Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’

Date: 23 May 2013

European Parliament passes Urgent Resolution on execution of Afzal Guru

Brussels/Strasbourg: In a major setback to India at international level European Parliament today passed the Urgent Resolution on the execution of Afzal Guru by voting unanimously for the motion.

ICHR has, with its intense lobbying, persuaded various political groups and considerable number of Members of the European Parliament to introduce a motion for an Urgency Resolution on the secret hanging of Afzal Guru. The proposed motion was discussed and unanimously voted in the European Parliament’s plenary session today at Strasbourg.

Strasbourg is the capital and principal city of the Alsace region in eastern France and is the official seat of the European Parliament. Located close to the border with Germany

Barrister Tramboo head of ICHR termed this step as positive measure for human rights defenders and hoped that it will inspire further action from European leaders on the state of affairs in Indian Held Kashmir.

Barrister Tramboo commended Mr. Ali Shah Nawaz Khan, Executive Director of Kashmiri Scandinavian Council who contributed to bring about the Afzal Guru Urgency Resolution in European Parliament.

Final Text of the resolution adopted unanimously by voting for the motion at European Parliament at Strasbourg (France).

European Parliament resolution on India: execution of Mohammad Afzal Guru and its implications (2013/2640(RSP)) �
� � �
The European Parliament,

– � having regard to UN General Assembly Resolution 62/149 of 18 December 2007 calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and UN General Assembly Resolution 63/168 calling for the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 62/149, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 18 December 2008,

– � having regard to the final declaration adopted by the 4th World Congress Against the Death Penalty, held in Geneva from 24 to 26 February 2010, which calls for universal abolition of the death penalty,

– � having regard to the UN Secretary-General’s report of 11 August 2010 on moratoriums on the use of the death penalty,

– � having regard to its previous resolutions on the abolition of the death penalty, and in particular that of 26 April 2007 on the initiative for an immediate moratorium on the death penalty(1),

– � having regard to the submission made in July 2012 by 14 retired Indian Supreme Court and High Court judges to the President of India calling on him to commute the death sentences of 13 prisoners on the grounds that those sentences had been erroneously upheld by the Supreme Court over the previous nine years,

– � having regard to the World Day against the Death Penalty and to the European Day against the Death Penalty held on 10 October every year,

– � having regard to Rules 122(5) and 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas Mohammad Afzal Guru was sentenced to death in 2002 after being convicted of conspiracy in relation to the December 2001 attack on the Parliament of India, and was executed by the Indian authorities on 9 February 2013;

B. �whereas the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, violating the right to life as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

C. whereas 154 countries in the world have abolished the death penalty de jure or de facto; whereas India, when presenting its candidacy for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council ahead of the elections of 20 May 2011, pledged to uphold the highest standards of promotion and protection of human rights;

D. whereas India ended its eight-year unofficial moratorium on executions in November 2012, when it executed Ajmal Kasab, convicted for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks;

E. �whereas national and international human rights organisations have raised serious questions about the fairness of Afzal Guru’s trial;

F. �whereas over 1 455 prisoners in India are currently on death row;

G. whereas, despite a curfew imposed in large parts of Indian-administered Kashmir, Afzal Guru’s death was followed by protests;

1. �Reiterates its long-standing opposition to the death penalty under all circumstances, and calls once again for an immediate moratorium on executions in those countries where the death penalty is still applied;

2. �Condemns the Government of India’s execution in secret of Afzal Guru at New Delhi’s Tihar Jail on 9 February 2013, in opposition to the worldwide trend towards the abolition of capital punishment, and expresses its regret that Afzal Guru’s wife and other family members were not informed of his imminent execution and burial;

3. �Calls on the Government of India to return Afzal Guru’s body to his family;

4. �Urges the Indian authorities to maintain adherence to the highest national and international judicial standards in all trials and judicial proceedings, and to provide the necessary legal assistance to all prisoners and persons facing trial;

5. �Regrets the deaths of three young Kashmiris following the protests against Afzal Guru’s execution; calls on the security forces to exercise restraint in the use of force against peaceful protesters;

6. �Calls on the Government of India, as a matter of urgency, not to approve any execution order in the future;

7. �Calls on the Government and Parliament of India to adopt legislation introducing a permanent moratorium on executions, with the objective of abolishing the death penalty in the near future;

8. �Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President / High Representative, the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Commonwealth Secretary-General, the UN Secretary-General, the President of the UN General Assembly, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the President, Government and Parliament of India.



Asks DGP To Ensure Compliance Of Apex Court Directive

Jammu, Mar 29: Taking strong note of the practice adopted by police to handcuff under-trails, a court here has directed Director General of Police (DGP) to ensure compliance of Supreme Court directive in this regard.
Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Kartar Singh issued the direction after observing that several applications have been filed by the under-trails with the prayer to direct police not to handcuff them.
“It is now settled law of the country that handcuffing of the under-trial prisoners is in violation of Article-21 of the Constitution; as it is inhuman and not permissible in civilized society”, the court observed adding that unfortunately the under trial prisoners were being brought to the courts in handcuffs.
“It may be due to the reason that the lawful agencies are ignorant about the law of the country or they are doing it arbitrarily and intentionally and thus committing human rights violation of under trial prisoners”, the court observed adding, “Law enforcing agencies are assisted and guided by the prosecuting wing which is well-versed in law and for the said reason, the courts are not going to accept any excuse in future”.
“The Supreme Court has time and again deprecated practice of handcuffing of accused or under-trials without prior permission from the court concerned or any judicial magistrate and flouting of such directions amounts to contempt for which the law enforcing agencies are accountable and it may also amount to violation of human rights of a person”.
The court directed the state’s Director General of Police to issue appropriate administrative directions in this regard to subordinate officers and officials.


photo courtesdy- Kmr news

By Kashmir  Monitor News Bureau

Published: Tue, 12 March 2013

New Delhi: A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India has issued a four week’s notice to the state government for wrongfully arresting a minor from downtown in total violation of the Juvenile Act. Division bench comprising of R.M. Lodha, J. Chelameswar & Madan B. Lokur on Monday issued four weeks’ notice to the Chief Secretary of J&K Govt, DG Police, IG Police Kashmir Range & SHO Safakadal, Srinagar on a writ petition filed by State Legal Aid Committee on behalf of 12-year-old Faizan Bashir, who was arrested by Safakadal Police Station (Srinagar) on 25th August, 2012.
Faizan, a 7th class student was arrested by the Jammu and Kashmir police under section 307, 147, 148, 149, 152, 427, 435 RPC (Ranbir Penal Code) in FIR no. 96/2012 and kept in a solitary lock-up in police station Safakadal, Srinagar for more than 40 hours without producing him before a juvenile board.Faizan in his own affidavit had alleged that he was abused, humiliated and put to harassment and starve in the police station.
Panthers Party Chief Bhim Singh, appearing for Faizan submitted that, “The State Legal Aid Committee had filed a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on 28th August, 2012 seeking Faizan release from the police lock-up, quashing the proceedings against Faizan since there are no Juvenile Board constituted in the state.”
He also hoped that Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2007 will be implemented forthwith and pay a compensation of Rs.10 lacs as an exemplary cost to Faizan for his wrongful confinement.
Prof. Bhim Singh also informed the court that Faizan was wrongfully confined in a police lock-up in violation of the Juvenile Act, produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate and remanded for 15 days in utter violation of the rule and the Juvenile Act.
He informed the Apex Court that in J&K Juvenile Board has not been constituted and the so-called Juvenile Home is manned by the police which is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Prof. Bhim Singh further submitted before the Apex Court that, “That the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985 (the Beijing Rules) and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990) set the minimum standard to be adhered to in the administration of juvenile justice in respect of juveniles in conflict with law.”
Prof. Bhim Singh submitted that Faizan was picked up from his house at 9.30 p.m, handcuffed and kept inside a police lock up which is meant for the habitual criminal. He further said that the Govt. of J&K has used all the illegal means and methods against the children and juveniles of J&K in violation of Article 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
In the petition it was submitted that State of J&K has failed to make provisions to constitute Special Juvenile Police Units, Juvenile Justice/Welfare Boards, constitute Child Welfare Committee.


Brahminical Conscience
Don’t call it, OUR Collective!
The hanging of Afzal Guru on 9th February 2013 has sparked of a serious debate on Capital Punishment and the use of it for achieving political objectives. We witnessed the Left, the Right and the Centre taking the same stand, offering neither resistance nor criticism, while describing hanging as the “Law of the Land.”

We categorically condemn the hanging of Afzal Guru as well as the idea of capital punishment. This legalized, revengeful and cruel murder of a human being has (and is) a danger of being used for achieving mere political stunts to satisfy the majoritarian wishes. The same has happened with Afzal Guru, who was not given a fair trial and was hanged to satisfy the common conscience of the people – as noted and discussed by many legal experts and public intellectuals.

It is not the common conscience per se but the Hindu Brahminical Conscience which was generated through the vicious campaign of RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal supported by the Left, Right and Centre. The Supreme Court itself has set aside that the confession made by him in police interrogation is a result of torture.

If we take a close look at the cases of those being acquitted and convicted; we can find that Marginalized sections were always imposed with the extreme form of punishment (Death Sentence) while the remaining are commuted to Life Imprisonment (Majority are acquitted) . The classic example is Brahmeshwar Mukhiya (A Bhumiahar), the founder chief of Ranvir Sena in Bihar, was involved in the murder and slaughter of nearly 250 Dalits in Bihar was acquitted while five Dalits who were involved in the attack on dominant caste landlords were convicted to death sentence.

The Savarna Liberation Army’s “mass rape” campaign, conducted between March and July 1992 in Gaya and Jehanabad districts, was one of the most heinous. More than 200 Dalit women between the ages of six and 70 were raped by a group of activists of the Savarna Liberation Army. What would this be called? A quench for whose blood by whom? The examples are many and they never end. Why was there inaction on these perpetrators of violence? Would your conscience ever think!

The question is “Why did you hang Afzal?” The voices of the suppressed are building up. We are against this principle of injustice. We voice the slogan “When Injustice
becomes a law, Resistance becomes our Duty”. We raise our voices along with Irom Sharmila Chanu and Kashmiri brothers and sisters. We question the autocratic
suppression by the Hindu Brahminical State on the people from Kashmir and North-Eastern India.

These are questions but from OUR conscience which is emphatically different from yours – Manuvadi Hindu Brahmanical Conscience of the State.

ASA (Ambedkar Student Association) University of Hyderabad


PTI | Srinagar | May 06, 2012

As many as 129 army personnel, including three dozen officers, were found guilty of human rights violations mostly in Jammu and Kashmir and Northeast in the last two decades, defence sources have said.

Following the establishment of human rights cell in 1993, the army has received more than 1,500 allegations of rights violations against its men but most of these have been found false and baseless, they said.

“Of the 1,532 allegations of rights violations, investigations revealed that 1,508 were false. Out of the 995 complaints in Jammu and Kashmir, 961 were false while only 29 out of the 485 complaints from Northeast were found correct,” the sources said.

The sources said 59 personnel, including some officers, were punished in Jammu and Kashmir in the nine cases of rights violations.

“Similarly, 70 personnel were punished in Northeast after their guilt was established,” the sources said.

Army has awarded compensation in 34 cases in which the complaints were found to be genuine. While compensation was paid in 15 cases in Jammu and Kashmir, 19 victims of rights violations were compensated in Northeast, they said.

The sources said if the army decides to exercise the option of court martial against its accused personnel in the Pathribal encounter case, due course of law will be followed if they are found guilty.

“Anyone found guilty of rights abuses has been punished and it should be no different in this (Pathribal) case,” they said.

Last week, the Supreme Court had directed the army to decide within eight weeks whether it would exercise the option of court martial or allow its personnel, accused of staging a fake encounter at Pathribal, to be tried by a civilian court.

According to the CBI charge sheet filed against the seven army personnel, five unarmed civilians were killed in a fake encounter on March 25, 2000 at Pathribal in south Kashmir‘s Anantnag district.

The alleged fake encounter took place five days after Lashkar-e-Taiba militants gunned down 35 Sikhs in nearby Chattisinghpora village.

The five civilians, dubbed as Lashkar militants, were held responsible for the massacre of Sikhs.

CBI investigations, however, revealed that the deceased were innocent civilians and accordingly, a charge sheet was filed before the designated trial court.

Army had challenged the charge sheet right up to the Supreme Court, pleading that CBI had not sought prior sanction for prosecution of its men from the Centre as required under Section VII of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act.

Srinagar, May 03: Voicing apprehensions that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Pathribal killings could leave a negative legal and political impact, the High Court Bar Association has said that the apex court had given precedence to emergency laws over the universal and constitutional right to life.

The Bar Association echoed the Amnesty International in describing the ruling as a severe setback for the victims of human rights violations in Kashmir.

“The ruling will give forces immunity and exemption from civil prosecution,” Bar general secretary, GN Shaheen, said at an HCBA meeting held to discuss the supreme court judgement yesterday holding government sanction necessary for action against forces personnel deployed in areas under the AFSPA.

“The forces will use this law for human rights violations and extra-judicial executions,” he said.

“The ruling will give the forces the right and authority to decide whether to have the accused personnel tried in civil courts or in courts martial,” The HCBA said.

“People in Kashmir have a bitter experience over the past twenty years with respect to alleged killings by forces personnel. No one has been punished or tried by court martial. No one has been brought before the people, or the victims informed (in case of punishment of the guilty).

“The ruling will boost human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, and have a long-lasting impact,” the HCBA added. Observer News Service

2 May 2012: The recent Supreme Court judgment in the Pathribal case is very disappointing.
Fake encounters, along with various other human rights violations, have been a reality for the people of Jammu and Kashmir over the last twenty two years. In 2008, according to media reports, Supreme Court Justices Aftab Alam and G.S. Singhvi made observations in court in relation to the practice of fake encounters for rewards in Jammu and Kashmir. With about 8000 persons disappeared, 70,000 persons killed, numerous cases of torture, rape and other human rights violations, Jammu and Kashmir has seen institutional denial of justice.
The Supreme Court judgment in the Pathribal case was keenly awaited by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court judgment states that cognizance may not be taken by a court without prior sanction. This would suggest that crimes like fake encounters, rape, custodial deaths, enforced disappearances would continue to be subject to seeking prior sanctions under AFSPA from the Government of India.
This impunity has to be understood within the context of unabated human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir over the last twenty two years.
On 23rd February 2012, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, in response to a RTI application on AFSPA sanctions, stated that no sanction for prosecutions had ever been granted in Jammu and Kashmir since 1990 till date.
On 18th April 2012, the Ministry of Defence, in response to a RTI application, stated that out of a total of forty four cases received for the purpose of grant of sanction from the Jammu and Kashmir Government, thirty five have been denied, and nine are under consideration. Further, that of these cases only one case was processed by the army court-martial. Therefore, the reality of Jammu and Kashmir has been an absolute impunity.
The Pathribal case was an opportunity for the Supreme Court to earn the respect of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, particularly in light of the history of the Supreme Court vis-à-vis Jammu and Kashmir. Unfortunately the judgment further emboldens the armed forces, which may result in further human rights violations by the armed forces and strengthen a process that has appeared to always favour the perpetrators.
The fall out of this judgment on the people of Jammu and Kashmir would be a reaffirmation of their suspicion and distrust of the Indian state institutions.