Increasingly, protests are seen and viewed, by executive authorities, even courts through a political lens. Which protests, who are the protesters, what is the issue being protested and which states (and by implication) which state governments get up-ended by widespread protests, by extension which protests must be curtailed which “allowed.” Never mind that this right remains enshrined –at least on paper– under Article 19(1)(a)[1] and 19(1)(b)[2] of the Indian Constitution. Dissent is one of the fundamental pillars of any democracy and this is incorporated as fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. However, an increasingly elite and autocratic state is impatient with sloganeering marches on its streets.

A tale of two views: Courts restricts protesters rights

On August 23, the Bombay High Court restrained the opposition, Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) from carrying out a state-wide “Bandh” in Maharashtra proposed on August 24, 2024. The said “Bandh” was called by MVA, a political coalition of Congress, NCP (Sharad Pawar) and Shiv Sena (UBT) in the state to protest against the failure of state government in handling the twin Badlapur sexual abuse case. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar held that “Until further orders, all parties are restrained from proceeding with the bandh on August 24 or any other subsequent date.” The high court passed this order against a ‘Public Interest Litigation (PIL)[3] was filed seeking a declaration that the proposed bandh is illegal and unconstitutional. Following the high court ruling on August 23, the MVA withdrew its Maharashtra Bandh call but leaders and protesters still held sit-ins state-wide.

This decision of the Bombay high court needs scrutiny in view of the several weeks’ longs protests in West Bengal where protesters of all colours and hues have been taking to the streets to express anguish at the ghastly and violent murder-rape of a young doctor at the RG Kar hospital in early August. In fact only day before yesterday, on August 28, the state unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in West Bengal not only called for a state wide 12-hour-long “Bandh” to protest against the police action against the demonstrators during a march to the state secretariat. This was despite the violent attack by protesters in the BJP sponsored protest march on August 27 a day before. (The march to West Bengal Secretariat ‘Nabanna’ was organised by the ‘Paschim Banga Chatra Samaj’ and other organisations, outfits that are reportedly close to the BJP). Contrary to the decision of the High Court in Maharashtra, the Calcutta High Court rejected the ‘PIL ‘filed against BJP’s 12-hour bandh even as just four days before, in Maharashtra, the Bombay high court restrained the opposition parties from organizing a “Bandh” against a BJP-Shiv Sena (Shinde) government.

Which protest is in, which out

The dominant Indian political elite is impatient with and contemptuous of democratic protests when they question government policies, be it the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act (2019) or the three contested Farm Laws. The right under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) includes the right to express dissenting opinions, criticize the government, and engage in peaceful protests and demonstrations. Though not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions under article 19(2) 3 in the interest of various factors such as public order, security and morality, India has itself had a rich tradition of peaceful dissent and non-violent protest like “Satyagraha (1906)”, the non-violent resistance by Mahatma Gandhi in the early 20th century. All pre-Independence.

However, this fundamental right protected by the Constitution has been effectively limited, even curtailed by the near-permanent imposition of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). No better example than the curtailing of the Constitutional vision by executive diktat. If Delhi’s protest site(s) has been confined to a completely barricaded Jantar Mantar, Mumbai’s Hutatma Chowk is also out of bounds for protesters except possibly for rare exceptions on a Sunday when the central business district is shut anyway! Or else it is a small demarcated spot at Azad Maidan where too visibility for protesters is negligible. Anywhere else in the larger metro towns and the police, aided often by orders of high courts limiting protest sites, swoop down on protesters. In fact, any meeting, even in hall spaces is monitored by local police stations in careful compliance of the venue authorities making a farce and mockery of the “freedom to protest” in a sense.

Apart from this mean method of executive (read police) diktat the inalienable fundamental right to peaceful protest has also been severely curtailed and affected through unlawful and extrajudicial reprisals from governments. Techniques used include bulldozing homes in reprisal, irregular and unlawful detentions, false implications under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and National Security Act, 1980, the unilateral and frequent suspension of internet connectivity, raid and illegal seizures of premises of the demonstrators etc.

Between words and action, Supreme Court jurisprudence on the right to protest

The demolition of houses in retaliation becomes an infamous government action against the demonstration despite the fact that Supreme Court warned the government that demolitions “can’t be retaliatory”[4]. In 2022, when demonstrators, mostly Muslims, demanded the arrest of Nupur Sharma and Naveen Jindal for alleged derogatory remarks over the Prophet Mohammad, the Uttar Pradesh’ government demolished the houses of the protesters accused of instigating violence amid nationwide protest over Sharma’s remark. The Supreme Court later cautioned the UP government over demolition but declined to order a halt to the demolition.

From Streets to Courtrooms: The Fight for Protester Rights

Shaheen Bagh Protest

The 101-day Shaheen Bagh protest survived vindictive state election and almost made it through the brute Delhi riots of 2020. Consistent efforts were made to demonise and terrorise the protesters, especially because they hailed from India’s largest minority, Muslims. The protest has been identified by large sections of Indians as a symbol of courage and determination. [“Bilkis Dadi,” an eighty-two-year-old Indian woman who was the one of the faces of the protest was listed on 100 “Most Influential People of 2020” of Time magazine.]

It was the violent police action by the Delhi police against peacefully protesting students of the Jamia Milia Islamia University on December 15, 2019 that led to the sit in by community members, women of all ages, at the iconic Shaheen Bagh. Students had been vociferously but peacefully protesting the discriminatory amendments to the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and the streets outside the historic university were came alive with vibrant graffiti for weeks.

On February 17, 2020, the Supreme Court’s division bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph appointed two interlocutors Senior Advocate Sanjay R. Hegde and Advocate & Mediator Sadhana Ramchandran to hold talks with the Shaheen Bagh protesters on pleas filed by Amit Sahni seeking clearance of road blockade due to the sit-in protests. The interlocutors submitted a report before the court, which was taken note of by the bench on February 24, 2020. The SC perused the report and found that the nature of demands was very wide and that it did look difficult to find a middle path towards at least facilitating the opening of the blocked public way.

In retaliation to this effective protest that was proving politically costly for the government, the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent lock down call by the union government (March 16, 2020) was used as a trigger by authorities to crackdown and violently end the protest. Using the lock down as justification, several protesters were detained, and some faced charges under the Disaster Management Act and Indian Penal Code when, on March 24, 2020, Delhi Police and South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) officials arrived at the site in large numbers. Protesters were given extremely short notice to vacate the area, citing Covid-19 lockdown restrictions. When protesters refused to leave, police used force, detaining many and physically removing others. The protest site was demolished, with tents, banners, and belongings destroyed or confiscated. Later, the eviction sparked outrage, with many calling for the restoration of the protest site. The Delhi High Court even directed the authorities to restore the protest site, but with restrictions and the High Court also said that the eviction was carried out without following due process. By then, however, the widespread repression against youth leaders and lock down conditions came to the effective aide of a brute state action.

On October 7, 2020, Supreme Court’s three judges’ bench while delivering its judgement in Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, In re) v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 439, [Shaheen Bagh Protest Case] observed that,

“India, as we know it today, traces its foundation back to when the seeds of protest during our freedom struggle were sown deep, to eventually flower into a democracy. What must be kept in mind, however, is that the erstwhile mode and manner of dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled democracy. Our constitutional scheme comes with the right to protest and express dissent, but with an obligation towards certain duties. Article 19, one of the cornerstones of the Constitution of India, confers upon its citizens two treasured rights i.e. the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b). These rights, in cohesion, enable every citizen to assemble peacefully and protest against the actions or inactions of the State. The same must be respected and encouraged by the State, for the strength of a democracy such as ours lies in the same. These rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, which, inter alia, pertain to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India and public order, and to the regulation by the police authorities concerned in this regard”. (Para 16)

The bench also appreciated the existence of the right to peaceful protest against a legislation. (Para 17)

CAA/NRC Protest 2020

Several student and youth activists –vocal yet peacefully protesting the CAA 2019 amendments were detained post March 2020 in the Modi 2.0 regimes worst ever crackdown on civil society, in the national capital. Apart from sections of the Indian Penal Code, the draconian UAPA law was invoked to ensure over four years and obstacles in grant of bail. Several young voices of this protest namely, former PhD scholar from the Jawaharlal Nehu University (JNU), Umar Khalid, student activist Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Sharjeel Usmani. Sharjeel Imam and Safoora Zargar. Asif Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal have faced incarceration. Of these Safoora, Asif, Devangana and Natasha are the only ones who got bail within a year from the Delhi High court.

On April 9, 2020, Delhi Police arrested Gulfisha Fatima, a Muslim student activist and member of the United against Hate group for her involvement in the Jaffrabad peaceful protest. To make a case in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots, she has been charged under multiple sections of the Penal Code, including rioting and assaulting a public servant. It is more than clear that Fatima, has been, however, targeted for leading peaceful protests opposing the religiously discriminatory Citizen Amendment Act (CAA).  In May 2020, Fatima was granted bail in the Jaffrabad protest case (FIR 48/2020). However, she has been forced to remain in prison under the notorious FIR 59/2020. As of August 2024, Fatima remains in jail, awaiting trial. Her case highlights the ongoing crackdown on activists and the erosion of civil liberties.

Meeran Haider, a 28-year-old PhD scholar and activist, was arrested on April 1, 2020, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots. He has been lodged in Tihar Jail since then, despite multiple bail applications. Haider’s arrest and detention have raised concerns about the erosion of liberty and the targeting of dissenting voices. His case highlights the misuse of UAPA to silence activists and scholars, undermining academic freedom and the right to express dissent. As of August 2024, Haider remains in jail, awaiting trial, with his liberty and future hanging in the balance. Haider has recently received interim bail for just a fortnight.

Sharjeel Usmani, a 25-year-old student leader and activist, was arrested on July 8, 2020, from Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, in connection with the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case. He was charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other sections for allegedly inciting violence and promoting enmity between communities. Usmani has been denied bail and has been lodged in Taloja Central Jail, Maharashtra. Despite multiple bail applications, he remains in jail, awaiting trial.

Sharjeel Imam, a student activist, was arrested from Jehanabad, Bihar on January 28, 2020, for allegedly delivering inflammatory speeches against the Citizenship Amendment Act at Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia Islamia University. He was charged with sedition and UAPA and has been in custody since then. In March 2024, the Delhi High Court issued a notice on Imam’s bail plea and sought a response from the Delhi Police. On May 29, 2024, the Delhi High Court granted statutory bail to Imam in the sedition case. However, he will remain in jail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case involving UAPA charges.

JNU PhD scholar Umar Khalid remains behind bars and will have been in prison for four years, without trial. Khalid was charged under the Indian Penal Code, 1980 (IPC) for various offences including rioting (sections 147 and 148), murder (s 302) and unlawful assembly (s 149). Khalid was arrested on September 13, 2020, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), falsely implicated in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots. He has been lodged in Tihar Jail since then. Despite applying for bail multiple times, his requests have been denied. Khalid has alleged mistreatment and harassment in jail, including being placed in solitary confinement. His case has sparked widespread concern and outrage among activists, academics, and civil society members, who see his arrest as a clampdown on dissenting voices. As of August 2024, Khalid remains in jail, awaiting trial, with his health and well-being a subject of concern.

Safoora Zargar, a 27-year-old research scholar and activist, was arrested on April 10, 2020, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for her alleged involvement in the 2020 Delhi riots. Despite being pregnant, Zargar was denied bail twice and spent over two months in Tihar Jail. Her arrest and detention sparked widespread outrage and concern about her health and well-being. On June 23, 2020, the Delhi High Court granted her bail on humanitarian grounds, considering her advanced pregnancy. Zargar was released from jail on June 24, 2020 and is still fighting her case. Similarly Ishrat Jahan also incarcerated for successfully being part of one of those who organised at Khureji along with Khalid Saifi and others. Finally Ishrat Jahan got bail in March 2022.

In the lead Asif Tanha judgement (June 2021), followed by findings in the cases of Devnagana  Kalit the Delhi High Court passed substantive orders granting relief to the three student leaders. However an ever vindictive state was quick to move the Supreme Court to ensure that the path breaking precedent set in these cases did not benefit other youth leaders in jail on similar grounds.

The Delhi High Court of Delhi had observed that the “Right to Protest not terrorist Act under UAPA” and High Court finds no prima facie case against student leaders Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal & Devangana Kalita. In the Natasha Narwal bail order, the Delhi High Court observed that “We are constrained to express, that it seems, that in its anxiety to suppress dissent, in the mind of the State, the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred. If this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy”

CJP’s detailed analyses of the these judgements may be read here and here

Farmers Protest 2020-2021

The historic months long protests by India’s farmers at the Ghaziabad and Tekri borders of the national capital because they were not allowed to enter Delhi and protest at Ram Lila Maidan, earlier “allowed” to the “anti-corruption” protesters” has been a study in determination and citizens’ action.

The union government’s response to the farmers’ protest was marked by a mix of repression, negotiation, and eventual repeal of the farm laws. Initially, the government deployed large numbers of police and paramilitary forces to contain the protests, leading to clashes and detentions of protesters. The government also attempted to discredit the protesters (an effort that continues to date with elected representatives of the ruling dispensation casting slurs) by labelling them as “anti-nationals” and “Khalistanis”. However, as the protests persisted and gained widespread support, the government was forced to negotiate with the farmers’ leaders. After multiple rounds of talks, the government agreed to repeal the three farm laws in November 2021, marking a significant victory for the farmers’ movement. Despite this, the government’s handling of the protests was widely criticized for its heavy-handedness and attempt to suppress democratic dissent. A staggering 700 farmers lost their lives in this protest, in large measure due to the callous attitude of the union government.

Prior to the 18^th Lok Sabha elections, a renewed effort by the farmers to press their demands (unmet by the union government except to the extent of repealing unacceptable legislation) was met with brute state action at the Delhi borders, deployments of paramilitary troops, drones etc. leading even to the death of one more farmer and another losing his eyesight.

Efforts to get the courts to derail the protest were not entirely successful, however. On July 10, 2024, the division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court while upholding the right to protest held that “In Democracy farmers can’t be stopped from entering state. Similarly, on, March 12, 2023, the Supreme Court refused to entertain Ex-BJP MLA’s plea to remove protesters from Delhi boarders[5].  (The SC directed the petitioner to address the matter in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the issue is currently under consideration).

Indian women wrestlers protest their sexual harassment

Another protest at the national capital that has evinced national attention is the sustained protests by women wrestlers Vinesh Phogart, Sakshi Malik and others in late 2022 and early January 2023.

On January 18, 2023, Vinesh Phogat and Sakshi Malik, two of India’s most esteemed women wrestlers, have come forth with accusations of sexual harassment against BJP MP and the then Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) head Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. Since January of 2023, wrestlers had gone ahead and staged a protest at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi to bring this issue to light and seek justice for herself and the other allegedly exploited women wrestlers. The said protest had been paused on assurances that action will be taken on the claims being made by the women wrestlers, however no such thing happened.

Despite the initial silence, the wrestlers’ voices gained momentum, culminating in a historic protest in June 2023. A sit-in protest led by Vinesh Phogat, Sakshi Malik, and Bajrang Punia was then organised at Jantar Mantar to demand Wrestling Federation of India’s Chief and BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh’s resignation, reforms in the WFI, and justice for the victims of the sexual harassment. However, even the women wrestlers who were exercising their right to peace protest had to face abuse at the hands of the Delhi Police, more than one time.

On May 3, late-night trouble had erupted for women champions camping day and night at Jantar Mantar. India’s women champion wrestlers had been reportedly abused by Delhi Police officers. According to the wrestlers, the Delhi Police had physically stopped them from replacing mattresses that got wet due to rain, resulting in the scuffle. “The mattresses got wet due to rain, so we were bringing folding beds for sleeping, but the police did not allow that. Drunk policeman Dharmendra abused Vinesh Phogat and got involved in a scuffle with us,” former wrestler Rajveer told PTI.

Several videos of the wrestlers had gone viral on social media, showing them being surrounded by a couple of cops who misbehaved with them. It had even been claimed by the wrestlers that male police officer had pushed women wrestlers without any women officer being present and that two protestors have even been injured. Reportedly, a drunk cop had also misbehaved with them, hurled abuse at female wrestlers, and even manhandled them at the protest site. The wrestlers had gone live on their respective social media accounts to report the incident.

Later, on May 29, the Delhi Police had used force on the protesting wrestlers with an attempt to disperse them using force. The protesting wrestlers were detained while trying to march to the new Parliament building in New Delhi as they resolved to intensify their protest demanding the arrest of Brij Bhushan. The wrestlers, including Vinesh Phogat and Sakshi Malik, were dragged and detained by police personnel, sparking widespread outrage. On the same day i.e. May 28, the Delhi Police was also registered an FIR related to rioting and other offences over the scuffle with protesting wrestlers in the national capital under the sections pertaining to rioting, offence by a member of an unlawful assembly, obstructing public servant from discharge of duty, disobedience to an order promulgated by a public servant, causing hurt to a public servant in discharge of duty, using criminal force to stop public servant from performing duty, and under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act was registered at Parliament Street police station. The police action was widely condemned as excessive and unwarranted, with many questioning the government’s heavy-handed response to the peaceful protest. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) was also condemned the police action over the wrestlers.

Parallelly, a plea had been filed by the wrestlers in the Supreme Court to direct the Delhi Police to file an FIR against Brij Bhushan. Supreme Court’s inaction in the wrestler protest reached an end on May 4, 2023, when it chose to close the petition filed by three women wrestlers. The Supreme Court closed the petition filed by three women wrestlers, who have represented the country in prestigious international events, taking note of the fact that FIRs have been registered by the Delhi Police against Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh over alleged sexual harassment. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narsimsha and Justice JB Pardiwala noted that the petition was filed seeking FIR and with the same being registered, the purpose has been served. The bench granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional magistrate or invoke the remedy under Section 482 CrPC before the Delhi High Court in case of any further grievances.

Despite the seriousness of the allegations of sexual harassment and the refusal on the behalf of the Delhi Police to file an FIR, the Supreme Court had relied on the Delhi Police’s assurance of there being an impartial investigation after filing of the FIR. Investigation. The petitioners’ lawyer Senior Advocate Narender Hooda had requested the bench to monitor the investigation, taking into account the conduct of the Delhi Police in refusing to take action till the Supreme Court’s intervention. However, the bench turned down this plea and said that it has given liberty to petitioners to invoke other remedies.

The court’s refusal to issue any concrete direction allowed Singh to continue as WFI president until June 16, 2023, when the government finally formed an oversight committee to investigate the allegations. The committee’s report led to Singh’s resignation on July 13, 2023, but the Supreme Court’s failure to take decisive action earlier had allowed the crisis to drag on for months, leaving the wrestlers feeling vulnerable and betrayed.

It is also essential to note that out of the seven wrestlers that had come forth with their complaints, the sole minor complainant had withdrawn her complaint in June with the father of the minor complainant coming out in the open about the threats he has been facing, and the amount of pressure they had been facing. The Hindu reported that the father of the said that he was threatened by people whose names he couldn’t reveal and “his family is living in intense fear”.

Supreme Court jurisprudence on Article 19 (a)(a) and (b)

• Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1

Hunger Strike: In the famed Ramlila Maidan case [(2012) 5 SCC 1)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that  “the threat of going on a hunger strike extended by Baba Ramdev to personify his stand on the issues raised, cannot be termed as unconstitutional or barred under any law. It is a form of protest which has been accepted, both historically and legally in our constitutional jurisprudence of India”. (Para 209)

Citizens have a fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest which cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or legislative action. The law prescribes no requirements for taking of permission to go on a fast.

The Indian Constitution spells out the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). It also provides the right to assemble peacefully and without arms to every citizen of the country under Article 19(1)(b). However, these rights are not free from any restrictions and are not absolute in their terms and application. Articles 19(2) and 19(3), respectively, control the freedoms available to a citizen. Article 19(2) empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression in the interest of the factors stated in the said clause. Similarly, Article 19(3) enables the State to make any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred, again in the interest of the factors stated therein. (Para 7)

The Judgement can be read here:

• Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, (1973) 1 SCC (Cri) 280

“Freedom of assembly is an essential element of any democratic system. At the root of this concept lies the citizens right to meet face to face with others for the discussion of their ideas and problems — religious, political, economic or social. Public debate and discussion take many forms including the spoken and the printed word, the radio and the screen. But assemblies face to face perform a function of vital significance in our system, and are no less important at the present time for the education of the public and the formation of opinion than they have been in our past history. The basic assumption in a democratic polity is that Government shall be based on the consent of the governed. But the consent of the governed implies not only that the consent shall be free but also that it shall be grounded on adequate information and discussion. Public streets are the “natural” places for expression of opinion and dissemination of ideas. Indeed it may be argued that for some persons these places are the only possible arenas for the effective exercise of their freedom of speech and assembly.”

(Para 69)

 “If the right to hold public meetings flows from Article 19(1)(b) and Article 19(1)(d) it is obvious that the State cannot impose unreasonable restrictions. It must be kept in mind that Article 19(1)(b), read with Article 13, protects citizens against State action. It has nothing to do with the right to assemble on private streets or property without the consent of the owners or occupiers of the private property.” (Para 35)

The Judgement can be read here:

• Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324

“The right to protest is, thus, recognised as a fundamental right under the Constitution. This right is crucial in a democracy which rests on participation of an informed citizenry in governance. This right is also crucial since it strengthens representative democracy by enabling direct participation in public affairs where individuals and groups are able to express dissent and grievances, expose the flaws in governance and demand accountability from the State authorities as well as powerful entities. This right is crucial in a vibrant democracy like India but more so in the Indian context to aid in the assertion of the rights of the marginalised and poorly represented minorities. (Para 54)

The Judgement can be read here:

• Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police and Others, (2020) 10 SCC 439

“India, as we know it today, traces its foundation back to when the seeds of protest during our freedom struggle were sown deep, to eventually flower into a democracy. What must be kept in mind, however, is that the erstwhile mode and manner of dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled democracy. Our constitutional scheme comes with the right to protest and express dissent, but with an obligation towards certain duties. Article 19, one of the cornerstones of the Constitution of India, confers upon its citizens two treasured rights i.e. the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b). These rights, in cohesion, enable every citizen to assemble peacefully and protest against the actions or inactions of the State. The same must be respected and encouraged by the State, for the strength of a democracy such as ours lies in the same. These rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, which, inter alia, pertain to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India and public order, and to the regulation by the police authorities concerned in this regard. [ See Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re, (2012) 5 SCC 1 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 820 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 241 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 810] Additionally, as was discussed in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan case [Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324], each fundamental right, be it of an individual or of a class, does not exist in isolation and has to be balanced with every other contrasting right. It was in this respect, that in this case, an attempt was made by us to reach a solution where the rights of protestors were to be balanced with that of commuters.

(Para 16)

The Judgement can be read here:

• Anita Thakur v. State of J&K, (2016) 15 SCC 525

We can appreciate that holding peaceful demonstration in order to air their grievances and to see that their voice is heard in the relevant quarters is the right of the people. Such a right can be traced to the fundamental freedom that is guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Article 19(1)(a) confers freedom of speech to the citizens of this country and, thus, this provision ensures that the petitioners could raise slogan, albeit in a peaceful and orderly manner, without using offensive language. Article 19(1)(b) confers the right to assemble and, thus, guarantees that all citizens have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. Right to move freely given under Article 19(1)(d), again, ensures that the petitioners could take out peaceful march. The “right to assemble” is beautifully captured in an eloquent statement that “an unarmed, peaceful protest procession in the land of “salt satyagraha”, fast-unto-death and “do or die” is no jural anathema”. It hardly needs elaboration that a distinguishing feature of any democracy is the space offered for legitimate dissent. One cherished and valuable aspect of political life in India is a tradition to express grievances through direct action or peaceful protest. Organised, non-violent protest marches were a key weapon in the struggle for Independence, and the right to peaceful protest is now recognised as a fundamental right in the Constitution. (Para 12)

The Judgement can be read here:

How free are Indians then to exercise their constitutional right to protest?

Before assuming the present post, Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud had famously said, “Blanket labelling of dissent as an-national hurst ethos of democracy.” He called dissent a “safety valve: of democracy”. (February 15, 2020, in Ahmedabad (Gujarat speaking on “The hues that make India: From plurality to pluralism” at the 15th Justice PD Desai Memorial Lecture), Similarly, in 2021, former Supreme Court judge, Justice Ravindra Bhat said in a lecture that “The promise of free speech or free association would be of little use if a segment of the population threatens the free enjoyment of rights by others; rights would only be academic then. The State must act actively engage in the promotion of fundamental rights, in upholding the freedom of thought, expression, and of legitimate speech which can be contrary to the dominant discourse, freely expressed without fear of reprisal by private entities or collectives”

For sure, the Indian Constitution safeguards, in principle, the right to protest through Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to express dissent and protest. Article 19(1)(b) ensures the freedom to assemble peacefully and without arms, enabling citizens to hold protests and demonstrations. Article 21 also protects the right to life and liberty, which encompasses the right to protest against unjust laws and policies. Furthermore, Article 14 ensures equality before the law, preventing discrimination against protesters. Article 25 guarantees the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, allowing citizens to protest against policies infringing on their religious rights. The Constitution also provides safeguards against excessive police action, such as Article 22, which protects citizens against arbitrary arrest and detention. These provisions collectively ensure that citizens can exercise their right to protest without fear of reprisal or persecution, fostering a democratic and inclusive environment.

Thus, the right to protest is a fundamental aspect of democracy in India, enshrined in the Constitution, but it faces significant challenges from government actions that often seek to suppress dissent. The right to protest is intrinsically linked to the essence of debate and discussion in a democratic form of government. It allows citizens to express dissent, challenge policies, and engage in constructive dialogue with the state. This, in turn, fosters a culture of transparency, accountability, and participatory governance.

However, as can be seen, the application of these lofty constitutional principles is selective, some protests being allowed or favoured, others shunned or frowned upon. Equally concerning is that on one hand we have our Constitution –with its lofty uplifting principles, on the other hand the governments (union and state) has effectively evolved the (mis) use of the omnipresent executive diktat, the misuse of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) which remains the all manifest rule not the exception. There are also on India’s statute books, preventive detention laws (indiscriminately used) and those like the UAPA that have become the weapon of offense by the state to be selectively applied to protesters and protests.

So we ask, how free are all Indians to protest?

[1] Right to freedom of speech and expression

[2] Right to assemble peaceably and without arms

[3] The Bombay High Court delivered its order in the PIL, one filed by lawyer Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil through advocate Gunaratna Sadavarte, and another by Nandabai Sarjerao Misal, through advocate Subhash Jha – challenging the call for bandh contending that the same is illegal.

[4] Jamiat Ulama I Hind & Anr v UOI & Ors (WP(Crl) 162/2022)

[5] Nand Kishore Garg v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 162 of 2024

Related:

How SC has balanced the right to protest v/s public inconvenience: Shaheen Bagh

Right to protest, not an absolute law: SC

https://sabrangindia.in/article/wrestler-protest-law-student-moves-nhrc-files-complaint-over-detention-brutal-police-action/

The post The right to peaceful protest in India, do citizens have that right? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Malik, along with wrestler Bajrang Punia and Vinesh Phogat, addressed the media at the Press Club of India in New Delhi. Referring to the position that Singh holds with Brij Bhushan, Phogat said that “He (Sanjay Singh) is Brij Bhushan’s right-hand man. He is more special to him than his own son.” She further said that with Singh becoming the president of WFI, the culture of harassment and abuse of women wrestlers will continue. As per the report of the Indian Express, Vinesh said “Now that he is president, the coming batch of women wrestlers will also fall prey.”

Following this, Malik announced that as a consequence of a close aid and partner of Brij Bhushan succeeding as the president, she will no longer be competing. “If Brij Bhushan Singh’s business partner and a close aide is elected as the president of WFI, (then) I quit wrestling,” she said. With this, she kept her blue wrestling shoes on the conference table. Throughout her address, Malik’s eyes were full of tears.  She also referred to the sit-in protests that were held by the women wrestlers at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi and the support they got from everyone. She said, “We slept for 40 days on the roads and a lot of people from several parts of the country came to support us.” It is pertinent to highlight here that the said sit-in protest had come to an end after Delhi Police had manhandled the women protestors and wrestlers, and had detained them.

The 31-year-old wrestler further said that “We wanted a female president but that did not happen. If the president would be a woman, harassment would not happen. But, there was no participation of women earlier and today you can see the list, not even a single woman was given a position. We had fought with complete strength but this fight will continue. The wrestlers of the new generation have to fight.” 

Punia then addressed the media and underlined the disappointment that the wrestlers were feeling with the government not standing by their word and letting a loyalist of Brij Bhushan be elected. “It’s unfortunate that government did not stand by its word that no Brij Bhushan loyalist will contest WFI election,” Punia said, as per a report of the Hindu. As per a report of the Times of India, during the duration of the lead-up to the elections, the wrestlers had consistently urged Sports Minister Anurag Thakur to prevent individuals associated with Brij Bhushan from participating in the WFI polls.

It is essential to note that Bajrang Punia and Vinesh Phogat did not say whether they will retire from the sport or not. Post the press conference, Malik was seen crying as she left the venue as journalists could be seen chasing behind her.

The other reality of India- sexual harassment accused garlanded

As the news of the election results came forth, along came the video of crackers being burst outside the house of former president and sexual harassment accused Brij Bhushan. The sexual harassment accusation against Brij Bhushan has alleged that since 2014, he had continuously and consistently abused both senior and junior wrestlers. The video, which had been uploaded by the Press Trust of India, then showed Brij Bhushan wearing multiple garlands around his neck, being surrounded by men chanting his name and posing for the camera. Next to Brij Bhushan, the newly elected WFI president, an affiliate of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Singh could be seen standing with a huge smile plastered on his face. Both Brij Bhushan and Singh could be seen flashing a victory sign at the cameras.

As per a report of Aljazeera, when Brij Bhushan was asked about the decision of quitting taken by Malik after the results of the election came out, he replied “I have nothing to do with it.”

The Aljazeera report provided that in recent months, Singh had actively campaigned for Sanjay Singh to replace him and predicted his victory to the local press. As per a report of Newsclick, while campaigning for Singh, Brij Bhushan had told PTI that “11 months later, today is the election. In the election, Sanjay Singh, in a way, can be described as a representative of the old federation. Sanjay Singh is sure to win the election, ensuring the formation of a new federation for the children. I urge them to create a conducive sports environment as soon as possible and compensate for any losses.”

As alleged by the TOI report, given the tremendous interest the outgoing chief has in the sport, it can be expected that Sanjay will be consulting him in policy decisions.

Reacting to his victory, Singh told members of the media that his securing 40 out of 47 votes by the federation’s member institutions proved that “It’s a very big victory of truth over lies.” As per the Aljazeera report, he told reporters that he was committed to supporting wrestlers, but did not comment on Malik’s announcement. His statement provides the allyship that Singh has with Brij Bhushan.

Support pours in for Sakshi Malik on social media- questioning the government’s inaction

At same press conference that Sakshi Malik had announced her decision to quit wrestling, Sangeeta Phogat, another female wrestling champion who had also participated in the protest, said that “The wrestlers didn’t get justice.”

“It’s unfortunate that such people are getting elected to such positions in the country. Now, girls will be harassed again. It’s sad that even after fighting against it, we couldn’t bring any changes. I don’t know how to get justice in our own country,” Sangeeta Phogat added as per Newsclick.

Olympic boxing medallist Vijender Singh extended his support to Malik and described the election of loyalist Singh a “serious issue”. Vijendra Singh had also joined the protesting wrestlers in their sit-in protest. In his interview to India Today, Vijendra Singh had stated “As a player, it feels very bad because, after a lot of hard work, an athlete reaches that level. She is an Olympic medallist, a Commonwealth Games medalist and an Asian Games medallist. All these wrestlers, including Sakshi, Vinesh and Bajrang, have won medals at the highest level for the country.”

He further added that “When Sakshi said she would quit wrestling because of the way the election took place, I think it’s a serious issue. This raises a lot of questions about the democratic processes involved.”

His video can be viewed here:

VIDEO | “As a player, I can understand the anguish of Sakshee Malikkh as she quit wrestling because she did not get justice from the government in the sexual harassment case. If this can happen with athletes who have brought medals for the country then what will happen with the… pic.twitter.com/ehmgosjTUV

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) December 22, 2023

Randeep Singh Surjewala, Congress General Secretary and member of Congress Working Committee (CWC) also gave an interview and called Sakshi Malik’s “retirement” as a black mark in wrestling history. As per PTI, Surjewala said  “Every tear shed by Sakshi Malik, every tear shed by our Olympian daughters of India, every tear shed by every victim of the so called sexual exploitation and complete subjugation of the Indian Wrestling Association is a black blot on the future of India’s sports, particularly wrestling.”

His video can be viewed here:

VIDEO | “Every tear shed by Sakshee Malikkh, every tear shed by our Olympian daughters of India, every tear shed by every victim of the so called sexual exploitation and complete subjugation of the Indian Wrestling Association is a black blot on the future of India’s sports,… pic.twitter.com/DEkiDGfu7t

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) December 22, 2023

Farmer leader Rakesh Tikait, who had supported the women wrestlers in their protest against Brij Bhushan, reacted to Malik’s resignation and stated that “She should not have given up, as resigning in disappointment is not the solution. It takes a lot of time to become a successful wrestler, and she should have maintained her wrestling career.”

His video can be viewed here:

VIDEO | “She should not have given up, as resigning in disappointment is not the solution. It takes a lot of time to become a successful wrestler, and she should have maintained her wrestling career,” says farmer leader Rakesh Tikait in response to Sakshi Malik’s retirement… pic.twitter.com/fUpFkH3bcI

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) December 21, 2023

Many people also took to social media and released statements of solidarity with Malik, calling it a shameful day for the country.

Who is Sakshi Malik? What was the wrestlers protest?

Sakshi Malik is one of the top wrestlers of India. She has won multiple medals for India- a Gold medal in 2022 Commonwealth Games, Bronze medal in 2018 Commonwealth Games, Bronze medal in the 2016 Olympics, Silver medal in 2014 Commonwealth Games, 4 medals from 2015-2019 in Asian Championships, Gold and Bronze medals in Commonwealth Championship and several other Junior Level International Medals.

On January 18, 2023, Vinesh Phogat and Sakshi Malik, two of India’s most esteemed women wrestlers, came forth with accusations of sexual harassment against BJP MP Brij Bhushan. The accusations of sexual harassment were levied by seven women wrestlers, including a minor against Brij Bhushan and several other coaches. During January 2023, the wrestlers had taken to the streets of Delhi for the first time to demand the arrest of Singh and his removal as the chief. By the end of January, a five-member oversight committee was formed which was headed by athlete Mary Kom. The said committee was given four weeks to complete the investigation into the allegations.

When no steps were taken for four months and the report submitted by the oversight committee was not made public, the wrestlers resumed their sit-in protest at Jantar Mantar in the month of April. They also moved the Supreme Court to get a FIR against Brij Bhushan registered. It was only after the Supreme Court deemed the allegations raised by wrestlers to be of “serious nature” did the Delhi Police file the FIR against Brij Bhushan.

Since the beginning of the protest, the protesting wrestlers faced multiple threats, violence and abuse at the hands of the Delhi police and the government. Nonetheless, the sit in protest had continued for almost 50 days. Their protest was also supported by farmers. On May 28, the protesting wrestlers and their supporters were detained by the Delhi police as they were attempting to march towards the newly inaugurated Parliament building. At the inauguration, which was conducted by PM Narendra Modi, a video of Brij Bhushan being present was also released on social media. The detained protestors were released from police custody the next day. After their release, the protesting women wrestlers had threatened to immerse their medals, but were stopped by farmer leader Rakesh Tikait.

In the month of June, the minor complainant in the sexual harassment case withdrew her complaint and changed her statement. The father of the minor wrestler complainant came out in the open about the threats that he had been facing and the amount of pressure that the family had been under. The father also provided that he was being threatened by people whose names he couldn’t reveal and “his family is living in intense fear”, owing to which he took the complaint back. In the middle of June, the protesting wrestlers had halted their protest after the sports minister had assured them of a police investigation against Bhushan.

A complete timeline of the protest can be viewed here.

Status of the case against Brij Bhushan

Even though a FIR had been filed by the Delhi Police against Brij Bhushan on the order of the Supreme Court, Brij Bhushan is yet to see inside the of a jail. On June 15, Delhi Police had charge sheeted the BJP MP under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He had been given bail by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Harjeet Singh Jaspal on July 20.

In the hearing of September 23, 2023, during the hearing arguments for framing of charges, the Delhi Police submitted to the Rouse Avenue Delhi court that Brij Bhushan “outraged the modesty” of the women wrestlers who filed harassment charges against him at every opportunity he got. As per a report of India Post, Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Srivastava, representing the Delhi Police, had also told the court that the former WFI chief “knew what he was doing” and his intention was to outrage the modesty of the wrestlers, which he also tried to cover up. The APP also argued that the actions of the accused were facilitated by the co-accused.

Additionally, the APP also pointed out that there are three types of evidence against Brij Bhushan which are enough to frame charges, which were- a written complaint and two recorded statements under Sections 161 (examination of witnesses by the police) and 164 (statements recorded by a Magistrate) under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Related:

Clear case of re-victimisation: Former SC judge Madan B Lokur on Delhi Police’s handling of women wrestlers case

Protesting wrestlers will resume stir, say govt not ready to arrest WFI chief by June 15

Mumbai: Silent protest organised to condemn the injustice meted out to women wrestlers

FIRs suggest wrestlers had informed PM about their repeated sexual trauma in 2021

The post Wrestler Sakshi Malik quits wrestling as close aid of sexual harassment accused Brij Bhushan gets elected as president appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“I am granting bail on a bond of ₹25,000 each with certain conditions,” Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Harjeet Singh Jaspal said, after having reserved it in the afternoon.

While granting bail, the Delhi court imposed two conditions on him: to not leave the country without its prior permission, and to not offer any inducement to witnesses in the case. It is essential to emphasise here that the minor wrestler complainant had withdrawn her complaint against Singh citing threats and fear of life. Nevertheless, the accused were granted interim bail.

Neither opposing nor supporting the application: Delhi Police

While the hearing for the grant of regular bail to the accused was going on, the public prosecutor, representing Delhi Police, asked the court to try the accused as per law and impose certain conditions if relief was granted.

Shockingly, when the court asked the prosecutor if he was opposing the bail application, he said, “I am neither opposing nor supporting.” The prosecutor further told the court that “Application should be dealt as per law and the order passed by the court.”

It is essential to highlight here that based on the chargesheet, filed on June 13, the Delhi Police had said that in view of the “investigation so far,” Singh is “liable to be prosecuted and punished for offences of sexual harassment, molestation and stalking”. And sadly, today, they did not even oppose the bail petition.

Accused is very influential: Counsel for the complainants

The counsel who appeared for the complainants opposed the application of Brij Bhushan, saying the accused was very influential. “Bail should not be granted. If at all it is granted, strict conditions must be imposed. Witnesses have been approached from time to time, no threat though,” he told the court. Brij Bhushan’s counsel then told the court that he will abide by all conditions.

Background of the case:

On July 18, a Delhi court had granted two-day interim bail to Singh and Vinod Tomar in the said case. Notable, the Delhi Police filed a charge sheet against a six-time MP under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The sections include 354 (pertaining to assault or criminal force on a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (related to sexual harassment), 354D (concerning stalking), and 506 (relating to criminal intimidation).

Related:

Delhi Police on Brij Bhushan sexual harassment case: “Liable to be prosecuted and punished for sexual harassment, molestation and stalking”

Delhi police file chargesheet against BJP MP Brij Bhushan, submits cancellation report in POCSO Case

Coach accused of threatening Brij Bhushan complainants was also named in a wrestler’s 2017 sexual harassment FIR

Warning or threat, accused MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh sends ‘message’ to BJP’s top brass: UP

Delhi Police informs of formation of SIT in the case of sexual harassment allegations being levelled against Brij Bhushan Singh

Committee gives May 21 deadline for arrest of Brij Bhushan; its our protest not “hijacked”by farmers: Vinesh Phogat

The post From “liable to be prosecuted” to “neither opposing nor supporting bail”: The curious case of Delhi Police appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is essential to note here that the said charge sheet had been filed by the police on June 13, after India’s top wrestlers had organised a sit-in protest at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, led by prominent wrestlers such as Vinesh Phogat, Sakshi Malik, Bajrang Punia, for over 37 days and raised their voices against the lack of action initiated against their complaints of sexual harassment against Singh. The protest, which began April 23, lasted until the police detained them for violating law and order for attempting to organise a gathering in front of the new parliament on its inaugural day on May 28. It is further crucial to highlight here that in the month of April, the wrestlers had to approach the Supreme Court to get the Delhi Police to register the first information report against Singh.

Initially, seven wrestlers, including a minor had lodged a complaint against Singh’s alleged misconduct; however, days later the minor complainant withdrew her statement before a district magistrate. The Express report provides that across six cases, the police has invoked Sections 506 (criminal intimidation), 354 (outraging modesty of a woman); 354 A (sexual harassment); and 354 D (stalking) in the charge sheet. Furthermore, it has also been flagged in the said charge sheet that in one case, Singh’s harassment was “repeated and continuing”. It is essential to highlight here that if convicted, these charges could lead to a potential prison sentence of up to five years.

The Indian Express report added that Delhi police has requested the court to summon Singh and the witnesses. As per the charge sheet, the police spoke to 108 witnesses of whom 15, including wrestlers, coaches, and referees, corroborated the allegations made by the wrestlers.

As reported by the Express, according to an annexure in the charge sheet, in his questioning by the Delhi Police, Singh denied all allegations and claimed he had never met the wrestlers and didn’t have their phone numbers.

Singh was summoned by Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court in the matter on Friday, July 7, which had noted that there was enough evidence against Singh to proceed with the case. He has now been directed to appear before the court on July 18.s

Singh’s reaction to the charge sheet, misbehaviour with a female journalist on camera

Pursuant to the filing of the charge sheet, a video showing Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh misbehaving with a female journalist from Times Now has gone viral over social media. In the said video, Singh can be seen walking out of Delhi airport with body guards, when a female journalist from Times Now asks for his comment over the charge sheet filed against him. At first, Singh denies to make any comment. When she asks sexual harassment accused Singh on whether he will be resigning from his post as a minister with the BJP party, Singh starts screaming at the female journalist and misbehaving with her.

The reporter then highlights what has been mentioned in the charge sheet, that Singh had continuously sexually harassed one of the complaints, the BJP MP, who was getting in the car, tries to shut the car’s door on the hands of the reporter. As the reporter does not bow down and continues with her questions, Singh then closes the door with such intensity that the mic in the hands of the female journalist breaks.

The video can be viewed here:

VIP Arrogance on Cam!

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh “misbehaves” with TIMES NOW’s team and breaks the mic when asked tough questions by TIMES NOW’s @tejshreethought – WATCH. pic.twitter.com/XgWhs9KcM1

— TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) July 11, 2023

Related:

Clear case of re-victimisation: Former SC judge Madan B Lokur on Delhi Police’s handling of women wrestlers case

Protesting wrestlers will resume stir, say govt not ready to arrest WFI chief by June 15

“I changed my statement because I was scared, my family is living under constant threat”: father of the minor wrestlers’ complainant

From deathly silence to violence: The journey of wrestlers struggling for justice

Protests erupt at Delhi police violent crackdown on Women Wrestlers, FIR, and nationwide outrage

Attempt to Drown out Wrestlers’ Protest with Song and Dance About ‘Temple of Democracy’

When Will Society Hold Men Accountable for Patriarchy

WFI leadership accused of sexual harassment by Indian women wrestlers, absence of redressal mechanisms the focus

Battling the Indian sports industry: the cries for justice by women

The post Delhi Police on Brij Bhushan sexual harassment case: “Liable to be prosecuted and punished for sexual harassment, molestation and stalking” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Delhi police file chargesheet against BJP MP Brij Bhushan, submits cancellation report in POCSO Case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Lokur was speaking at a webinar on ‘The Wrestlers’ Struggle: Accountability of Institutions’ organised by ANHAD and the National Alliance of People’s Movement (NAPM). Other than him, Supreme Court advocates Vrinda Grover and Shahrukh Alam, and senior journalist Bhasha Singh were also a part of the panel. The programme was moderated by Anjali Bhardwaj, a transparency activist and founder of the Delhi-based Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS).

Justice Lokur questioned Delhi Police’s handling of the sexual harassment complaint 

Questioning the modus operandi of the Delhi Police while investigating the allegations, and their demand for “concrete evidence” in the form of audios or visuals, Justice Lokur said, “There was a peaceful candle march at Jantar Mantar in May. Later, the police came up with the idea to talk to 100 witnesses. Why was this necessary? It is not as if there was a whole crowd watching the sexual harassment of these girls. Now, the police say that they need audio and video evidence. What is going on? This is not done on the streets but behind closed doors. The investigation is for finding evidence. Otherwise, why have an investigation? The police could be handed all the material to prosecute the fellow and send him to jail.”

Justice Lokur also expressed his surprise over the criminal charges of disturbing the law and order and rioting that were levelled against the protesting wrestlers after they had been detained by the Delhi Police on the day that the new parliament building was inaugurated. He said that the wrestlers who were been protesting against the alleged inaction of the State machinery were ill-treated by the Police. He said that “The complaint of rioting has not been withdrawn. Theoretically, therefore, now these wrestlers who came there as victims of crime have now become the accused. Look at the turn of events. The police also said that they could not come back to the Jantar Mantar to protest,” the retired judge said. 

He also accused the Delhi Police of being complicit, saying, “It is quite obvious that the police is mixed up. They do not want allegations to be proved and they don’t want the investigation to proceed.” 

He further questioned the fairness of the investigation being conducted in the said case. He provided that it has been reiterated and emphasized by the Supreme Court that the investigation of the police needs to be conducted independently, and yet the sports minister know when the report was going to be submitted. Justice Lokur said said, “When the wrestlers threatened to immerse their medals in Ganga as an act of protest, the sports minister assured that the probe would be completed by June 15. But, the question is, how did the minister know? This is something which only the investigating officer, or his superior, could say. Therefore, something is going on behind the scenes. This is very serious because the Supreme Court has said, in a number of judgments, that no one can interfere with an investigation. Not even the Supreme Court. Whether there has been any interference needs to be investigated, not that anyone will. But this is disconcerting to say the least.”

Justice Lokur expressed dissatisfaction over the decision to close the case by the SC

As stated by Justice Lokur, the Supreme Court of India ought to have monitored the investigation carried out by the Delhi Police into the allegations of sexual assault and criminal intimidation Singh. Notably, the women wrestlers had moved the top court seeking registration of an FIR against Singh. On April 28, the Delhi Police had informed a Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud that an FIR had been registered in the matter. On May 4, the Court closed the wrestlers’ petition taking note of the fact that the Delhi Police has already registered an FIR. The Supreme Court had then turned down women wrestlers’ demand for a court-monitored probe into their allegations of sexual harassment against Singh and closed the proceedings on their petition “for now”, saying an FIR had already been lodged against him. However, it had given liberty to the petitioners to move the jurisdictional magistrate court or the high court for further relief.

Criticising the Court’s approach, the former Supreme Court judge said that the court should have asked the Delhi Police as to why the wrestlers “had” to move the Supreme Court to get an FIR filed in the first place, and should have monitored whether the police is performing their other duties or not. In addition to this, Justice Lokur also expressed his concerns about the fairness of the police investigation, highlighting, in particular, the ‘threat perception’ that  which the Supreme Court had itself acknowledged when it directed one of the complainants, a minor girl, to be provided with security:

“The petition before the Supreme Court questioned why an FIR had not been registered despite it being a cognisable offence. The court issued notice to the police in April and then they come out very magnanimously and agreed to register an FIR. This suggests that there was some substance in the complaint. The first thing the Supreme Court ought to have done is ask why an FIR had not been lodged before the matter was listed, which it did not do. In an affidavit, the court was also informed that there was a threat to the life of the wrestlers. On the next date of hearing, the bench directed police protection to be given which suggests that the life threat indicated to SC was perhaps real. Before the hearing, there was a scuffle that took place in Jantar Mantar where some drunk police officials manhandled the wrestlers, which the court must have been aware of since news about the incident was published in the newspaper. However, during the hearing, the bench said that the petitioners could approach the jurisdictional magistrate or the Delhi High Court in case of anything further. This should not have been said by the Supreme Court.”

Justice Lokur proceeded to substantiate his stance by saying:

“The whole thing suggests that the Delhi Police was slow and the wrestlers were under a threat, which the Supreme Court accepted. Keeping in mind the delay in lodging an FIR, even though it was a case of aggravated sexual assault, and the threat perception, the Supreme Court ought to have monitored the investigation so that nothing goes wrong. The Supreme Court has in the past monitored investigations, not with the view to see that the persons against whom the cases are filed are convicted, but to see that things don’t go wrong, especially in cases involving politically well-connected persons such as the Jain Hawala case in the 90s…In some other cases also because of the nature of the case or persons involved, the court monitors the investigation to see that it does not get derailed. In my view, the court did not fully appreciate the position when they decided to not monitor the investigation. I think they should have.”

Justice Lokur on the Oversight Committee:

Besides this, the former judge also questioned the government’s refusal to make the report of the oversight committee publicly available. According to him, the main driving point behind the wrestlers approaching the Supreme Court was the failure of the government to ‘make public’ the report of an oversight committee established to look into the allegations against Singh as well as the Delhi Police’s refusal to file a first information report (FIR). 

 “The contents of the report were a big secret to everyone, but why? An adverse presumption could be drawn here, as lawyers put it. The first thing that would have been done if the report was in favour of the accused person was that it would have been made public. Therefore, the first presumption is that the report is against the person against whom allegations have been made. The refusal to make the report public, and register and FIR were what drove the wrestlers to protest on the streets.”

Justice Lokur said that the complainants were re-victimised in this case

Earlier this month, in a shocking yet no so surprising turn of events, the father of the underage wrestler, on the strength of whose complaint a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was registered against Singh gave another statement alleging that no sexual harassment had been suffered by the minor wrestlers at the hands of Singh. He said that he and his daughter had made ‘false allegations’ against the WFI president, while also openly talking about the threats and fear their family was facing. With respect to this, Justice Lokur said:

“The minor was interrogated in the presence of four constables for about five hours – till 9:30 PM. What was the need to interrogate for this long when she has already given a written statement? This is nothing but re-victimisation. You have said this. Now, prove what you have said. This is what re-victimisation is all about and all courts have come down heavily against it. Why could they not have proceeded on the basis of the statement made by the minor to a magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC? Another girl was taken to the office, which they said was the scene of the crime. The scene of the crime is the person! It is the complainants’ bodily integrity that has been tampered with. What else is re-victimisation?”

With respect to the police’s intention to secure testimonies of witnesses from foreign countries where the crime was allegedly committed by Brij Bhushan, Justice Lokur said, “Can this be secured by June 15? The sports minister’s assurance has no meaning. Secondly, what kind of information are they hoping to get? These incidents – the sexual assault, stalking – did not take place in public.”

Justice Lokur further said that “Rather than investigating the offence that has allegedly taken place, it seems directed to showing that the accused is innocent and that the wrestlers – including the minor – are saying something false. This appears to be the purpose. Investigations must be fair and unbiased. They cannot take place when persons are under threat. Assuming the matter goes to court, any defence lawyer worth their salt will be able to shred the case to pieces with this background. They will either say that the accused is not guilty or is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. That is the end of the story.”

Justice Lokur on arresting POSCO and sexual harassment accused Singh

“It appears to me,” the retired judge said, “That what is going to happen is a foregone conclusion.” He added, “Brij Bhushan is a powerful, well-connected person, who has not been arrested despite the allegation being one of aggravated sexual assault. He is out there making speeches. Evidence shows that witnesses have been threatened – maybe not by Brij Bhushan directly. Evidence is being tampered with, with the minor and her father going back on their initial statement being an indication of this. In this country, even a person who does not have a passport is arrested, despite not being a flight risk. All the events must be looked at as a whole, and not in isolation.”

During the said webinar, Justice Lokur also pointed out that the WFI did not have a committee to deal with complaints of sexual harassment, as has been mandated by law.

(This copy is based on reports published by LiveLaw and other media)

Related:

Protesting wrestlers will resume stir, say govt not ready to arrest WFI chief by June 15

“I changed my statement because I was scared, my family is living under constant threat”: father of the minor wrestlers’ complainant

From deathly silence to violence: The journey of wrestlers struggling for justice

Protests erupt at Delhi police violent crackdown on Women Wrestlers, FIR, and nationwide outrage

Attempt to Drown out Wrestlers’ Protest with Song and Dance About ‘Temple of Democracy’

When Will Society Hold Men Accountable for Patriarchy

WFI leadership accused of sexual harassment by Indian women wrestlers, absence of redressal mechanisms the focus

Battling the Indian sports industry: the cries for justice by women

The post Clear case of re-victimisation: Former SC judge Madan B Lokur on Delhi Police’s handling of women wrestlers case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In January and then again in April this year, top women wrestlers including Vinesh Phogat and Bajrang Punia had alleged that coach Mahavir Prasad Bishnoi had threatened the complainants levelling serious sexual harassment allegations against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP with consequences if they did not withdraw their complaints.

Phogat and Punia had even said that along with the secretary general of the Haryana Wrestling Association Rakesh Singh, Bishnoi had allegedly offered bribes to the complainants and their families to “keep quiet”. Bishnoi had rubbished these claims as “baseless allegations” and was quoted by news agency PTI as saying that he did not even know who the victims were.

“If it’s proved that I am involved in giving threat calls, I am ready to be hanged,” Bishnoi had said at the time. Brij Bhushan had also made similar claims while denying that he sexually harassed the wrestlers. Interestingly, Bishnoi was given the Dronacharya Award in 2014, the country’s highest honour for sports coaches.

What the FIR says

A copy of a 2017 FIR registered in the Daryaganj Police Station has been accessed by The Wire and shows that Bishnoi was accused by a former woman wrestler of sustained sexual harassment and casteist verbal abuse. The allegations she makes in the FIR are significant as they point to enormous abuse of power by Bishnoi.

The FIR mentions Sections 354 and 354A (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty),  509 (outraging the modesty of a woman), section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

Alongside are sections of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which pertain to the outraging of modesty of an ST or SC woman, intentionally harassing, insulting or humiliating an ST or SC woman, and intentionally touching or sexually gesturing at an ST or SC woman.

The complainant was a national level wrestler who won medals in various national competitions in the past. Bishnoi was her chief coach, she noted in the complaint. Through the course of her training period, Bishnoi asked her for sexual favours, placing graphic verbal demands in some instances, her complaint said. The Wire is withholding her name and the division in which she worked to protect her identity at the request of her lawyer.

The complainant alleged that once, in New Delhi, he made demands to be dropped on her scooter, and touched her inappropriately from behind. The woman writes in the FIR that because Bishnoi is an “influential person”, she did not file a complaint initially. This emboldened him, she wrote, and on “numerous occasions during wrestling practice” he would touch her “very inappropriately on [her] chest, back and all over [her] body”.

The woman complainant also noted that he often deliberately made physical contact with her in order to be able to sexually harass her. On many occasions, he would address her caste and community in his insults, she said, and stressed that she should not “get disturbed by his actions” considering her caste background.

“He further said that as I am a Scheduled Caste woman I have no character and the heavens would not fall if he touches me. He said things which meant that being a Scheduled Caste woman I am of loose character. He would often ask for sexual favours and believed that because I am Scheduled Caste, I will not raise my voice and [am] an easy prey,” the complaint reads.

He would also often ask her to go to a hotel and repeatedly describe the nature of sexual favours he wanted, she charged. Once, her FIR says, he arrived at her players’ quarters – in which men were not allowed – and sexually assaulted her. Upon learning that she was pregnant, he asked her to get an abortion. During the period of her pregnancy too, Bishnoi would make various sexual demands of her.

Just before a board was to decide on the final team, while the players waited at Rajghat, Bishnoi insisted that the wrestler, who was pregnant at the time, engage in sexual activities with him, the FIR says. He threatened her with actual ouster from the team if she refused.

Others who were at the venue, she writes, saw her crying and she told them that the coach had been telling her “wrong things”.

Finally, in May 2017, the woman lodged a formal complaint against the coach and received threats not just from Bishnoi but also one Rajeev who called the woman’s husband and asked them to drop the case. They were also offered bribes by Bishnoi and Rajeev, they said.

“We were under constant fear for our lives,” the woman wrote in her complaint. She and her husband also lodged a complaint at the Sunlight Police Station. Even before the enquiry began, she was transferred to a different city. The fact that she was eight months pregnant, she notes, led her to believe that Bishnoi may have had a hand in this deputation.

The woman noted that she was eventually “weeded out of the team”.

What Bishnoi and the lawyers said

The case is still being heard at a special Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act court. Bishnoi’s counsel is Rajiv Mohan, the public prosecutor in the Nirbhaya case. Mohan said that the survivor has not recorded her statement yet.

“Sometimes she appears and sometimes she excuses herself, citing illness or her husband’s illness,” he said. But Mohan added that she has appeared “almost on all the dates” set by the court, including on the last one.

However the complainant survivor’s counsel, who asked not to be named, said that this claim was false and that Bishnoi’s lawyers do not appear on designated court dates. He also said that she has insisted on being cross questioned on the same day as when she gives her statement, but it was the other side has been insisting that she give her statement on one day and is cross questioned on a later date.

Rajiv Mohan, Bishnoi’s lawyer, also said that the case was one prompted by rivalry between two groups. This is a claim that Bishnoi also made to the media.  Speaking at some length, Bishnoi said that he was the victim of the case and that all charges against him were false. “As coach of the [redacted department] I had to select four girls and tried to train her [the survivor] in the sport. But she got married, without informing me, and also became pregnant. She asked for medical leaves and I eventually had to tell her to leave the team,” he said.

When asked if pregnant women in the team were entitled to leaves, Bishnoi said that they get two years and six months of maternity leave. Bishnoi also claimed that the department complaint filed against him by the woman led to his suspension and the loss of “one or two promotions”.

“Although the department enquiry found that I was absolutely spotless, I eventually had to leave this job and took on a new role at SAI. I was the only Dronacharya awardee at that department and they did this to me,” he said.

Bishnoi further said that his experience was that in the last two decades, 18 out of the 20 cases of harassment filed by women have been proven false. When questioned on where women who feel like they are victims of gender crimes should go, Bishnoi said that there is a clear system in place within India’s wrestling infrastructure.

He then said, “Men are scared of women in wrestling. Women need rights, it’s true, but men also need some. You don’t know, but men have been committing suicide. I myself know of such cases. My department suspended me but they should have suspended the woman instead.”

Bishnoi also said that he did not see caste among his team’s players and claimed that SC/ST Act charges were added to harass him further. However, the woman’s lawyer said Bishnoi’s talk of rivalry was an attempt to divert from the main aspect of the case – but was not a surprise. “They function in this way. Either you succumb to their demands or you are out of the sport,” he said.

The case will next be heard on July 24.

Related

Protesting wrestlers will resume stir, say govt not ready to arrest WFI chief by June 15

“I changed my statement because I was scared, my family is living under constant threat”: father of the minor wrestlers’ complainant

FIRs suggest wrestlers had informed PM about their repeated sexual trauma in 2021

Protests and Mahapanchayats announced in support of the protesting wrestlers, 5 days given till medals are immersed in Ganga River

Farmers to hold countrywide demonstrations in support of women wrestlers: SKM

Protesting wrestlers will immerse their medals in the Ganga, an indefinite hunger strike will follow

From deathly silence to violence: The journey of wrestlers struggling for justice

Protesting wrestlers manhandled by drunk Delhi police officer at night, supporters and journalists detained

WFI leadership accused of sexual harassment by Indian women wrestlers, absence of redressal mechanisms the focus

The post Coach accused of threatening Brij Bhushan complainants was also named in a wrestler’s 2017 sexual harassment FIR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Sunday, June 11, Singh organised a 50-jeep, roadshow that ran for 35 kilometres in his eastern Uttar Pradesh constituency of Kaisarganj before he addressed the  rally. The ostensible reason was to laud the performance of the nine-year-old Modi government, which Singh did, his shawl sporting an image of a the shawl-clad Modi himself.

Interestingly, at this rally organised by the Bharatiya Janata Party to give their sexual harassment-accused MP a platform, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh said that will be contesting the 2024 polls despite the serious allegations made against him by several of India’s medal-winning wrestlers. The ‘Mahasampark Abhiyan’ was organised to celebrate nine years of the Narendra Modi regime.

Several BJP leaders from Uttar Pradesh shared the stage with Singh in Gonda, and the chief guest was Mohan Yadav, minister of state for higher education in Madhya Pradesh. Singh wore a scarf with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s face on it.

On being asked at the rally about whether he will contest in 2024, Singh said, as reported in The Hindu, “Kaiserganj se chunav ladunga (I will contest election from Kaiserganj).” He also claimed that the BJP would win all Lok Sabha seats in Uttar Pradesh. “The BJP will form a majority government in 2024 under Modi ji’s leadership,” he continued.

“The main objective is to tell Prime Minister Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah that he is in a position to damage the BJP’s prospects in Kaisarganj, Gonda, Balrampur, Faizabad and Shravasti constituencies, from where his supporters came to participate in the public meeting held after the road show,” the associate, who didn’t want to be identified, said.

Singh’s fate hangs in the balance till June 15.

One of Singh’s team told The Telegraph, that the objective was to show the BJP’s central leadership that Singh enjoys large-scale political clout in his region. “The main objective is to tell Prime Minister Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah that even after the serious allegations against him being made public, he is still in a position to damage the BJP’s prospects in Kaisarganj, Gonda, Balrampur, Faizabad and Shravasti constituencies, from where his supporters came to participate in the public meeting held after the road show,” the aid said.

The motive behind the regime’s reluctance to act against the UP strongman is clear. The Modi government has so far stonewalled the wrestlers’ demand to have him arrested, apparently because it believes he can deliver the BJP a handful of seats in next year’s general election.

Just last week, Union Sports minister Anurag Thakur has assured the wrestlers that the Delhi police, who report to the Union home ministry, would complete their probe by June 15 and file a chargesheet. The associate further said Singh was aware of speculation that Modi and Shah might ask him to resign as MP, and that Shah might ask the police to arrest him. “But he is not ready to submit. In fact, he has defied party rules by declaring at the rally that he would contest from Kaisarganj in 2024,” the associate said.

A poll committee formed by the BJP before elections is alone authorised to pick the candidates. The roads along Singh’s jeep rally from his home in Vishnoharpur village to Balpur were largely empty. The saffron-clad MP stopped at about 10 places to be garlanded by a few dozen waiting supporters.

The public meeting that followed at Balpur, held ostensibly to celebrate the Modi government’s completion of nine years, attracted about 10,000 people. The six-time MP read out a Hindi couplet at the beginning of his speech and then declared: “I will contest again from Kaisarganj.”

The couplet was about continuing affection amid betrayal, but Singh refused to explain its significance to reporters after the event. “This is how I am,” he said and got into his car. Mohan Yadav, minister of state for higher education in Madhya Pradesh, was the chief guest at the meeting and several local BJP leaders were on the dais. 

Ask Amit Shah: Vinesh Phogat

Meanwhile, Vinesh Phogat, the double world medallist, on Sunday joined the protesting farmers in Punjab and on her way spoke to the media at Khatkar Toll Plaza in Haryana, PTI reported. Asked about the meeting the wrestlers had with home minister Shah, Phogat said: “They had given a few proposals that they can do that much for us but except the arrest of Brij Bhushan, everything is happening.”

When questioned on why Singh is not being arrested, the firebrand wrestler said: “You have to ask Amit Shah, why he (WFI chief) is not being arrested. He is such a powerful man that the government is trying to shield him. So getting him arrested is not easy but we are continuing our fight.”

There is speculation, the aide said, that Modi and Shah may ask Singh to resign or even order his arrest – but Singh is unwilling to accept this. “But he is not ready to submit. In fact, he has defied party rules by declaring at the rally that he would contest from Kaisarganj in 2024,” the associate told The Telegraph.

Singh did not directly talk about the allegations against him or the wrestlers’ ongoing protest, but started his speech with a couplet suggesting that he is the one being victimised. “Kabhi ashq, kabhi gham, to kabhi zeher piya jata hai. Tab jakar jamane me jiya jata hai. Yeh mila mujhko mohabbat ka sila, bewafa kehke mera naam liya jata hai. Isko ruswai kahen ki shohrat apni, dabe hontho se mera naam liya jata hai [Sometimes you drink tears, sometimes sadness, and at times poison. Only then do you live in society. This is the reward I have received for my love; they call me unfaithful. Call it notoriety or fame, they take my name with pursed lips].”

Announcing Sunday’s rally last week, Singh had said on Twitter, “I am organising a huge rally on June 11 at 10 am. This program is proposed at Shri Raghuraj Sharan Singh Mahavidyalaya, next to Balapur on Gonda-Lucknow road. All the supporters, workers, present and former office bearers of the party, respected Pradhan, Chhetrapanchayat members, block chiefs, presidents of municipalities, councilors, district panchayat members, district panchayat presidents and MLAs are cordially invited in the rally.”

Earlier, Singh had cancelled a rally planned in Ayodhya.

It is crucial to remember that Singh, who was the president of the Wrestling Federation of India, is currently facing criminal charges based on complaints of seven women wrestlers that he sexually harassed them. Wrestlers have been protesting against the government’s alleged inaction against the MP since January 2023. During recent discussions with Union home minister Amit Shah and sports minister Anurag Thakur, the wrestlers were reportedly promised that the police would complete its probe by June 15.

Related:

Protesting wrestlers will resume stir, say govt not ready to arrest WFI chief by June 15

“I changed my statement because I was scared, my family is living under constant threat”: father of the minor wrestlers’ complainant

FIRs suggest wrestlers had informed PM about their repeated sexual trauma in 2021

Battling the Indian sports industry: the cries for justice by women

Protests and Mahapanchayats announced in support of the protesting wrestlers, 5 days given till medals are immersed in Ganga River

Wrestler Protest: Law student moves NHRC, files complaint over the detention & brutal police action against protesting wrestlers

From deathly silence to violence: The journey of wrestlers struggling for justice

Protests erupt at Delhi police violent crackdown on Women Wrestlers, FIR, and nationwide outrage

Attempt to Drown out Wrestlers’ Protest with Song and Dance About ‘Temple of Democracy’

The post Warning or threat, accused MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh sends ‘message’ to BJP’s top brass: UP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Now, with the ultimatum issued by protesting wrestlers to the Union government drawing to a close, Bajrang Punia reiterated on Saturday, June 10that if the government is not ready to arrest Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, who facing sexual harassment allegations, by June 15, their protest would resume.

Following Tikait’s intervention a flurry of meetings with representatives of the union government followed last week. Following one such meeting with the Union sports minister Anurag Thakur, last week news reports on a minor’s complaint being withdrawn had re-surfaced. Today, Saturday June 10 they have stated that they will resume their protest if the government does not arrest Singh by June 15. Thakur, in his meeting with wrestlers earlier this week, had assured that the investigation into the allegations against Singh would be concluded by June 15, and a new WFI chief to be elected by June end. The written assurances from the government did not, however, mention Singh’s arrest.

Punia and other protesting wrestlers held a Mahapanchayat with Khap leaders in Haryana’s Sonipat on Saturday, June 10. They said they had shared the details of their discussions with the government with the Khap leaders at the Mahapanchayat.

“After June 15, we will decide where to start the protest again,” Sakshi Malik thereafter told NDTV  after observing that the government is not serious about arresting Singh.

While noting that efforts are being made by supporters of the government to spread the narrative that there is disunity among wrestlers, she said, “I want to make one thing clear, I, Bajrang, and Vinesh (Phogat) are one and will remain one.”

Furthermore, they also asserted that they will not participate in the Asian Games slated to be held later this year unless their demands are not met. “We will participate in the Asian Games only when all these issues will be resolved. You can’t understand what we’re going through mentally each day,” said 2016 Olympics medal-winning wrestler Malik.

The Delhi Police on Friday, June 9,  had taken wrestler Sangeeta Phogat to Singh’s official residence in Delhi to recreate the sequence of events at the scene of the crime that led to the sexual harassment of which he has been accused. While procedurally correct as per law, there is a question on the propriety of conducting this exercise while the accused politician was in residence.

The Delhi Police is likely to submit in court its report by next week, officials in the know of things said. So far, 180 people have been quizzed in connection with two FIRs filed in the case.

Sections of the media continue the misinformation campaign, however. Vinesh Phogat, Sangeeta’s sister, took to Twitter alleging that fake news is being spread about her sister’s presence at Singh’s residence on Friday, saying that she had gone there to work out a compromise with him. Vinesh clarified that Sangeeta was taken there by the police to recreate the scene.

“This is the power of Brij Bhushan. He is busy harassing women wrestlers by using his muscle power, political power and running false narratives. If the police arrests him instead of breaking us, there is hope of justice, otherwise no,” Vinesh wrote on Twitter in Hindi.

This is not the first time that fake news is being spread about protesting wrestlers. Earlier, it was said that they had ended their protest following the resumption of their regular duties in railways. The wrestlers dismissed them as mere rumuors, being spread with the intention to break them and defame them.

Related:

“I changed my statement because I was scared, my family is living under constant threat”: father of the minor wrestlers’ complainant

From deathly silence to violence: The journey of wrestlers struggling for justice

Protests erupt at Delhi police violent crackdown on Women Wrestlers, FIR, and nationwide outrage

Attempt to Drown out Wrestlers’ Protest with Song and Dance About ‘Temple of Democracy’

When Will Society Hold Men Accountable for Patriarchy

The post Protesting wrestlers will resume stir, say govt not ready to arrest WFI chief by June 15 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On late hours of Thursday, news of the minor complaint’s father issuing a “confession” hit the headlines, just a day after a false news was circulated that the minor has withdrawn her complaint. In the said statement, the father of the minor wrestler has also confessed to levelling a false sexual harassment allegation against Singh because he wanted “revenge” for his daughter’s rejection in the U-17 Asian Championship.

“I was filled with rage that my child’s one-year hard work had gone down the drain because of that referee’s decision in the final and I decided to take revenge,” he stated to PTI.

The father of the minor had also stated that his anger was directed towards the WFI chief because the referee was selected by Brij Bhushan Singh. “The federation appointed the referee (in the match against the minor wrestler which she lost). Who heads the federation? Who else should I be angry at?” PTI quoted the father of the minor, as saying. It is pertinent to noted, that it was based on the said complaint filed by the father of the minor that a second FIR was filed against Singh on April 28 at Connaught Place police station under IPC sections 354, 354(A), 354(D), 34 and section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The minor’s father, also the complainant, in the FIR had narrated in detail several instances when his daughter was allegedly sexually harassed by the WFI chief. He had claimed that Mr. Singh had “touched her inappropriately” and asked her to “support him, if she needed his support”. He had also alleged that his daughter was “completely disturbed and cannot be at peace anymore …sexual harassment by the accused (Singh) continues to haunt her”. The father also alleged that Brij Bhushan forcefully pulled his daughter towards him and molested her.

He also alleged that Singh had discriminated against his daughter. “To my utter shock, my daughter was hugely discriminated against,” he had said in the FIR.

However, after multiple reports claimed that the girl had withdrawn the complaint and a lot of confusion was created, the minor complainant’s father had told The Hindu that they recorded a fresh statement denying any incident of sexual harassment. However, it has been provided by the father that they have not withdrawn the complaint where they have alleged that Singh discriminated against his daughter.

He said, “We have not taken back any complaint, we have just recorded another statement before the magistrate on June 5, where we have alleged that he discriminated against her when it came to wrestling, and he did not sexually harass her,” the Hindu reported. On being asked why he filed the false case, the girl’s father said “he was fuelled by anger against him because his daughter lost in last year’s trial match”. “We are telling the truth so that it comes out while investigation is under way,” he added.

Elaborating on the same, he said, “My daughter was deliberately made to lose because of the staff that was on duty and the opponent, and everybody hailed from Delhi, which isn’t right according to the rules. I did complain regarding the discrimination to the Federation, but nobody heard me,” as provided by the Hindu. He said he was angry. “I felt disheartened and I was angry and why shouldn’t I be? Mr. Singh was biased against her, I had to sell my house to train my daughter. We only had three options: to get her married, educated or get her into sports. Now, we don’t know what her future will be.” “I understand that we made a mistake and we would like to rectify it,” he said, adding that the referee’s decision, in the trial match, was influenced by Singh.

“The police complaint that we have given, is somewhat true and partly false and we’ve cleared everything that is right and wrong,” he said. When the Hindu asked him about the allegations that his daughter isn’t a minor, he asserted that she is a minor and that they have provided the investigators with “legal documents pertaining to her identity”.

On Singh, the minor’s father said that he has “nothing against him, apart from the anger over how his daughter was treated”. “I will continue to stand with the wrestlers, who have always supported us since day one. What happened to the women is wrong,” the father of the complaint said.

Minor cannot ‘withdraw’ complaint against Brij Bhushan: Lawyer Vrinda Grover explains

Speaking to The News Minutes, and commenting on whether the reported retraction of allegations by the minor is contradictory, Vrinda Grover explained how this is the most normal, natural, and commonsensical thing to happen. Even if the minor did give another statement to the magistrate, lawyer and activist Vrinda Grover points out that calling this a “withdrawal” of the charges or complaint is a legal fallacy. She also said that since a large section of the media panders to the Union government’s power, such reportage creates confusion in the minds of people.

The minor and six other wrestlers had previously filed complaints against Brij Bhushan in April 2023. Speaking to TNM, Grover elaborated that statements by the minor wrestler, are deposed before a magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). “All 164 statements carry evidentiary value because they are made to a magistrate and signed by the maker of the statement. But such statements still have to be examined before a criminal trial court for their veracity to be established. No complainant can simply give a statement contradicting their previous one and take back their complaint or allegations. Such reportage by the media is not only the wrong interpretation of the law but also confusing,” she said.

“No matter how many statements the complainant gives, she will have to step into the witness box before the court and speak under oath. Since here the complainant is a minor, she will be given the required privacy and witness protection, and her statements will be examined by the court to arrive at their validity. So this is not a “withdrawal” of a complaint or evidence of the accused’s innocence. Once an FIR is filed in a criminal case, it has to be adjudged by a court of law. A crime is considered a wrong against society and the state is duty-bound to prosecute the accused before the law,” she added

Unveiling the fear that victims and survivors face

‘Changed my statement because I was scared’

While most of the media is focusing on the “confession” given by the father of the minor complainant’s father, and the withdrawal of the sexual harassment allegations against Singh, not much attention is being given to real confession that the father made, which is the pressure and threats that the family has been facing since they came out with their story. The father has revealed that he has been living in fear and was threatened. “I changed my statement in court not because of greed but because I was scared… scared for my family, daughter and myself. Many lives have changed since we raised the allegations. I have to face the society and the people, I was threatened by people, whose names I can’t reveal, and my family is living in intense fear. If anything happens to me or my daughter, how will we live?” he had told The Hindu.

This was not the first time that the minor complaint and the six other women wrestlers have come out and raised the issue of threats of dire consequences and inducements of money were being made to them. Even on the third day of the protest, the two-time World Championship medallist Vinesh Phogat, who has been leading the wrestler protest, said threats were being made to ‘break the resolve’ of the complainants. Tokyo Olympics bronze medalist Bajrang Punia had also accused Singh’s coterie of threatening the family of the minor, the result of which can be seen today.

“They are trying to threaten the minor victim and pressure is being put on the family members to withdraw the complaint. We have learned that one of the people threatening them is a coach who is a Dronacharya-award winner and the other is the secretary of the Haryana Wrestling Association. They went to her house and are putting pressure on the family and also offered money. They want her to take the complaint back. Those women wrestlers who have filed complaints against the WFI president are being threatened too,” Bajrang had said as had been reported by the Indian Express.

Yesterday, after the father of the minor gave the above-mentioned statements, Phogat tweeted the following on her Twitter handle: “Will the daughters get justice in the atmosphere of fear and intimidation???” Vinesh wrote

In another tweet, she said, “May these daughters not lose courage one by one because of the delay in this fight for justice??? God give courage to all.”

It will not be a reach to say that considering the amount of state-sanctioned abuse, violence and pressure was being meted out to the protesting wrestlers, this particular piece of news did not surprise anyone, but rather re-iterated the power that men like Singh, and those supporting, him have in our country. The power exerted by this man is such that no arrest has been made, and rather it is the complainants only who are suffering. Besides, this this is not the first case where the complaint has redacted their statements, succumbing to the political and societal pressure put on them, as was witnessed in the Gujarat 2002, Vadodara’s famed Best Bakery case and the Sohrabuddin Sheikh extra judicial killings case. While in the first, Best Bakery, following a Registrar General, Supreme Court’s inquiry, the circumstances that caused prime witness Zahira Shaikh to commit perjury were revealed and she was ordered to serve a year’s of simple imprisonment, the Sohrabuddin case simply fell through the cracks with justice an elusive commodity.

It is a shame that a minor woman, who found the strength to fight against the wrongdoings committed by a powerful and politically backed man against her consent and her body, had to take a step back owing to the threats faced by her and her family.

Questions should now be raised over the continued delay in the arrest of the WFI chief and filing of the charge sheet. Additionally, a need for conducting an inquiry to probe the delay in the case has arisen, to investigate the circumstances leading to this situation where witnesses are being compromised.

Is the police bound by the statement of the father of the complainant?

It is essential to note that even after the father of the complainant has issued the above-mentioned statements, the Delhi police can still proceed with its probe. The statement of the father will not held to be “decisive” of the said case as one the FIR was lodged, the State took over the case and was pursuing it. Thus, the Delhi police is not bound to accept the statement of the father, and it can still pursue the case because the statement of the minor is already there on record under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Notably, a statement recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 is admissible in court.

The statement of the father will now act as an additional element which the police may look into, and if it finds that the case is false, then it can take action as required by law. Therefore, the power resides with the police to investigate whether this withdrawal by father of the complainant is genuine or coerced, and whether it amounts to perjury or not.

Related:

FIRs suggest wrestlers had informed PM about their repeated sexual trauma in 2021

Battling the Indian sports industry: the cries for justice by women

Protests and Mahapanchayats announced in support of the protesting wrestlers, 5 days given till medals are immersed in Ganga River

Wrestler Protest: Law student moves NHRC, files complaint over the detention & brutal police action against protesting wrestlers

From deathly silence to violence: The journey of wrestlers struggling for justice

Protests erupt at Delhi police violent crackdown on Women Wrestlers, FIR, and nationwide outrage

Attempt to Drown out Wrestlers’ Protest with Song and Dance About ‘Temple of Democracy’

When Will Society Hold Men Accountable for Patriarchy

Farmers announce nationwide agitation in support of #WomenChampionWrestlers

Protesting wrestlers manhandled by drunk Delhi police officer at night, supporters and journalists detained

Independent mechanisms on sexual harassment at workplace imperative, NWMI stands in solidarity with women wrestlers

WFI leadership accused of sexual harassment by Indian women wrestlers, absence of redressal mechanisms the focus

https://cjp.org.in/the-2004-best-bakery-judgement-and-its-significance/

https://sabrangindia.in/themes-category/temple-justice-best-bakery-judgement/

https://cjp.org.in/restore-press-freedom-allow-coverage-of-soharbuddin-trial-buj-media-to-hc/

The post “I changed my statement because I was scared, my family is living under constant threat”: father of the minor wrestlers’ complainant appeared first on SabrangIndia.