripura High Court. Times of India quoted an excerpt from their petition: “The state has 26,000 eligible Bru voters, out of which the names of only 5,000 people have been included in the electoral registers. The rest were left out as they didn’t get permanent houses and were not registered with the Registrar of Ordinary Residents.”

Tripura HC order paves way for voter enrollment

The Tripura High Court then took note of the latest report of the state revenue department. The court noted in its September 26, 2022 order, “As per the latest report received from the State Revenue Department there are 15 designated locations identified for the settlement of Bru migrants. Till date 5009 persons have been enrolled out of approximate 21703 eligible Bru migrants at different location.” The court also noted, “It is further revealed that enrollment of Bru migrants are being done where house constructions are completed and the families have been provided with the RoR which are being done by concerned Block Development Officers. The Electoral Registration Officers are ready to enroll the names of Bru migrants subject to completion of house constructions and where issues like record of residence are solved by the concerned Block Development Officers.”

The court laid emphasis in clause 4.9 of the quadripartite agreement of January 2020 and what it means for resettled Bru voters, and said, “The object of this clause in the Agreement is to treat them as a citizen of the State of Tripura having given their right to exercise their franchise. This object the government sought to be achieved should not be thwarted by the State Election Commission in a casual manner.”

Justice Arindam Lodh then passed an order saying, “I have considered that the election process has not been started. The process of preparing electoral roll is going on. In view of this, I direct the State Election Commission to complete the process of preparing electoral roll expeditiously and hold the election in accordance with law taking into account the grievance of the petitioners and also keeping in mind the 6 observation and direction as made in W.P(C) (PIL) no. 8 of 2022 [titled as Rajesh Debbarma & anr. vs. The State of Tripura & ors].”

The court essentially directed the State Election Commission to include names of all eligible voters from among Bru settlers in the electoral rolls of Tripura, irrespective of their names being registered in the Register of Ordinary Residents (RoR). Now the SEC is scrambling to meet the HC’s deadline.

The entire judgment may be read here: 

The wider problem of Bru resettlement

Meanwhile, the Central Government has given the state more time to deal with the wider issue of resettlement itself. Out of the over 32,000 eligible people, only a little over 3,000 have been successfully resettled so far. While the Central government has not set a deadline, it has granted the state government more time to complete the process.

There have been a few hick-ups in the resettlement process, the most notable being the outbreak of violence on November 21, 2020 when one person was killed and over 30 injured in police firing at a protest in North Tripura.

As per provisions of the January 2020 agreement, as many as 5,000 Bru refugees were to be resettled in Tripura’s North District. But the Joint Movement Committee (JMC) that comprises different groups such as Nagarik Suraksha Mancha and Mizo Convention, were opposed to this as they feared this influx of refugees would change the demography of the region.

This led to a call for a highway blockade, and over 3,000 people gathered at Chamtila in Panisagar subdivision to stop traffic on National Highway 8 that connects Tripura to Assam. While protesters maintained that their demonstrations were non-violent, police claimed that they were forced to open fire after exhausting all other non-lethal means to control the violent protesters.

Disenfranchisement of migrants and refugees

Democracy cannot thrive unless all voices are represented. However, the disenfranchisement of refugees and migrants has remained a persistent issue in many parts of India. While economic migrants struggle to cast their votes, due to inability to travel to their home states, the plight of people who are victims of forced migration, such as conflict affected people, climate refugees and other displaced people is worse.

Let us not forget that in the North East itself, climate refugees in Assam face hostility from people in their own state, despite being enrolled as voters. Bengali speaking Muslims who were forced to migrate downstream along the Brahmaputra as river erosion washed away their agricultural fields, and even entire villages, are often viewed as “outsiders” and “illegal migrants” from Bangladesh. They live under the constant fear of receiving notices from Assam’s Border Police asking them to prove their citizenship before the state’s infamous Foreigners’ Tribunals. There is also the looming threat of their settlements being bulldozed to clear “encroachment”, as the state government itself questions their antecedents and citizenship. One such eviction and demolition drive in Gorukhuti turned violent on September 23, when police opened fire on people protesting demolition of their huts. Two people, Maynal Haque and Sheikh Farid, were killed in the firing. While Maynal Haque was a 28-year-old daily-wage labourer who left behind aging parents, a widow and four children, Sheikh Farid was a 12-year-old boy who was merely passing by the scene of the firing on his way back from a local Aadhaar card centre.

Let Migrants Vote

Migrant workers too face challenges in exercising their right to vote as they often hail from faraway feeder states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal, but work in states like Maharashtra, Karnataka and the national capital of New Delhi.

Even though employers are legally obligated to declare election day (during Parliamentary elections) as a holiday so that workers can cast their vote, often just one day is insufficient for migrant workers to travel to their home states and cast their vote. This does not however, enable migrants to vote in state, municipal, panchayat and other local body elections in their home states.

As most migrant workers are constantly on the move and they live in temporary accommodations along job sites, they also do not have any permanent address in the states where they work, and therefore cannot enroll as voters there.

The problem has many layers, as there are temporary migrants and permanent migrants. The challenges posed by circular migration require a more nuanced approach to problem solving. Circular migration accounts for those migrants that have not permanently relocated to host cities, and instead circulate between host and home cities.

According to the 2011 census, the number of internal migrants stands at 45 crores, a 45% surge from the earlier census of 2001. Among these, 26% of the migration, i.e., 11.7 crores, occurs inter-district within the same state, while 12% of the migration, i.e., 5.4 crores, occurs inter-state.

SabrangIndia’s sister organization Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has been advocating for migrant workers’ right to vote as part of its Let Migrants Vote campaign.

Related:

Turmoil in the North East: A Bru Story

35 Bru refugees booked for crossing over to Tripura from Mizoram amid lockdown

Turmoil in the North East: One killed, 32 injured in police firing in Tripura

Let Migrants Vote

The post Why did it take an order from the Tripura HC to ensure proper enrollment of Bru voters? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Tripura High Court has taken suo motu cognisance of the various reports of anti-minority violence in the state, and has asked the government to file its response by November 10.

The court took note of the violence reported in various newspapers on October 26 in the districts of North Tripura, Unakoti as well as Sipahijala. The order read, “We direct the respondents [government] to file further affidavits before this Court on or before 10th November, 2021 specifically dealing with preventive measures they had taken or what is their plan of scuttling the design of stoking communal passion or to perpetrate in the violence.”

The Bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice S. Talapatra appreciated the steps taken by various political parties to restore peace and order within the state. It said, “These steps, in our considered view, will go a long way in regaining the confidence of the citizens at large. However, these steps need to be further expanded.”

The court has suggested that the government may consider forming peace committees, not only at district levels, but also at sub-divisional levels, and if necessary, at panchayat levels as well. It further said, “We call upon all political parties to participate fully in such peace process so that confidence of the people of the state can be restored and the underlying strife that exists can be suitably dealt with.”

What has the government told the court?

The Advocate General, SS Dey provided a note to the court indicating some of the important steps taken by them to maintain communal harmony as well as action taken against the perpetrator of such violence.

The government, through its counsel, told the division bench that on October 26, as many as 3,500 people participated in a rally organised by right-wing group, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) against the vandalism of Durga Puja Pandals and Hindu Temples in Bangladesh. They have further stated that during the protest march, a clash took place between both communities which allegedly led to burning of 3 shops and damage to 3 houses belonging to the Muslim community.

Further, the government stated that two FIRs have been registered at the Panisagar Police Station and allegations have been made regarding damage to mosque, theft of property and outraging the modesty of women. There are also counter allegations by the right-wing groups that during their alleged peaceful protest march, they were abused, threatened and attacked.

The government has also claimed, “Both cases are counter cases. Investigation of both cases is in progress.”

The court was also informed that subsequently, large groups of Muslims assembled at various places in Unakoti and North Tripura District and only by active deployment and persuasion, the people were dispersed. They also told the division bench that many pictures and videos are doing the rounds on social media, and that the Police have registered an FIR to identify the “miscreant” responsible for spreading misinformation, that has the potential to disturb the communal harmony.

The government has said, “State Police has undertaken various steps including deployment of additional security personnel, guarding of religious places, peace meetings, additional vehicular mobiles etc to maintain peace. All necessary arrangements to maintain peace in the State are being made by the State Government.”

Observations and directions

After perusing the government note, the court indicated that the government’s sole concern is “protection of life, liberty and property of all citizens of Tripura.”

The court then recorded, “There can be no reiteration that the State owes its responsibilities insofar as maintenance of law and order as well as providing citizens with the security to protect their life, livelihood as well as their properties. Today’s local newspapers of Tripura indicate that an uneasy calm is prevalent and no repetition of the occurrences which took place on 26th October, 2021 has yet taken place. It is further informed that all necessary steps are being taken by the State to ensure that such occurrences are not repeated.”

While directing the state to file an affidavit stating the stages at which the investigation is going on and as to whether any accused has been apprehended, the court has also told the government to take immediate action.

As rare as it may seem, the court appreciated the media at large, in particular the print media who have taken up a very active positive role in trying to restore peace and order within the state. The court said, “We assert that the media shall remain vigilant at all times and continue discharging its duty in a responsible manner which it has already exhibited.”

Since the government claimed that there is false information doing the rounds, the court also directed the State to initiate appropriate action against all such social media platforms in order to ensure that false, fictitious and or fabricated news articles or visual footages are not published on social media platforms.

SabrangIndia’s sister publication, CJP, has also written to the National Minorities Commission to take cognisance of the attacks and conduct a thorough inquiry into the targeted violence against the Muslims.

The matter will now be heard on November 12.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Anti-Muslim violence flares in Tripura, CJP writes to Minorities Commission
Tripura: Right-wing mobs vandalise mosques in response to the attack on minority Hindus in Bangladesh
Delhi: Students, activists detained for protesting Tripura violence

The post Anti Muslim violence in Tripura, HC takes suo motu cognisance appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a landmark judgment, the Tripura High Court has ruled that just because someone is a public servant, they cannot be denied their right to free speech. The court was hearing a petition filed by a government employee against home disciplinary charges were brought because of her Facebook posts and presence at a political rally.

The petitioner, one Lipika Paul who used to work for the Fisheries Department, was scheduled to retire last year on April 30. However, she was suspended just five days before the completion of her tenure and was subsequently denied her retirement benefits. Paul was accused of violating rule 5 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.

She was accused of canvassing against a political party by making defamatory and indecent statements. She was also accused of attending a political rally that had taken place on December 31, 2017.

However, the HC did not find any merit in the allegations and observed, “There is a vital difference between attending a rally and participating in a rally. During election times as is well known, political parties and their leaders as well as nominated candidates take out rallies and address public gatherings. Every person who is present in the audience during such addresses cannot be stated to have participated in the rally. The presence of a person does not either establish his or her political affiliation. A student of politics, an enthusiastic young man, a reporter or just a curious bystander all are likely to be present in any political gathering. Even an opponent or a critic of a political party may also attend the gathering.”

Additionally, the court said, “As a Government servant the petitioner is not devoid of her right of free speech, a fundamental right which can be curtailed only by a valid law.”

The court has set aside the charge-sheet against Paul, thus invalidating the suspension order against her. Furthermore, it has directed that all retiral benefits that had been hitherto withheld from the petitioner be released to her within two months.

The entire order may be read here:

The post Gov’t employee not devoid of right to free speech: Tripura HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

After the recent controversy over the delay in his elevation, Justice Akil Abdul hamid Kureshi was sworn in as Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court on November 16, in a ceremony marked by the quiet dignity and grace that the much-respected judge has displayed throughout his illustrious career.

Born on March 7, 1960, Kureshi enrolled as an advocate in Gujarat after obtaining an LL.B in 1983. From March 1992 to March 1998, he was appointed as Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. He was also assigned entire work of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad and handled large number of service matters on behalf of the Government. From there, Kureshi rose to first become an Additional Judge of the Gujarat High Court in March 2004, and was then made a permanent judge in 2005. In 2010, Kureshi famously remanded Amit Shah to police custody in connection with the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.

After then Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court Subhash Reddy was elevated to the Supreme Court, there transpired a period of flux when an acting Chief Justice needed to be appointed. While Judge Kureshi was the senior-most, Justice Anant Dave was appointed Acting Chief Justice. Interestingly, the collegium recommended that Kureshi be transferred to the Bombay High Court, something that Gujarat High Court Advocates Association (GHCAA) protested tooth and nail! Less than 24 hours later, on November 2, 2018, Kureshi was made to replace him! But then again, in a shocking turn of events, Kureshi was transferred to the Bombay High Court after less than two weeks on the job!   

Senior Advocate and GHCAA President Yatin Oza told Bar and Bench that this was a clear case of vendetta. Oza said, “He [Justice Kureshi] gave two days remand to Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin case. When [then Chief Minister of Gujarat] Modi did not appoint a Lokayukta (in Gujarat) for ten years, he upheld the order of the Governor appointing a Lokayukta. They did not like these two orders.”  

In May 2019, the Supreme Court Collegium headed by then Chief Justice of the Indian Supreme Court Ranjan Gogoi, had recommended that Judge Kureshi be elevated as Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. However, the Department of Justice did not take this recommendation and on June 10, Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, who was the senior-most judge at the MP HC was elevated to Acting Chief Justice of the court. The decision on Justice Kureshi’s elevation pending for six months!

Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad explained the decision to ignore the collegium’s recommendation saying, “As a Law Minister, I will not be a post office simpliciter. The Law Minister and the Law Ministry has a role as a stakeholder, obviously giving due regard and respect to the Collegium system. But as Law Minister, neither I nor my department will remain a post office. We have a stake and we shall continue to pursue that stake in consultation with the Honourable Supreme Court and Honourable High Courts to expedite the appointments.”

In July, the GHCAA moved Supreme Court imploring it to examine the center’s apparent reluctance to appoint Justice Qureshi as the Chief Justice of the MP HC. Legal luminary Fali S. Nariman appeared for the GHCAA and cited the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) which flows from Article 217 of the Constitution and allows the Supreme Court Collegium, comprising the Chief Justice and two of his or her senior-most fellow Supreme Court justices, to make its recommendation to the Union Ministry of Law. The Law Ministry then obtains the concerned state government’s view and submit a proposal to the Prime Minister.

 But shockingly, in September, the Collegium changed its recommendation and now suggested that Justice Kureshi be appointed to the Tripura High Court.  

Throughout this period, Justice Kureshi maintained a dignified silence and he was sworn in on Saturday November 16, 2019 in a simple ceremony that reflected his single-minded determination to uphold the dignity of the law. Justice Qureshi was administered the oath of office by governmer Ramesh Bais. In attendance at the ceremony were Tripura Chief Minister Biplab Kumar Deb, Deputy Chief Minster Jishnu Dev Varma, their cabinet colleagues and two other judges, S Talpatra and A Lodh. Seven sitting judges of the Bombay High Court and two sitting Judges of the Gujarat High Court also attended the ceremony.  

The post Can’t keep a good man down: Justice AA Kureshi sworn in as Chief Justice of Tripura HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.