In India, anyone considered a threat to public order or security of the state can be preventatively locked up under the National Security Act for up to one year without trial or the requirement for the police to produce formal charges in court. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act, operational in areas declared "disturbed" (for instance, Manipur and Jammu and Kashmir) gives soldiers licence to shoot to kill anyone breaching a law or official order prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons. Under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, an accused can be denied the right to proceedings in an open court, which is an essential element of a fair trial. Moreover, the criminal procedure code – the police officers' and judges' rule book – prevents courts, without prior permission of the government, from prosecuting public servants for offences committed while "acting or purporting to act" in the discharge of official duty. Government permission to prosecute members of law enforcement agencies accused of torture and extrajudicial killings is often, however, not forthcoming.
Every year at its World Assembly, Civicus draws attention to activists imprisoned because of their work as part of the Civil Society Behind Bars campaign. This year, the case of Dr Binayak Sen, vice-president of the People's Union for Civil Liberties, one of India's most well-respected human rights groups was highlighted before the international community. Sen, detained since May 2006, has worked to expose extrajudicial killings by the police and excesses committed by Salwa Judum, the government sponsored militia in the conflict-ridden state of Chhattisgarh. He stands accused of passing messages to Naxal/Maoist insurgents in prison whom he used to visit as part of his civil society work.
The Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, one of the laws under which Sen is charged, contains an overbroad definition of what constitutes an unlawful activity, which can be conveniently invoked to clamp down on the freedom of expression and journalists' rights. Draconian punishment of up to seven years' imprisonment is prescribed under the law for uttering words, writing or making visual representations that create "risk or danger for public order, peace or public tranquillity". Moreover, any organisation can be declared unlawful by issuing a government notification. Although, the government is obliged to specify the reasons for declaring an organisation unlawful, it may dispense with this requirement if, in its opinion, it is against the public interest to do so. In May 2008, Ajay TG, another leading civil liberties activist and journalist who has made a number of films around the themes of poverty and human rights violations was arrested under this law for making contact with an unlawful organisation because he wrote a letter to Maoist insurgents requesting return of his camera, which had been snatched by them on one of his field trips. That the grounds of his arrest were flimsy is borne out by the fact that despite the passage of three months, the police were unable to collect enough evidence to file charges against Ajay, leading to his automatic release on bail on August 5 this year.
Although the cases against Sen and Ajay are still pending, a debate on the utility of draconian laws enforced in the name of "protecting" the Indian state is long overdue. Proponents of these laws often argue that the country is in the grip of multiple insurgencies seeking to dismember the country, which has also been the target of both indigenous and global terrorist networks. Most civil society groups wholeheartedly agree that terrorism in all it forms must be resolutely countered, but the means employed by constitutional democracies must not violate the core rights and freedoms that are the bedrocks of their society. Only if the means are just can governments hope to defeat those who employ terrorist tactics, while also encouraging disaffected peoples to join the democratic political process.
Every year at its World Assembly, Civicus draws attention to activists imprisoned because of their work as part of the Civil Society Behind Bars campaign. This year, the case of Dr Binayak Sen, vice-president of the People's Union for Civil Liberties, one of India's most well-respected human rights groups was highlighted before the international community. Sen, detained since May 2006, has worked to expose extrajudicial killings by the police and excesses committed by Salwa Judum, the government sponsored militia in the conflict-ridden state of Chhattisgarh. He stands accused of passing messages to Naxal/Maoist insurgents in prison whom he used to visit as part of his civil society work.
The Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, one of the laws under which Sen is charged, contains an overbroad definition of what constitutes an unlawful activity, which can be conveniently invoked to clamp down on the freedom of expression and journalists' rights. Draconian punishment of up to seven years' imprisonment is prescribed under the law for uttering words, writing or making visual representations that create "risk or danger for public order, peace or public tranquillity". Moreover, any organisation can be declared unlawful by issuing a government notification. Although, the government is obliged to specify the reasons for declaring an organisation unlawful, it may dispense with this requirement if, in its opinion, it is against the public interest to do so. In May 2008, Ajay TG, another leading civil liberties activist and journalist who has made a number of films around the themes of poverty and human rights violations was arrested under this law for making contact with an unlawful organisation because he wrote a letter to Maoist insurgents requesting return of his camera, which had been snatched by them on one of his field trips. That the grounds of his arrest were flimsy is borne out by the fact that despite the passage of three months, the police were unable to collect enough evidence to file charges against Ajay, leading to his automatic release on bail on August 5 this year.
Although the cases against Sen and Ajay are still pending, a debate on the utility of draconian laws enforced in the name of "protecting" the Indian state is long overdue. Proponents of these laws often argue that the country is in the grip of multiple insurgencies seeking to dismember the country, which has also been the target of both indigenous and global terrorist networks. Most civil society groups wholeheartedly agree that terrorism in all it forms must be resolutely countered, but the means employed by constitutional democracies must not violate the core rights and freedoms that are the bedrocks of their society. Only if the means are just can governments hope to defeat those who employ terrorist tactics, while also encouraging disaffected peoples to join the democratic political process.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for leaving comments. You are making this discussion richer and more beneficial to everyone. Do not hold back.