[IAC#RG] NHRC case no. 1390/25/18/2014-PF - Objection - Is NHRC India wants to prophet killers in uniform?

6 November 2018

To,

The Chairman

National Human Rights Commission

Manav Adhikar Bhawan

Block-C, G.P.O Complex, INA

 New Delhi-110023

 

Respected Sir,

I have received the direction of the commission through the letter dated 28.08.2018 in connection with the above referred case. The Commission closed the case on the basis of the police report and gave much reliance on the illegitimate self defense made by the BSF authority. I want to submit an open protest letter against the decision of the Commission.

1.    It is revealed from the direction letter that the Commission was sure about the gunshot injuries on the person of the deceased. But there are some anomalies in the inquiry report made by the BSF and their complaint at Hili police station. The BSF report stated that HC N Chakraborty fired one round of pump gun shot in right of private defence. But how many number of rounds fired by CT PK Basumatry was not mentioned in the BSF report, but in the complaint at Hili Police Station it was mentioned by BSF that CT PK Basumatry fired 06 rounds from his service rifle.

2.    Secondly, regarding the matter of self defense theory upon which the Commission gave much reliance, I think while force used by a state in self defence it must meet the demands of proportionality and there is confusion over the meaning of the term in this jus ad bellum, in this context. May a state that has been attacked use force in order to deter the attacker from mounting further attacks? From the BSF and police report it does not appear that the guidelines issued by the commission in case of encounter death were being followed in this case in their true spirit. Even there was no proper and independent investigation in respect of this case. The following questions which were very much relevant were being rejected by the inquiry authority.

·         Whether the killing of the victim was in the legitimate exercise of right to self defense or not?

·         Whether the use of force was proportionate or not to the resistance offered?

·         Is it believable that a group of BSF trying to arrest a person who was attempting to evade the arrest and since in his attempt to evade the arrest he used force, and the BSF returned the force of and caused the victim's death?

Most joking part of this case is that your authority without sending me full action taken report submitted by Shri Uttam Ghosh, Deputy Superintendent of police, South Dinajpur, closed this case. Even I am debarred from inspecting the post mortem examination report and inquest report of the deceased victim. In this way without giving me any chance to comment on the report, the Commission closed the whole matter to relief themselves from the burden to extend justice. Is the supreme human rights protecting agency has any right to snatch making comments and observations over the reports submitted by the perpetrators in unison? 

There are certain general principles on the effective prevention and investigation of extra judicial, arbitrary executions. The principles so framed by the UDHR are intended to guarantee independence while investigating state killings and help in preventing potential abuse, corruption, ineffectiveness and neglect in investigation.

This is a clear case of violation to the guidelines issued by the Commission in case of encounter deaths and violation of order passed by Director General of BSF upon his command force- "not to use lethal weapon at Indo- Bangladesh border".

Is NHRC presently rejected its own guidelines framed earlier on extra judicial killings? Is NHRC now justifying action taken by the trigger happy BSF?

While the United Nations Code of Conduct of Law Enforcement Officers (which includes all officers of law, who exercise police powers) lays down that in the performance of duties, Law enforcement officers shall respect and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold human rights of all persons, Your office without looking any facts or laws closed the case only relying the self defence theory made by the BSF, which is full of falsification and to shield a heinous crime committed.

This case is a very important one. Closing the case is not a solution towards the victims irrespective of their citizenry identity deserves right to life in accordance to the Article 21 of Indian Constitution. I appeal to your authority for strict implementation of the guidelines issued by the Commission in case of encounter death thereby extra judicial killings are properly and independently investigated so that proper justice may be done. 

Hence, I appeal to reopen the case.

 

Sincerely Yours,

Yours truly

 

 

Kirity Roy

Secretary, MASUM

--

Kirity Roy
Secretary
Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha
(MASUM)
&
National Convenor (PACTI)
Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity
40A, Barabagan Lane (4th Floor)
Balaji Place
Shibtala
Srirampur
Hooghly
PIN- 712203
Tele-Fax - +91-33-26220843
Phone- +91-33-26220845

Mobile (0) 9903099699
e. mail : kirityroy@gmail.com
Web: www.masum.org.in

Disclaimer:The information in this email is confidential and may be
legally priviledged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access
to this email by anyone else is unauthorised.If you are not the
intended recipient, disclosure,copying,distribution or any action
taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,it is prohibited and
may be unlawful.In such case,you should destrioy this message and
kindle notify kirityroy@gmail.com by reply email.

[IAC#RG] NHRC case no. 692/25/13/2018 - Objection - Victim Minor boy - Perpetrator BSF - NHRC closed the case upon police report - Police & BSF nexus.

Date: 5^th November, 2018

 

To,

The Chairman

National Human Rights Commission

Manav Adhikar Bhawan

Block-C, G.P.O Complex, INA

 New Delhi-110023

 

Reference: Your communication dated 11.10.2018

Original Complaint dated 18.04.2018

In connection with NHRC case no. 692/25/13/2018

 

Respected Sir,

In connection of the above referred case, the Commission sent one email communication dated 11.10.2018 to the complainant disclosing that the Commission closed the case.

The complainant is deeply aggrieved with the decision of the Commission and therefore, I beg to submit the present open letter of protest against the decision of the Commission.

In the direction issued by the Commission through the email on 31.08.2018, it is revealed that the Commission gives much reliance on some points for closing the case which are:-

(i)            A report dated 31.07.2018 has been filed by the SP, Murshidabad and from there it was reported that a case no. 71/18 dated 06.02.2018 u/s 325/34 IPC PS Raninagar which was also ended in FRMF being Raninagar PS FRMF no. 139/2018 dated 23.03.2018.

(ii)          From the report it was stated that the victim never visited the police station with any grievances, neither did he made any complaint to the commission.

(iii)         Since the IO has investigated the case and submitted a final report in the matter, no further intervention of the commission is required.                                                                                     

 

 

I want to submit my protest one by one following the above points.

1.    Firstly, after occurring the fateful incident, the family of the victim boy went to Raninagr Police Station for lodging complaint against the perpetrator BSF personnel, but the police refused to take complaint. On 19.01.2018 the mother of the victim boy sent a written complaint through registered post to the Superintendent of police, Murshidabad stating the incident and the same was delivered to the office of the SP, Murshidabad on 23.01.2018 but the victim's family did not receive any information from the police authority till date. But in your communication dated 11.10.2018 it is reported that a case no. 71/18 dated 06.02.2018 which was also ended with FRMF vide Raninagar PS FRMF no. 139/2018 dated 23.03.2018. I am totally in dark about some questions:

·         Who is the complainant in this case where it is stated the victim never visited the police station?

·         Did anyone inform the victim about the complaint made in connection with him?

·         Who is the Investigating Officer?

·         How did he investigate the case?

·         Did he record the statement of the victim and the witnesses?

·         What action he was taken against the perpetrator?

·         Where in various cases of serious natures, there is high delay in the investigation procedure, why within one month in this case final report has been submitted?

2.    Secondly, the Commission held that the victim never visited the police station with any grievances and he did not make a complaint to the Commission. This allegation against the victim is not true.  Previously I told it that the family of the victim went to Raninagar PS to lodge a complaint against the perpetrator BSF personnel but the police refused to take complaint. After that on 19.01.2018 the mother of the victim sent a written complaint to the SP, Murshidabad. So, the family of the victim repeatedly made complaint but authority remains in action less manner.

In the matter where the Commission questioned over that the victim did not make a complaint to the Commission. I again tell that your office does not give an active eye on the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 which is the guiding book. Section 12 of the above said Act clearly tells that the Commission shall perform any acts or inquire into the matter either suo moto or complaint by the victim or a complaint made on behalf of the victim. For your sightless eyes I again inform you that on behalf of the victim boy Master Sahajamal Seikh, the then secretary of MASUM Mr. Biplab Mukherjee submitted a written complaint to your authority on 18.04.2018.

3.    Thirdly, it is known to me that NHRC is a quasi judicial body who always try to protect the rights of human beings when it is infringed by the authority of the Government. It is completely strange to me what is the relation of submitted the final report by the IO with the closing of the case by the Commission? From the direction of the Commission it is known to me that the investigating officer submitted FRMF in respect of this case vide PS FRMF no. 139/2018. FRMF is submitted where informant filed unlike form of the case than what was truly happened.  Cases must not be reported as false unless they are clearly so. Mere probability will not suffice. In this case the investigating officer acts as a mere post office. Moreover, this is the case where the right of protection of a child against any kind of torture under the present National and International laws were violated by the BSF personnel. The Commission should not be rejected the case just based on a mere scrap of paper. The present act of the Commission denies the right to fair access to justice of the victim.

Moreover, the vital question is why does the Commission deny me to see the report submitted by the investigating officer of this case? And why it closed the case when your office did not send any investigation report to me?

 

Updated Information

Now on 06.07.2018 a notice was issued by the SDPO, Domkol to the victim boy Sahajamal Seikh and other two eye witnesses Saddam Molla son of Rajjak Molla and Mani Sk son of Allauddin Sk both are residing in Katlamari, Murshidabad to appear before his office on 10.07.2018 for enquiry of the case. The notice send by the SDPO to the victim boy is nothing but a gross violation of existing law of our country. Under Section 160(1) of Cr.P.C it is clearly laid down "no male person under the age of fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides." The victim boy who is just 14 years old and a student of class IX, out of fear complied the notice but as the SDPO was absent that day, one police officer named Debashis babu called them into his room and took several documents from their hands. After hearing the case they were forcefully signed on some blank papers by the above named officer and also given threat to brazen their name in criminal cases. These acts of the police personnel are derogative to the rule of law. Under Section 163(1) of Cr.P.C, no police officer or other person in authority shall offer or make or cause to be offered or made, any such inducement, threat or promise in the course of enquiry or investigation. In Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L.Dani (AIR 1978 SC 1025) the Apex Court held that any person cannot be coerced or influenced into giving a statement.

On 12.09.2018 mother of the victim boy Ms. Tagara Bibi w/o Lalchand Sk, of Katlamari, Murshidabad sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad complaining about the alleged police officer of Raninagar Police Station who threat them during the enquiry process and made a signed blank paper by them. But as usual no steps are taken.

The above mentioned narrative confirms the fact that the victim is now living a horrendous life. The police have not started any proceedings against the perpetrator B.S.F personnel and in other way maintain the unholy nexus between the two agencies in bordering district. The basic citizenry rights are continuously violated in such cases. It is a case where victim and witnesses of the brutal act upon 14 years old boy by B.S.F are forcefully bound to sign and asked for redressal by the police authority in association with the perpetrator.

Therefore, I request before your good authority to kindly send me the report of the investigating officer in detail, so that I would be able to furnish my comments on the report and Under the circumstance I request the Commission to accept the present letter as part of my complaint dated 18.04.2018 in the matter of the victim and pass necessary direction so that the victim and his family members could be provided adequate protection of law and they can pursue the hunt for justice against the perpetrator B.S.F personnel in a fearless and biased environment.

I know you already closed the case upon police report. Still it is my duty to inform you the cases of violation of human rights. Hence this is the updating of previous victim.

Your kind action in this matter would be highly solicited.

 

 

Thanking you,

Yours truly

 

 

Kirity Roy

Secretary, MASUM

&

National Convener, PACTI 

--

Kirity Roy
Secretary
Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha
(MASUM)
&
National Convenor (PACTI)
Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity
40A, Barabagan Lane (4th Floor)
Balaji Place
Shibtala
Srirampur
Hooghly
PIN- 712203
Tele-Fax - +91-33-26220843
Phone- +91-33-26220845

Mobile (0) 9903099699
e. mail : kirityroy@gmail.com
Web: www.masum.org.in

Disclaimer:The information in this email is confidential and may be
legally priviledged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access
to this email by anyone else is unauthorised.If you are not the
intended recipient, disclosure,copying,distribution or any action
taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,it is prohibited and
may be unlawful.In such case,you should destrioy this message and
kindle notify kirityroy@gmail.com by reply email.

[IAC#RG] CONTROVERSIAL JUDGEMENTS OF SUPREME COURT

To

India  Against Corruption

                                                                                                             CONTROVERSIAL JUDGEMENTS OF SUPREME COURT

Some of the recent judgements of Supreme court on matters such as adultery, homosexuality, entry of women of all age groups in Sabarimala temple, restricting bursting of crackers to two hours during Deepavali day have all become highly controversial. 

General understanding is that the judiciary should give verdict on the basis of laws enshrined in the Constitution and enacted by parliament from time to time. However, in recent years, Supreme court has no hesitation in entertaining cases that should be left to the administration to tackle as it involves no interpretation of law.

Further, in awarding the verdicts on several matters of public interest , Supreme Court judges appear to be guided by their own personal perspectives and do not take into consideration the traditional practices and public sentiments.

The net result is that several directives of the Supreme Court are not really observed in practice. Such situation is happening only because Supreme Court judges are not taking into consideration the practical scenario and the feasibility of implementing the verdict, given the public sentiments.

For example, the Supreme Court verdict on allowing women of all ages to enter Sabarimala temple cannot be implemented in view of the very strong opposition from devotees. Similarly, Supreme Court verdict that fire crackers should be burst only for two hours on Deepavali day is being defied by the people, as it is now seen that even a few days before Deepavali in Tamil Nadu crackers are being burst throughout the day.

It is high time that supreme Court judges should take a re look at their approach and appreciate the importance of taking holistic view on matters while delivering judgements, giving due weightage to public perspectives particularly on matters that involve no interpretation of law. 

N.S.Venkataraman
Nandini Voice For The Deprived
nandinivoice.com

[IAC#RG] VIGILANCE HAS TO BE ROUND THE YEAR

This week is being observed and focusing on Vigilance awareness but it is imperative that we need to be ever so vigilant every day of the year to ensure that Good Governance is the order of the day. It has been 13 long years since the Right to Information Act came into force on October 12^th 2005. But over these years however the greater challenge has been the actual implementation of the Act. Unless the RTI Act is further strengthened Good Governance, Transparency in the Administration and Zero Tolerance to Corruption will never be a reality. The Right to Information Act was enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in public life. But the manner in which the government is subtly subverting the Right to Information Act is a matter of concern.

The Right to Information is derived from our fundamental Right of expression under Article 19 of our Constitution.  If we do not have information on how our Government and public institutions function, we cannot express any informed opinion on it. This has been reiterated by various Supreme Court judgments since 1977.

The Right to Information Act has been hailed as the hallmark of our democracy. The Act aims at making the government transparent and more accountable. The effective use of it would, in the long run, curb corruption. Right to Information Act has become a powerful tool in exposing corruption at all levels of government.

A well informed citizenry, transparency, and free flow of information are the very foundations of any successful democratic society. India may be publicly acclaimed as the world's largest democracy but the ground reality is that we are now ebbing away to an autocratic cowboy regime.  Democracy and non-transparency in the functioning of the Government cannot co-exist. Besides freedom of speech without access to information is meaningless.

Narendra Modi rode to power on his vow of 'Acche din' for the Aam Aadmi and Good governance. But after assuming office in May 2014 the Prime Minister has not uttered a word on the RTI Act, leave alone on strengthening it. His then enthusiasm for freedom has waned away and we now have a culture of surveillance and secrecy.  For the common man, getting correct and accurate information under the Right to Information Act is today still a far cry.

As the Right to Information Act requires that the Information Commissioners have to be persons of Eminence in public life, Independent minded persons who do not succumb to political pulls and pressures need to be appointed as Information Commissioners to ensure the proper implementation of the Right to Information Act. If Yes-men manage to creep into as Information Commissioners it would be an exercise in futility ending up as white elephants that we would rather be better off without.

Under Section 4 of the RTI Act all public authorities are duty bound to regularly display on their website a wide range of information, including all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect the public. This proviso in the law was enacted to reduce the need for filing individual RTI applications. But this mandatory duty has been blatantly flouted by the authorities with most government websites themselves dysfunctional or not updated.

The Judiciary needs to step in to ensure that the Government complies with the mandate of the Right to Information Act. But with the Courts themselves also averse to parting with information and with its functioning largely under a veil of secrecy, we are stonewalled.

But we need to battle it out and cannot allow the RTI Act to be choked by the government to a slow death. Steps need to be taken to strengthen the transparency regime that was sought to be established as envisaged by the RTI Act. Effective implementation of the RTI Act requires political commitment from the very top. Officials denying information or giving misleading and distorted information need to be severely penalized.

Governance by cloak of secrecy and opaqueness needs to be strongly resisted. It cannot be a hush-hush regime. We need to dismantle those walls of secrecy that continue to hound transparency and good governance despite the Right to Information Act now being in place for 13 long years. In those very own words of Prime Minister Narendra Modi 'Sabko sanmati de bhagwan' (Let good sense prevail).

Aires Rodrigues

Advocate High Court

C/G-2, Shopping Complex

Ribandar Retreat,

Ribandar – Goa – 403006

Mobile No: 9822684372

Office Tel  No: (0832) 2444012

Email: airesrodrigues1@gmail.com

                         Or

           airesrodrigues@yahoo.com

You can also reach me on

Facebook.com/ AiresRodrigues

Twitter@rodrigues_aires

www.airesrodrigues.com

[IAC#RG] WELL DONE MICHAEL LOBO

Goa's entire Coastal belt has been so inundated with unplanned and haphazard rampant construction that it all requires to take the much required very long break from any further concrete. The Candolim- Calangute stretch in particular has reached a point of saturation and can take no more.

We should commend the Calangute MLA Michael Lobo for having very strongly opposed the devious and foul move of the Government to notify a whopping 28,000 sq mts of land in Baga as an Investment Promotion Area.

The message should ring out loud and clear to the now snoozing Manohar Parrikar government that enough is enough. Any open land available in the coastal belt should be now for Parking lots to accommodate the mounting number of vehicles and for other basic infrastructure facilities for the benefit of the public. It has to be also ensured that there is no further environmental degradation lest we bear the brunt of nature's fury.   

Aires Rodrigues

Advocate High Court

C/G-2, Shopping Complex

Ribandar Retreat,

Ribandar – Goa – 403006

Mobile No: 9822684372

Office Tel  No: (0832) 2444012

Email: airesrodrigues1@gmail.com

                         Or

           airesrodrigues@yahoo.com

You can also reach me on

Facebook.com/ AiresRodrigues

Twitter@rodrigues_aires

www.airesrodrigues.com

[IAC#RG] NARENDRA MODI HAS LOST IT

Its an irony that a now so sinking Prime Minister Narendra Modi who has vertically and horizontally divided our great nation into bits & pieces, has inaugurated at a whopping cost of Rs. 2,989 crores the 182 mtrs long Statue of Unity in Honour of our very dear and so revered Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who had always visualised and tirelessly worked towards a very secular and all inclusive India.

Narendra Modi should realise that people will judge our leaders by their good acts and selfless deeds while all those Statues will remain only for the crows and uncared birds to merrily crap on.

Aires Rodrigues

Advocate High Court

C/G-2, Shopping Complex

Ribandar Retreat,

Ribandar – Goa – 403006

Mobile No: 9822684372

Office Tel  No: (0832) 2444012

Email: airesrodrigues1@gmail.com

                         Or

           airesrodrigues@yahoo.com

You can also reach me on

Facebook.com/ AiresRodrigues

Twitter@rodrigues_aires

www.airesrodrigues.com

Re: [IAC#RG] MEDIA AS MUCH RESPONSIBLE AS THE POLITICIANS FOR INDISA’S PROBLEMS

good things done by good people   are not getting good coverage.Is it because they are not news worthy?

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:21 AM Venkatraman Ns <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net> wrote:

                                                          

To

India Against Corruption

                                                               MEDIA AS MUCH RESPONSIBLE AS THE POLITICIANS FOR INDISA'S PROBLEMS

Most People in India are convinced that large section of politicians in India are self centred , dishonest and corrupt. These politicians are accused of being responsible for several unsolved problems faced by India and many undesirable incidents such as violence etc. 

While there is certainly lot of truth in the above view, the fact is that the country is unable to discipline the politicians and put them in their place. 

While the politicians are seen as guilty people, the visual and print media are given the benefit of doubt and escape the blame, though most section of media not known anymore for professional integrity.

It is now very well known that most media houses are under the control of business men and politicians and they have vested interests. 

With the objective of improving their business prospects and at the same time meeting the objectives of the owners, media are focusing all the time on politics and giving space to the politicians and giving them undue respect and recognition by repeatedly publicising their views and unsavoury acts. Media seem to be under the impression that people will show interest only if ugly and undesirable acts and mutual abuses are highlighted.

Media is largely responsible for polluting the atmosphere in the country by sensationalizing the issues, making partisan comments and focusing only on people indulging in frauds and undesirable acts and bad events.

It is very conspicuous now that good events and developments are seldom highlighted in the media, which give an impression that only bad things are happening in the country.

Media need to be condemned as much as the politicians for the state of affairs in India.

N.S.Venkataraman
Nandini Voice For The Deprived
nandinivoice.com

Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in