Friday, August 29, 2008

SC seeks response from Uttar Pradesh CIC accused of misconduct

The Supreme Court today asked for a response from Chief Information commissioner of U P retired Justice M A Khan after governor T V Rajeshwar sent a reference to the apex court accusing him of official misconduct and committing irregularities in appointments in his office. A three judge bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan had asked Justice Khan to appear in the court and accept notice.

After receiving complaint from the state government governor T V Rajeshwar had written to the apex court that prima facie he is satisfied that the appointments made by Chief Information Commissioner ware "in flagrant violation of reservation rules. The appointments were made by the state Chief Information Commissioner or on his direction in an arbitrary manner without conducting any examination for the same".

"The Chief Information Commissioner made uncalled for, objectionable and derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister, Cabinet Secretary, the Chief Secretary and the Chairperson of the U P Advisory Council during the hearing of a matter in the course of his official duty on October 31,2007 and November 15, 2007," the reference said.

According to the reference, "the state Chief Information Commissioner conducts himself in an autocratic style in relation to other state information Commissioners and does not follow settled rules of procedure and law in his working".

The court has given six weeks time to Justice Khan to file his response after which the court shall take a final view on the reference.

SC notice to Centre on speed governors in HCVs

The Supreme Court today issued notice to Central Government on a petition filed asking for universal policy on speed governors throughout the country. The matter came before the apex court after Karnataka government moved to the court saying it is difficult for the state government to implement the High Court order for installing speed governors in heavy commercial vehicles across the state. The High Court had given September 30th for implementation of the court's order.

The state government has pleaded before the court that this matter concerns the whole country and central government should make a policy on the issue. The state government also contended that it has no problem in installing the speed governors in the new vehicles but the problem starts when it comes to older vehicles. Moreover, it is difficult to install speed governors as different states have different speed limits. To this problem, appearing for one of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Harish Salve suggested to the court that the speed governors can be installed in the old commercial vehicles when they come for fitness test.

The state government has alleged that Central Government has done nothing concrete to address the problem of speed governors. According to state government, the Union Government had convened a meeting in August this year to discuss this problem but nothing came out of that meeting.

SC initiates contempt proceedings against two ladies

The Supreme Court today initiated contempt proceedings against two ladies, Annette Kotian and Leela David, for alleging that 13 judges of the Bombay High Court are corrupt and demanding that they should be arrested and sent to jail.

The two ladies represent a Mumbai based music school called Boss School and their primary grievance is against two members joining Australian based cult Exclusive Bretheren. The Bombay High Court had earlier dismissed the petition filed by this school. Hearing the petition, the tree judge bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishanan asked these two ladies to either withdraw the allegations or provide proof of judges involved in corruption.

During the hearing a furious Chief Justice lamented the ladies by saying "You think you are above law. You want all the judges to be arrested and sent to jail. You want Maharashtra's home minister should also be sent to jail".

The Chief Justice asked these ladies to withdraw the allegations as they have their distinguished careers at stake but these two were adamant saying that they will not withdraw the allegations.

The Chief Justice also gave them ten days time to give proof of corruption and also warned them that if they fail to file their response, they will be arrested and produced before the court. These ladies moved to the apex court on the basis of what they call "Brutal Genocide" against Boss School.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Bihar Government opposes CBI stand on Lalu Yadav's DA Case

The Bihar government has strongly opposed the CBI stand that the state has no right to file an appeal against the acquittal of Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and his wife Rabri Devi in disproportionate assets case.

In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the state government has said that it has a right to file an appeal against the acquittal by the lower court. According to the state government, in this case, the offence was committed in the state, money acquired by accused Lalu and Rabri also belonged to the state and merely because the state entrusted the investigation to the CBI does not mean that state has lost its right to file the appeal in this case.

The Bihar Government had moved the High Court against the trial court verdict after finding that the CBI was not challenging the acquittal of Prasad and his wife in the case.

Questioning the move of Bihar government, the CBI in its petition, maintained that the Nitish Kumar Government has no locus standi to file an appeal as the case was investigated by it and the state government cannot act contrary to the executive decision of the Centre. Lalu Prasad Yadav and his wife have also taken a similar stand.

High Court notice to NACO on poor quality HIV kits

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) to explain why they have suppressed the findings of the World Bank that poor quality HIV kits were used in India

A two judge bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and S Murlidhar also asked NACO that why they made false claim that the US Center for Disease Control has verified that HIV kits used during the second national AIDS control project (NACP-II) in Indian hospitals and blood banks were of standard quality.

The court issued notices after hearing a public interest litigation filed by Dr. Kunal Saha seeking a CBI investigation of the defective HIV kits used potentially endangering transmission of the deadly AIDS virus to innocent patients through contaminated blood transfusion.

According to Dr. Saha, he was a member of the World Bank team that investigated complaints of spurious HIV kits in India in 2007. He has sought equitable justice for all victims who were infected with the AIDS virus as a result of flawed HIV kits manufactured by Monozyme India Ltd, one of the principal manufacturers of the spurious HIV kits.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

BMW judgment likely on September 2nd

The Patiala House court in Delhi has fixed September 2 for the pronouncement of judgment in BMW hit and run case. After hearing the final arguments of both the prosecution and the defence, Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Kumar said he would pronounce the judgment on September 2. Six persons were killed in the accident involving the BMW car on January 10, 1999, in Lodhi Colony area in Delhi.

It is alleged that Sanjeev Nanda was returning from a late night party in Gurgaon with friend Manik Kapoor. While returning home near a checkpoint on Lodhi Road the BMW car went out of control crashing through all the people at the police checkpoint, immediately killing two constables - Rajan Kumar (25), Ram Raj (38) two others - Abdul Nasir (30) and Gulab (32). Another policeman, Peru Lal (40) of the Delhi Home Guard, along with Mehendi Hassan, died later in hospital. The seventh victim, Manoj (32), survived, but is untraceable today.

It is also alleged that the car was then driven to Siddharth Gupta's house in Golf Links. Siddharth's father Rajiv Gupta, who heads the finance firm Motor General Finance, instructed watchman Bhola Nath and driver Shyam Singh Rana to clean the bumpers and bonnet of the car of the blood and vestiges of the victims. Subsequently the police charged these three with destroying evidence. A few days later, a witness Sunil Kulkarni, came forward to describe the scene. At the time of the crash, he was on his way to the railway station.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Supreme Court for guidelines to regulate electronic media

The Supreme Court today asked the Central government if there are any guidelines to regulate electronic media in the country. The court issued notice to the government after a devotee of Aasaram Baapu moved to Supreme Court saying that the news channels should be restrained from telecasting biased and one sided news about the death of four students in the institutions run by the Sant Aasaram Bapu trust.

Appearing for petitioner R P Arora, senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi lashed out at electronic media saying that there should be some mechanism to control the content on electronic media. Accusing the news channels of one sided reporting Rohtagi contended before the court "TV has the capacity of influence large number of people in the society. At least they should have taken our version so that out spokesperson could have denied our involvement in the deaths of the students".

Rohatagi also mentioned about Aarushi murder case saying TV channels did an irreparable damage to Dr. Talwar's reputation. He also mentioned about Delhi school teacher Uma Khurana saying she was a victim of a fake sting operation. On this Justice P Sathasivam who was sharing the bench with the Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan asked why they do not exploit legal remedies available to them. To this, Rohatagi contended that by the time they will take legal recourse, the damage would already be done.

SC extends ban on SIMI

The Supreme Court today extended the ban on students Islamic movement of India that is SIMI for six weeks. The court was hearing a petition filed by Central Government against special tribunal's order lifting ban on SIMI. The government had to face tough arguments from lawyer Kamini Jaiswal who questioned the ban saying the government has failed to give any specific evidence against the banned outfit.

When the arguments in the case relating to ban on SIMI started, the lawyer Kamini Jaiswal appearing for Dr. Shahi Badr, the former president of SIMI pulled up the government for banning SIMI. Jaiswal went on to say that the government should have material against the organisation on the day it is banned but in this case the government was providing the material after banning the organisation. According to SIMI lawyer," the government talks of background paper but when you see this background paper, most of the people named here have already faced trial and they have been acquitted by the court of law. The government can not mislead the court like this. The notification banning the organisation should contain the grounds for the ban, but in this case notification failed to set out the grounds"

This led Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium to intervene and clarify to the court that the court has to consider the material gathered after February 2006 and acquittals before this date do not have any relevance with the case. The ASG was quick to point out that Tribunal judge herself gave a finding that there is an increase in violent activities after February 2006. Subramanium also mentioned that the government has put on record the cabinet note about SIMI's terror activities. He also mentioned about the bomb blasts in Mumbai trains in July 2006 saying that SIMI played an active role in the blasts. The court has adjourned the matter for six weeks and listed the same for September 24th.

Sunday, August 24, 2008

BCI might move SC over banning of advocates by Delhi High Court

The Bar Council of India has decided that they will seriously consider moving to Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order banning the two advocate R K Anand and I U Khan from practice. The chairman of the Bar Council of India S N P Sinha has said that they will soon be convening a meeting of all the representatives in the council and a final view shall be taken after that. Mr. Sinha also said what Delhi High Court did was not in its domain and debarring an advocate from practice comes under the exclusive domain of Bar Council.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Delhi High Court ban on advocates upsets Bar Council of India

The Bar Council of India has objected to the Delhi High Court's decision to bar senior advocates R K Anand and I U Khan from practising for four months, terming it as an encroachment on its power.The apex regulatory body for practising lawyers comes a day after advocates struck work in subordinate courts on the same issue.Suraj Narain Prasad Sinha, Chairman of the Bar Council of India, said they were not concerned with the merit of the verdict against the two lawyers. “As far as the merit of the judgement is concerned, we are not bothered. Our stand is with regard to the powers encroached by the Delhi High Court in directing the two senior advocates not to appear in the High Court and its subordinate courts for the next four months," Sinha said.“If it is not set aside, then the order will become a law,” he added.

Asked if striking work in courts was the best way that the lawyers could have drawn attention to the issue, Sinha said, "The Bar Council of India is not in favour of strike. According to the Supreme Court, the strike is applicable only in exceptional cases." The BCI favoured strict punishment for convicted advocates if they were found guilty but the decision to bar the advocates is not acceptable to it.“Even the BCI will take strict action if they will be found guilty but encroachment of power of the Council is not acceptable," BCI member advocate Ram Avtar Gupta said.

On the future action in the matter, Sinha said, “The power of the BCI are original powers, appellate powers and revision powers. If the disciplinary proceedings were not finally concluded within one year by the state Bar Council, then the matter will be transferred to the BCI." The High Court, on June 21, had barred Anand and Khan from practise for four months and recommended stripping them of their "senior advocate" designation after convicting them for contempt of court in the BMW hit-and-run case, following a sting operation.

Friday, August 22, 2008

Justice Katju supports sting operation to expose corruption

In the midst of a debate over thesting operations by television channels, a Supreme Court judge came out strongly in its favour saying more such operations were needed to weed out corruption in the society.

"I totally agree with sting operations. There is nothing wrong in it. There should be more sting operations. Corrupt elements can be brought to light by these sort ofoperations," Justice Markandey Katju observed during thehearing of a case relating to sting operation involving former Union Minister Dilip Singh Judeo. He said those who carry out sting operations to exposecorruption in the society cannot be treated as criminals. "There is no intention to commit any crime. This(sting operation) is only to expose corruption in society. How can they (who carried out sting operations) be equated with criminals," the judge said.

Justice Katju's remarks came when senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for one of the accused in the cash-on-camera expose involving Judeo, said that if the persons involved in exposing this scam have been made accused then the same principle may also be applicable in the sting operations carried out by a private channel before the recent trust vote (in Lok Sabha). He said the journalists involved in exposing the cash-for-vote scam and the collusion between the prosecution lawyer and defence counsel in the BMW sting operation could also be arrayed as accused.

However, another judge, Justice Altamas Kabir, who was heading the Bench, said there was a flip side to the sting operation which was evident in the case of a Delhi school teacher that later turned out to be fake."You must have read about that teacher (Uma Khurana). That sting operation ruined her life," Justice Kabir said. The Bench was hearing a petition by a Delhi-based businessman Rajat Prasad, who is an accused along with Amit Jogi, son of former Chhatisgarh Chief Minister Ajit Jogi, seeking quashing of the charges against him for the sting operation. After a brief hearing, the Bench issued notice to theCBI and sought its reply within four weeks.

The Delhi High Court on May 30 had dismissed the plea of those involved in the sting operation challenging the framing of charges against them. Besides Prasad and Amit Jogi, others charged with entering into criminal conspiracy to carry out the sting operation to derive political mileage for the former Chief Minister are Arvind Vijay Mohan and Bhupinder Singh Patel. Mohan, an art dealer had provided logistic support for carrying out the sting operation to Raipur-based journalist Bhupinder Singh Patel, who was working with a local TV channel owner by Amit Jogi.The trial court has also framed charges against Judeo, Environment and Forest Minister in the previous NDA regime and his private secretary Natwar Rateria, who were caught on camera allegedly receiving cash.
The CBI has alleged that Judeo and Rateria had received a bribe of Rs nine lakh at Hotel Taj Mansingh Palace here on November 5, 2003. The bribe money was offered by Patel, a Raipur-based journalist, who had carried out the sting operation at Amit Jogi's behest. The chargesheet has alleged that the sting operation, later telecast on various news channels, was plotted to derive political mileage in favour of the then Chhatisgarh Chief Minister Ajit jogi as assembly elections were scheduled in November, 2003.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

BMW case: Advocates R K Anand, I U Khan guilty

The Delhi High Court today convicted senior advocates -- R K Anand and I U Khan -- in the BMW expose case for obstructing administration of justice. "They are senior advocates and they did not tender either conditional or unconditional apology for their conduct in the BMW case," a Division Bench of Justices Manmohan Sarin andMadan B Lokur said, in their 112-page verdict in the contempt case relating to the expose. Recommending that they be stripped of their designation of senior advocate, the court asked them not to appear in the Delhi High Court and its subordinate courts for the next four months as punishment.

The Bench also imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on each of them and rapped them for their "irresponsible" behaviour, saying "we are not dealing with young lawyers. Both are seasoned lawyers and such conduct was not expected of them." Meanwhile, the court recommended that amicus curiae Arvind Nigam, who assisted the court in the over year-long trial, be designated as a senior advocate. During the proceedings, Anand was conspicuous by his absence while Khan was present in the court. Both Anand and Khan were accused of obstructing the administration of justice by allegedly influencing a witness Sunil Kulkarni in the sensational nine-year-old BMW hit-and-run case. Anand, the defence counsel and Khan, the prosecutor, were shown as colluding with the witness in an NDTV sting operation last year.

The court on May 31 last year had taken suo motucognisance of the sting operation showing Anand, in collusionwith Khan, allegedly offering money to Kulkarni to depose infavour of Sanjeev Nanda, the prime accused in the hit-and-runcase. Nanda, the grandson of retired Naval chief S M Nanda, isaccused of mowing down six persons, including three policemen,with his BMW car on January 10, 1999.

Enough evidence against SIMI : Govt. to SC

The Central Government has informed the Supreme Court that they have evidence against SIMI that is students islamic movement of India . The government has mentioned in the affidavit that SIMI is involved in Ahemedabad, Hyderabad and blasts at various other sites througout the country.
According to the affidavit filed in the apex court, the central government has said that SIMI is still indulging themselves in the same communal and anti-national activities for which they werebanned earlier.
According to the government following are the activities SIMI is indulging in
  • Campaign for fund raising: SIMI activists and leaders are traveling far and wide and are exploiting all available opportunities particularly Muslim festivals to raise funds.
  • Instigating Muslim for riots: SIMI activists have been found to be vitiating the communal atmosphere of the country and playing on emotions of the people to meet their objectives.
  • Circulation of CDs and cassettes: Owing to the restrictions imposed upon the organization following the earlier bans, it isincreasingly using printed as well as audio visual media to propagate their messages. These messages are in the form of provocative speeches which are played before Muslim audiencesurging ‘Jihad’.
The government went on to say that after February 2006 about 60 cases have been registered against the members of SIMI.In addition, SIMI has been acting under shield of frontal organizations in order to clandestinely continue its activities. At the all India level,SIMI has organizations like Tahreek-e-Ehyaa-e-Ummat (TEU), Tehreek-Talaba-e-Arabia (TTA), Tehrik Tahaffuz-e-Sha’aire Islam (TTSI) and Wahadat-e-Islami. At the State level, there are 46 identified front organizations which are being used by SIMI in order to carry out its activities of collection of funds and circulation of literature
The government also mentions SIMI has been inloved in various bomb blasts in India. According to the affidavit SIMI is responsible for
  • 7 bomb blasts took place in various local trains in Mumbai and Mumbai Suburbs on 11th July 2006
  • Bomb blasts at various places in Ahemdabad on 26th July, 2008 Triple bomb blasts in Male Gaon on 8th September 2006
  • Three bomb blasts that occurred on 18th May 2007 and 25th August 2007 in Hyderabad
The matter would be heard on 25th of this month in the Supreme Court.The court had earliar issued notice to SIMI when Central Government moved to the apex court after the tribunal lifted the ban from SIMI

Petition in SC against Chirajeevi's rally in Tirupati

An NGO from Andhra Pradesh has moved to the Supreme Court for restraining south indian film star Chiranjeevi from holding a public meeting in Tirupathi on 26th of this month to float his political party. The application has asked the Supreme Court to direct Andhra Pradesh government to withdraw the permission granted to Chiranjeevi in this regard.

The application states that the proposed meeting is scheduled to be held at Avilala tank area which is a protected area under environment laws. The application also states that Tirupati Urban Development Authority had refused to grant permission on the ground that said area is protected by the orders of the Supreme Court. The District collector however accorded the permission and the work had started in the area covered by Avilala Tank.

According to petitioners 10 lakh people are expected to attend the meeting and if this meeting is conducted in this area, the entire greenry would be destroyed. In the meantime, Chiranjeevi has also moved an application in the court saying no orders should be passed without hearing their side. The matter is likely to be taken up on Thursday.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

SC refuses to stay Bharat Bandh on August 20th

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to give an early hearing to a petition asking for stay on “Bharat Bandh” on August 20th called by CPI(M) against the nuclear deal. A three judge bench headed by Justice B N Agrawal told the petitioner that they should have come to the court earlier if they wanted a stay.

The PIL which was mentioned on Tuesday asked the court to intervene in the matter as the calling for holding of and enforcing bandh by political parties organized bodies or associations were held violative of fundamental rights of the citizens in addition to causing material loss.

The petition demanded that the apex court should restrain the organizers from holding the bandh calling it a useless public activity. The court however refused to give an early hearing to the petition said that the matter would be heard in regular course. The case will come up on 29th of August now.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Supreme Court raps media in Aarushi case


The Supreme Court today issued notice to central Government and U P Government on a petition asking for a direction to media housed to maintain restraint in reporting the cases like Aarushi Murder case. The petition in the court was filed by Dr. Surat Singh, a Delhi based advocate who accused media of irresponsible reporting in Aarushi case.

A two judge bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir asked the government if there is any mechanism to regulate media in reporting sub-judice cases like these. The petition has asked for number of directions to be issued so that the reputation of people can be protected from being damaged because of irresponsible attitude of media.

While observing there is a need for media to act in a more responsible manner, the court has emphasised the need for laying down general guidelines for reporting sub judice matters. The PIL filed in the apex court alleges that Dr. Rajesh Talwar's reputation has been maligned by the media and the police and has sought action against investigators keeping the teenager's father in 50 days' custody before declaring him innocent.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Armed Forces Special Powers Act turns 50

The Armed forces special powers act is completing its 50th year today. The act was passed by the parliament of India in 1958 and it has been a subject of criticisms from the human rights organizations.

The Act gives immunity to the personnel of armed forces to fire or use other kind of force even if it results in death. it also gives the power to arrest without even having a warrant if the officer has a reasonable doubt that a person has committed certain offenses.

The powers of army officers do not end here, the act gives the power to an officer to enter and search any premise in order to make any arrest. Army officers have legal immunity for their actions. There can be no prosecution, suit or any other legal proceeding against anyone acting under that law. Nor is the government’s judgment on why an area is found to be disturbed subject to judicial review.

The act was severely criticized and there were continuous demands to repeal this act. The most infamous incident to repeal the act happened when a group of Manipuri ladies protested naked in front of the Assam Rifles headquarters at Kangla Fort in Imphal on July 15, 2004. After that Manupur Government withdrew the act from some of the constituencies in August 2004 in spite of the Central government not favouring withdrawal of the act

Photo Courtesy : The Hindu

Analysis of Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958

Courtesy : pucl.org

Introduction

“An effective international strategy to counter terrorism should use human rights as its unifying framework. The suggestion that human rights violations are permissible in certain circumstances is wrong. The essence of human rights is that human life and dignity must not be compromised and that certain acts, whether carried out by State or non-State actors, are never justified no matter what the ends. International human rights and humanitarian law define the boundaries of permissible political and military conduct. A reckless approach towards human life and liberty undermines counter-terrorism measures”. - Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in her report to the 58th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.1

It took an unusual form of protest by some members of the Meira Paibis, women activists, who stripped in front of the Kangla Fort, then headquarter of the Assam Rifles on 15 July 2004, followed by an equally unprecedented civil disobedience movement in Manipur never seen in independent India to establish the Committee to Review (hereinafter referred to as “Review Committee”) the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958 on 8 December 2004. The protests were against the alleged extrajudicial execution of Ms Thangjam Manorama Devi on the night of 11 July 2004 by the Assam Rifles personnel and the withdrawal of the AFSPA.
The AFSPA empowers the representative of the Central government, the governor to subsume the powers of the State government to declare “undefined” disturbed areas. It also empowers the non-commissioned officers of the armed forces to arrest without warrant, to destroy any structure that may be hiding absconders without any verification, to conduct search and seizure without warrant and to shoot even to the causing of death. No legal proceeding against abuse of such arbitrary powers can be initiated without the prior permission of the Central government. While introducing the AFSPA on 18 August 1958, the government accepted it as an emergency measure and it was supposed to have remained in operation only for one year.

The demand of the populace affected by the AFSPA either to completely withdraw or substantively review the Act is matched by the demand for its retention by the armed forces and the hawks. A section of the Apunba Lup, a congregation of 32 civil society organisations of Manipur leading the civil disobedience movement, called for a “public curfew” on 27 December 2004, the day members of the Review Committee reached Imphal, to press its demand for complete repeal of the AFSPA. Other members of the Apunba Lup and the family members of Manorama Devi, however, submitted their representations to the Review Committee. Immediately after the visit of the Review Committee to Manipur, General Officer Commanding in Chief (Eastern Region), Lt General Arvind Sharma in his first press conference at Kolkata on 3 January 2005 stated that the provisions of the AFSPA is “absolutely essential” to tackle insurgency in the country. “I am afraid that without the AFSPA, the Army will not be able to function in insurgency situations... Without the Act, we will be a reactive” -stated Lt General Sharma.2

The mushrooming of the non-State actors and violations of the international humanitarian laws by these groups are realities of the North East India. “There is no doubt that States have legitimate reasons, right and duty to take all due measures to eliminate terrorism to protect their nationals, human rights, democracy and the rule of law and to bring the perpetrators of such acts to justice”.3 However, that does not give the State the right to take away the right to life in an intentional and unlawful way or violate human rights guaranteed under the constitution and international law. The AFSPA has become the main symbol of repression because of its sheer misuse as demonstrated in the various case studies of last few years provided in this study. In addition, a few armed opposition groups were also initially created by State agencies as a part of the counter-insurgency operations and these groups, later on, became Frankenstein monsters.4

There is no doubt that the armed forces operate in difficult and trying circumstances in the areas afflicted by internal armed conflicts. It is in these situations that the supremacy of the judiciary and the primacy of the rule of law need to be upheld. However, if the law enforcement personnel stoop to the same level as the non-State actors and perpetrate the same unlawful acts, there will be no difference between the law enforcement personnel and the non-State actors whom the government calls “terrorists”.

This representation, submitted to the Review Committee, provides an analysis of the illegality of the provisions of the AFSPA, the abuse of these provisions and therefore the need for its review and specific recommendations. It also contains documents on national, regional and international human rights standards to ensure that amended the provisions of the AFSPA are “in consonance with the obligations of the Government towards protection of Human Rights”. As Manipur has been the epicentre of the movement against the AFSPA, the case studies are cited mainly from Manipur. – Suhas Chakma, Director

Executive Summary
“... there (Assam and Manipur), they (certain misguided sections of the Nagas, in the words of Mr. Pant) are indulging in -arson, murder, loot, dacoity etc. So it has become necessary to adopt effective measures for the protection of the people in those areas. In order to enable the armed forces to handle the situation effectively wherever such problem arises hereafter, it has been considered necessary to introduce this Bill.” - then Home Minister G B Pant while introducing the Armed Forces Special Powers Bill on 18 August 1958.

“In my humble opinion, this measure is unnecessary and also unwarranted. This Bill is sure to bring about complications and difficulties in those areas, especially in those which are going to be declared as disturbed areas. I fail to understand why the military authorities are to be invested with special powers. I have found that these military authorities have always committed excesses in many cases, especially in the sub-divisions of Kohima and Mokokchung. In such a situation, I do not like that the officers should be invested with special powers. Recently, such an incident took place in the Headquarters of the North Cachar and Mikir Hills District. Instead of rounding (up) the hostile Nagas, some military personnel trespassed into the houses of some retired tribal official and committed rape on the widow. So, such things have deteriorated the situation. The tribal people have risen against the military people there. It is, therefore, dangerous to invest the military authorities with extraordinary powers of killing and of arrest without warrant and of house breaking…… How can we imagine that these military officers should be allowed to shoot to kill and without warrant arrest and search? This is a lawless law. There are various provisions in the Indian Penal Code and in the Criminal Procedure Code and they can easily deal with the law and order situation in these parts. I am afraid that this measure will only severe the right of the people and harass innocent folk and deteriorate the situation.”- Mr. Laishram Achaw Singh, MP from Inner Manipur Parliamentary Constituency while objecting to the AFSP Bill.5

Modelled on the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance promulgated by the colonial British government on 15 August 1942 to suppress “Quit India Movement”, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958 (AFSPA) was initially supposed to have remained in operation for one year to tackle the Naga problem. However, after 45 years of imposition of the AFSPA, the Naga problem is far from resolved. The government of India and Naga armed opposition groups - both Issac-Muivah and Kaplang factions of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland - have been engaged in a peace process since July 1997. The peace process stresses the axiom that political problems cannot be resolved by merely terming it as law and order problems - “arson, murder, loot, dacoity” - crimes which are more associated with mainland India’s Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.

There is no doubt that a large number of armed opposition groups operate in Manipur and elsewhere in the North East and that they have been responsible for gross human rights abuses. Yet, unlawful law enforcement only begets contempt for the rule of law and contributes to a vicious cycle of violence. The unusual form of demonstrations by some members of the Meira Paibis who stripped themselves in front of the Kangla Fort on 15 July 2004 was an act of desperation to protest against the systematic denial of access to justice even for unlawful, intentional, arbitrary, summary and extrajudicial deprivation of the right to life. The third preambular paragraph of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law” - is prophetic about such situations.

A reckless approach towards human life and liberty in the last 45 years under the AFPSA has been counter-productive and caused alienation of the people in the North East. The review of the AFSPA is overdue for many reasons.

First, the AFSPA has manifestly failed to contain, let alone resolve, all insurgency problems in the North East. When the AFSPA was imposed on 8 September 1980, there were only four armed opposition groups in Manipur - the United National Liberation Front, People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak, People’s Liberation Army, and National Socialist Council of Nagaland. However, today there are over two dozens armed opposition groups including the Kanglei Yaol Kanba Lup, People’s United Liberation Front, North East Minority Peoples Front, Islamic National Front, Islamic Revolutionary Front, United Islamic Liberation Army, Kuki National Army, Kuki National Front, Kuki Revolutionary Army, Zomi Revolutionary Army and the United Kuki Liberation Front, among others.

Second, there are adequate laws to deal with insurgency situations and the non-State actors. While India did not have specific laws in 1958 to deal with armed opposition The AFSPA: Lawless law enforcement according to the law? groups, it has subsequently adopted numerous draconian laws such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention Act), 1985 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002. After the lapse of these laws, the government of India amended the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 in December 2004 to incorporate the provisions of the POTA. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 as amended in 2004 is adequate to deal with all insurgent groups and their unlawful activities.

Third, the strength of any country claiming itself as “democratic” lies in upholding the supremacy of the judiciary and primacy of the rule of law. It requires putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the innocents and punishment for breaches of such provisions while exercising executive powers; and not in providing the arbitrary powers to the law enforcement personnel to be law unto themselves. The AFSPA violates basic tenets of criminal justice system in any civilized society. First, it provides special powers which tantamount to awarding heavier penalty to the suspects than convicted persons would get under normal court, a clear violation of the cardinal principle of criminal justice system - nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege.6 Second, non-application of due process of law makes the armed forces to be their own judge and jury. Most importantly, by giving virtual impunity to the armed forces under Section 6 of the AFSPA which makes its mandatory to seek prior permission of the Central government to initiate any legal proceedings, the Executive has expressed its lack of faith in the judiciary. Otherwise, it would have been left to the judiciary to decide whether the charges are vexatious, abusive or frivolous.

Though, there is no need for retention of the AFSPA, the Review Committee appears to have already decided to retain the AFSPA with some amendments. It has called for representation on whether it should recommend to the government of India to “(i) amend the provisions of the Act to bring them in consonance with the obligations of the Government towards protection of Human Rights; or (ii) replace the Act by a more humane legislation.” Both the proposals have the same end - the retention of the Act.
In order to uphold the supremacy of the judiciary and primacy of the rule of law, the Review Committee must ensure that the judgements of the Supreme Court of India and opinions of international bodies including the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the AFSPA are incorporated in the amended AFSPA. Leaving it to the armed forces to respect “Do’s and Don’ts” issued by the army authorities as naively espoused by the Supreme Court of India in its controversial judgment on the constitutional validity of the AFSPA and to the courts to decide “case by case basis” have proved to be inadequate, ineffective and counter productive because of continued violations of human rights.

Extrajudicial Executions for Maintenance of Public Order
Since Manipur has been declared as a “disturbed area” on 8 September 1980, according to Manipur Chief Minister Lbobi Singh over 8,000 innocent persons and over 12,000 members of armed opposition groups and security forces have lost their lives.35

In practice, there are hundreds of armed encounters each year. Not every armed encounter is questioned. However, when people, whether innocent civilians, suspects or members of armed oppositions groups are captured from their houses or villages and routinely killed in fake encounters, allegations of extrajudicial killings surface. Yet, there has been little or no documentary evidence to prove that the victims were indeed arrested as no arrest memo is issued, not to mention about evidence to prove subsequent extrajudicial executions.

However, the extrajudicial execution of Ms Thangjam Manorama Devi has both exceptional as well as routine aspects.

It is exceptional because unlike hundreds of other arrests, the Assam Rifles personnel issued an arrest warrant. Havildar (General Duty) Suresh Kumar (No. 173355) of the 17th Assam Rifles signed the arrest memo. Rifleman T Lotha (No. 173916) and Rifleman Ajit Singh (No. 173491) signed as witnesses. The arrest memo stated that Ms Manorama Devi was arrested as a suspected member of the Peoples Liberation Army and they recovered nothing from her and that she was healthy at the time of her arrest.36
The recovery of Manorama’s dead body from Ngariyan Mapao Maring village on the morning of 12 July 2004 with telltale signs of brutal torture all over her body is a routine matter.37

Prior to the inquiry into the death of Manorama Devi, Justice Upendra conducted over half a dozen similar inquiries. Justice Upendra Commission as required under normal law of the land summoned the concerned Assam Rifles personnel to depose as mere witness since they had signed the arrest warrant for Manorama. The fact that the Assam Rifles questioned the jurisdiction of the Upendra Commission of Inquiry on the ground that the State government had not taken prior permission from the Central government is nothing unusual either.

Impunity to the Armed Forces
Under Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, “No prosecution, suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of powers conferred by this Act.”101

This provision violates India’s treaty obligation under Article 2(3) of the ICCPR according to which:

“Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies.”
What is more worrying is the fact that Section 6 of the AFSPA has been overtaken by Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code102 (Cr.P.C.) amended in 1991 to provide virtual impunity to the armed forces. Impunity has been made a feature of normal criminal jurisprudence. In fact Section 197 of the Cr P.C. has made section 6 of the AFSPA redundant. If the Central government were to give permission under section 197 of the Cr P.C., there is no reason as to why the same permission will not be granted under Section 6 of the AFSPA.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions lucidly summarised the impunity and extra-judicial executions in her report to the 57th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights:
“Impunity for human rights offenders seriously undermines the rule of law, and also widens the gap between those close to the power structures and others who are vulnerable to human rights abuses. In this way, human rights violations are perpetuated or sometimes even encouraged, as perpetrators feel that they are free to act in a climate of impunity. ....., extrajudicial killings and acts of murder may sometimes also go unpunished because of the sex, religious belief, or ethnicity of the victim. Long-standing discrimination and prejudice against such groups are often used as justification of these crimes. The increasing difficulties in securing justice alienate the people from the State and may drive them to take the law into their own hands, resulting in a further erosion of the justice system and a vicious circle of violence and retaliation. If unaddressed, such situations may easily degenerate into a state of anarchy and social disintegration. Human rights protection and respect for the rule of law are central to lasting peace and stability. It is, therefore, crucial that conflict prevention strategies and post-conflict peace-building efforts include effective measures to end the culture of impunity and protect the rule of law.”103

While examining the third periodic report of the government of India, an expert of the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated “Article 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, which prevented all legal proceedings against members of the armed forces, was extremely worrying; if the Government’s fear was that citizens would bring vexatious or frivolous actions, that was a matter better left to the courts to resolve. It was inadmissible for citizens to be deprived of a remedy as was at present the case”.104

In its Concluding Observations, the United Nations Human Rights Committee noted “with concern that criminal prosecutions or civil proceedings against members of the security and armed forces, acting under special powers, may not be commenced without the sanction of the central Government. This contributes to a climate of impunity and deprives people of remedies to which they may be entitled in accordance with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant”.

There are adequate legal guarantees for preventing vexatious and frivolous actions. However, by making it mandatory to seek prior permission of the Central government to initiate any legal proceedings against the armed forces, the Executive has expressed its lack of faith in the judiciary of the country.

Abuses by the Armed Opposition Groups
1. Background on the Armed Opposition Groups in Manipur
Manipur literally meaning “A jeweled land” came under the British Rule as a Princely State after the defeat in the Anglo-Manipuri War of 1891. After independence of India in 1947, the Princely State of Manipur was merged in the Indian Union on 15 October 1949 and became a full-fledged State of India on the 21 January 1972.

Manipur was recognized as a state in 1972, nine years after Nagaland was created out of Assam in 1963. The Manipuri language was included in the Eight Schedule of the Constitution of India in 1992 after a prolong struggle.
Manipur is not only about the Meiteis who profess Vaisnavites Hinduism. It is also home to about 30 different tribes who profess Christianity. Some of the larger tribes include Nagas, Kukis, Paites, Thadous, Simtes, Vaipheis, Raltes, Gangtes and Hmars. Unlike the Meiteis, who occupy the Imphal Valley and constitute a little over 50% of the total population, the other tribes inhabit the surrounding hill districts.

The Meitei armed opposition groups were mainly based in Imphal valley although the Kuki Movement for Human Rights alleged that they have strengthened their bases in hilly areas.

The first armed opposition group, United National Liberation Front (UNLF), was formed on 24 November 1964 by Samarendra Singh demanding independence from India. Since then many armed opposition groups led by Meiteis were established with similar objectives. The People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) was formed in 1977. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was formed in 1978. The Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) was formed in 1980. As an off-shoot of UNLF, Kanglei Yaol Kanba Lup (KYKL) was formed in 1990s. All the Meitei armed opposition groups reportedly function presently under the banner of Manipur People’s Liberation Front (MPLF).112

After a series of clashes between Meiteis and the Pangals, the Manipuri muslims, in May, 1993 which led to the killings of 97 persons, a number of new outfits such as People’s United Liberation Front (PULF), North East Minority Peoples Front (NEMPF), Islamic National Front, Islamic Revolutionary Front (IRF) and United Islamic Liberation Army (UILA) were formed.

Of the 40 Naga sub-tribes in the North East, there are over 20 Naga tribes in Manipur particularly in Ukhrul, Senapati, Chandel and Tamenglong districts. Both factions of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland, the Issac-Muivah and Kaplang factions are active in Manipur. The Naga armed opposition groups demand independence of Naga inhabited areas. In the negotiation between the government of India and the NSCN (I-M), the issue of “Greater Nagaland” consisting of the Naga inhabited areas in Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland has figured.

The Meiteis, the State government of Manipur and the Meitei armed opposition groups oppose the inclusion of the Naga inhabited areas into the so called Greater Nagaland. The extension of the cease-fire agreement between the National Socialist Council of Nagaland and the government of India into Manipur led to protest and the burning of the Manipur State assembly in June 2001. The State Government of Manipur however withdrew the ban on the NSCN on 30 November 2002.113

The conflicts between the Nagas and the Kukis since 1992 led to emergence of a number of Kuki armed opposition groups such as Kuki National Army (KNA), Kuki National Front (KNF), Kuki Revolutionary Army (KRA), Zomi Revolutionary Army (ZRA) and the United Kuki Liberation Front. Most of these Kuki outfits are demanding a “separate homeland” within the Indian union.

Since Manipur has been declared as a Disturbed Area in 1980, according to Manipur Chief Minister Ibobi Singh over 8,000 innocent persons and over 12,000 members of armed opposition groups and security forces have lost their lives.114

2. Executions by the Armed Opposition Groups
The armed opposition groups have been responsible for torture, extrajudicial executions, hostage taking, extortions and blatant violations of the provisions of International Humanitarian Laws. The victims include innocent civilians, alleged police informers and corrupt officials or simply inability to pay extortion money.

The people of Manipur are caught in a vicious cycle. The nexus between the political leaders and armed opposition groups is a public knowledge in Manipur. The extortion, euphemistically called as taxes by the armed opposition groups, is also public knowledge and often collected under the noses of the administration. Across the highways both the security forces and armed opposition groups extort from innocent people as well as businessmen.

The armed opposition groups reportedly collect taxes from sources - meaning a government official from a particular department has to collect the extortion money, euphemistically called “taxes” on behalf of the armed opposition groups who then distribute it among themselves. All government officials including the senior most officials allegedly pay taxes. In a rare incident, in June 2004, the State government accorded sanction for prosecution of two employees of the All India Radio, Imphal who are accused of collecting illegal “taxes” from fellow employees on behalf of three separate underground organisations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The two men, Meisnam Achou Singh, 56, of Keisampat Mutum Leirak, a programme executive, and Hijam Homendro Singh, 57, of Kongpal Khaidem Leikai, an accountant, allegedly collected a total of Rs. 3,34,310 from 122 fellow employees at the rate of 1% of basic pay, and paid the same to activists of the underground UNLF, PREPAK and KYKL during the year 2000.115

The situation of the Kukis exemplies the plight of the civilians. According to the Kuki Movement for Human Rights armed opposition groups forcibly stay in their villages, mix themselves with the civil population, use the civilians as human shields against the security forces. The villagers are used for sentry day and night on rotation as well as for cooking and carrying supplies needed by them. All paths are mined (land mine) thereby making free movement difficult both human being and domestic animals. The people also have to give food. When the security forces find the members of the armed opposition groups, the villagers are subjected to atrocities for informing the security forces. If the security forces come to know about the presence of the armed opposition groups, the villagers are once again blamed for proving shelter and support.116

Excerpts from the Supreme Court Judgement on Armed Forces Special Powers Act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 Writ petition (Crl) 550 of 1982 with Writ Petition (C) Nos. 5328/80, 9229-30/82, Civil Appeals Nos. 721 to 724 of 1985, 2173-76/1991,2551/81 and Writ Petition (C) Nos. 13644-45/84
Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights, etc. - Petitioner vs. Union of India - Respondent

Before J.S. Verma, CJI and other four Judges 27 November, 1997
Operative Part of the Judgement (Relevant extracts) 74. In the light of the above discussion we arrive at the following conclusions:
(1) Parliament was competent to enact the Central Act in exercise of the legislative power conferred on it under Entry 2 of List I and Article 248 read with Entry 97 of List I. After the insertion of Entry 2A in List I by the Forty Second Amendment of the Constitution, the legislative power of Parliament to enact the Central Act flows from Entry 2A of List I. It is not a law in respect of maintenance of public order falling under Entry I and List II.
(2) The expression ‘in aid of the civil power” in Entry 2A of List I and in Entry 1 of List II implies that deployment of the armed forces of the Union shall be for the purpose of enabling the civil power in the State to deal with the situation affecting maintenance of public order which has necessitated the deployment of the armed forces in the State.

(3) The word ‘aid” postulates the continued existence of the authority to be aided. This would mean that even after deployment of the armed forces the civil power will continue to function.

(4) The power to make a law providing for deployment of the armed forces of the Union in aid of the civil power of a State does not include within its ambit the power to enact a law which would enable the armed forces of the Union to supplant or act as a substitute for the civil power in the State. The armed forces of the Union would operate in the State concerned in cooperation with the civil administration so that the situation which has necessitated the deployment of armed forces is effectively dealt with and normalcy is restored.

(5) The Central Act does not displace the civil power of the State by the armed forces of the Union and it only provides for deployment of armed forces of the Union in aid of the civil power.

(6) The Central Act cannot be regarded as a colourable legislation or a fraud on the Constitution. It is not a measure intended to achieve the same result as contemplated by a Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 or a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution.

(7) Section 3 of the Central act does not confer an arbitrary or unguided power to declare an area as a ‘disturbed area”. For declaring an area as a ‘disturbed area” under Section 3 there must exist a grave situation of law and order on the basis of which the Governor/Administrator of the State/Union territory of the Central Government can from an opinion that the area is in such a disturbed or dangerous condition that the use of the armed forces in aid of civil power is necessary.

(8) A declaration under Section 3 has to be for a limited duration and there should be periodic review of the declaration before the expiry of six months.

(9) Although a declaration under Section 3 can be made by the Central Government suo motto without consulting the concerned State Government, but it is desirable that the State Government be consulted while making the declaration.

(10) The conferment of the power to make a declaration under Section 3 of the Central Act on the Governor of the State cannot be regarded as delegation of the power of the Central Government.

(11) The conferment of the power to make a declaration under Section 3 of the Central Act of the Government is not violative of the federal scheme as envisaged by the Constitution.

(12) The provision contained in Sections 130 and 131 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as comparable and adequate to deal with the situation requiring the use of armed forces in aid of civil power as envisaged by the Central Act.

(13) The powers conferred under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Central Act on the officers of the armed forces, including a Non-Commissioned Officer, are not arbitrary and unreasonable and are not violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 19 or 21 of the Constitution.

(14) While exercising the powers conferred under Section 4(a) of the Central Act, the officer in the armed forces shall use minimal force required for effective action against the person/persons acting in contravention of the prohibitory order.

(15) A person arrested and taken into custody in exercise of the powers under Section 4(c) of the Central Act should be handed over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station with least possible delay so that he can be produced before nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest excluding the time taken for journey from the place of arrest to the court of magistrate.

(16) The property or the arms, ammunition etc., seized during the course of search conducted under Section 4(d) of the Central Act must be handed over to officer in charge of the nearest police station together with a report of the circumstances occasioning such search and seizure.

(17) The provisions of Cr.P.C. governing search and seizure have to be followed during the course of search and seizure conducted in exercise of the power conferred under Section 4(d) of the Central Act.

(18) Section 6 of the Central Act in so far as it confers a discretion on the Central Government to grant or refuse sanction for instituting prosecution or suit or proceeding against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. Since the order of the Central Government refusing or granting the sanction under Section 6 is subject to judicial review, the Central Government shall pass an order giving reasons.

(19) While exercising the power conferred under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 4 the officers of the armed forces shall strictly follow the instructions contained in the list of ‘Do’s and Don’ts” issued by the army authorities which are binding and any disregard to the said instructions would entail suitable action under the Army Act, 1950.

(20) The instructions contained in the list of ‘Do’s and Don’ts” shall be suitably amended so as to bring them in conformity with the guidelines contained in the decisions of this Court and to incorporate the safeguards that are contained in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Central Act as construed and also the direction contained in the order of this Court dated July 4, 1991 in Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 1991.

(21) A complaint containing an allegation about misuse or abuse of the powers conferred under the Central Act shall be thoroughly inquired into and, if on enquiry it is found that the allegations are correct, the victim should be suitably compensated and the necessary sanction for institution of prosecution and/or suit or other proceeding should be granted under Section 6 of the Central Act.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Ram Jethmalani appeals for peace in Kashmir

Statement By Kashmir Committee through its Chairman Ram Jethmalani
No Society or Nation can survive for long without a spirit of mutual generosity, respect and accommodation of one another's feelings and needs. Providing an insignificant piece of land for the convenience of devout pilgrims on a holy journey to a venerated shrine should not have led to vast agitations, closure of markets, blockades of transport vehicles torching of houses police firings and tragic deaths.

The Kashmir Committee feels vicariously ashamed. Large hearted Muslims should not have objected and when objection was raised self respecting Hindus should have rejected the paltry munificence of the State. It is well to remind ourselves that the fabric of our social relationships, knitted out of a philosophy of humanism, transcends limitations of political divisions. It is imperative, out of responsibility towards future generations, that we do not shred what we have inherited through countless centuries, a harmony so carefully preserved by our forefathers.

Faith is indivisible from the Indian psyche. The strength of our secularism lies in the unique respect that we have for the right of every person to worship God in his or her own way. Our message to the world has been simple and yet powerful: we do not have to agree with each other in order to respect each other. Pilgrimage is an inherent part of our most ancient and continuing traditions. Helping a pilgrim รข€“ whether a Muslim on Haj, a Hindu trekking to Amarnath, a Sikh going to the Golden Temple or a Christian heading for Bethlehem is its own reward.

The Committee firmly believes that the need of the hour is to cool tempers on all sides. If this is not done, the consequences for the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the entire Indian nation and the South Asian region could be disastrous.

The Kashmir Committee appeals to all political leaders, political parties and agitating groups in Jammu, Srinagar and New Delhi to exercise restraint in word and deed. The Committee appeals to them to immediately end all street demonstrations, bandhs and road blockages. This must be the vital first step leading to calm in Jammu and Kashmir.

The Kashmir Committee also calls upon the security forces to exercise utmost restraint. Firing on persons marching peacefully to any destination including the Line Of Control is wholly unjustified and killing of any one doing just that is culpable homicide.

It is time sane elements in the State come together put an end to the prevalent madness and find a lasting solution. It is not very difficult let alone impossible.

This statement issues with the concurrence of all my colleagues in the Committee.

Ram Jethmalani

Thursday, August 14, 2008

SC notice to centre on baby Manjhi's custody

The Supreme Court has asked for a response from the Central government on a petition filed by Japanese infant Manjhee's grandmother seeking her custody. A two judge bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat issued notice to the government after counsel Indira Jaisingh moved for early hearing in the case. As the court was closed today, the case was heard at Justice Pasayat's residence.

The court has directed that the custody of the infant will remain with the grand mother till the matter is finally decided by the court. The court has fixed August 20th for hearing of the case. Earliar, the grandmother of Japanese infant Manji had approached the Supreme Court, seeking that the child should not be separated from her and the father. She also sought requisition of relevant travel documents for the child, so that she could be deported safely to Japan.

The grandmother was forced to move the apex court, after she learnt that the custody of the child could not be given to the father as Indian laws do not permit a single father to adopt a girl child. Manji was born on the 25th of July after her biological parents Ikufumi Yamada and Yuki Yamada entered into a contract with a woman in Gujarat to become their child's surrogate mother. The problem started when a month before Manji was born, her biological mother divorced her husband and disowned the child.