Mukul Sharma in Kafila

The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of democratic societies. How a person is treated, when accused of a crime, provides a concrete demonstration of how far a State respects human rights. Detention is ‘arbitrary’, where there are often grave violations of the right to a fair trial. Detention and imprisonment, which may be lawful under national standards, are considered ‘unlawful’ under international standards. A fair trial is indispensable for the protection of other rights, such as the right to freedom from torture, the right to life, and the right to freedom of expression. This right should never be compromised. However, throughout the country, people are being detained and imprisoned without a fair trial. In these circumstances, many face torture and other forms of ill-treatment. The continued detention of Dr. Binayak Sen, Vice-President of India’s leading human rights organization, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), should trigger a debate, not only in Chhattisgarh, but also around the country, about whether and to what extent the right to a fair trial may be compromised in the name of security.

Dr. Sen was detained on 14 May 2007. However, charges were not filed properly for seven months. In the meantime, he was denied bail, and was kept in solitary confinement for three weeks in March-April 2008. Much delayed, his trial commenced on 30 April 2008 and was adjourned till July. Before the trial began, the presiding judge announced that only one human rights activist could attend the hearing at a time, though he later relented, making the trial public. In jail, Dr. Sen continued to suffer from severe gout, which posed difficulties for him to take care of his daily needs. He also suffered from frequent micturation, indicative of a prostrate problem. Despite appeals to organize proper medical treatment as per the jail rules, no concrete action came from the trial court. Before and during the trial proceedings, the prosecution and the police were attempting to intimidate the family members and colleagues of Dr. Sen. The police so far has not produced any evidence from the materials in its possession, including a computer hard disk that they had seized from Dr. Sen’s residence and clinic. The police have yet to return the computer disk, ten months after getting it examined from the Hyderabad-based Forensic Science Laboratory, giving rise to doubts that it was being tampered to manufacture evidence. On every occasion that Dr. Sen was brought to the court, there was massive police presence, leading to an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Dr. Sen has been charged under several sections of the Chhattisgarh Public Security Act, 2005 (CSPSA), the Unlawful activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and the Indian Penal Code. Both the CSPSA and the UAPA contain vague and sweeping definitions of ‘unlawful activities’, for which organizations may be rendered ‘unlawful’, such as ‘uttering words…which propound the disobedience of established law and its institutions’. If convicted, Dr. Sen could be sentenced to life imprisonment.

Abuse of the criminal process in a trial has a number of different, but related, aspects. Delay in the procedure, loss or destruction of evidence, abuse of power by the executive, use of unlawfully obtained evidence, prosecutor’s improper motives, denial of the rights of victims — these are some of the several serious concerns raised, regarding the everyday practices of the criminal justice system in the country. Delay is a cause of serious injustices in India. Lengthy periods of per-trial imprisonment, anxiety, expenses, loss of days and memory — all lead to a situation where the accused cannot get justice. Further, in criminal cases the prosecution has a virtual monopoly on investigation. It is therefore axiomatic that the prosecution should not be able to evade their duties of disclosure, by suppressing, loosing, preventing or destroying evidence. Prosecutions in various situations, including in conflict zones, are resulting in an abuse of power by the executive, where unlawfulness or breach of law by the State agents has made it virtually impossible to give the accused a fair trial. So many times the evidences are obtained unlawfully, the admission of which has an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings. Not only this, the circumstances in which evidences are obtained are crucial. For example, in any proceedings, international law strictly prohibits the admission of evidence of statements obtained by torture.

Against these methods, there are various kinds of international human rights standards, national laws and court judgments, relevant to fair trials. Impartial, constitutional bodies exist, that give authoritative guidance on how to interpret these standards. Pre-trial rights (the right to liberty, the right of people in custody to information, the right to legal counsel before trial, the right of detainees to have access to the outside world, the right to be brought promptly before a judge or other judicial officer, the right during interrogation, etc.), and rights at trial (the right to trial by a competent, independent and impartial court, the right to a fair hearing, the right to a public hearing, the presumption of innocence, the right to be tried without undue delay, the right to be present at trial and appeal, the right to call and examine witnesses, etc.), are many. Thus, assessing the fairness of a criminal trial, and establishing peoples’ rights is complex and multi-faceted. The severe shortcomings in our criminal justice system, and the unaccountability of the police, administration and judiciary, makes it virtually impossible to establish the right to a fair trial in contemporary India.

Read more

Related posts

• India: Serious concerns over fair trial : Amnesty International Australia (0)
• Update on PUCL challenge to Chattisgarh Special Public security Act (1)
• Prison diaries of a suspected Naxal (0)

Bangaloreans lend support to human right activist

Times of India

BANGALORE: Students, writers and film-makers thronged the Centre for Film and Drama (CFD) on Monday to express support towards and watch films made by journalist Ajay T G, who has just been released by the Chhattisgarh police on bail after being arrested on charges of Maoist links.

The CFD screened four films shot on life in Bhilai and Jharkhand, reflecting the varied working conditions of people - from ironsmiths to hospital workers - and different societal expectations on family, marriage , gender progress and community life.

Ajay, who hails from Kerala, stayed in Bhilai for almost two decades. The photojournalist is also part of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), which is spearheading a campaign for human rights in Chhattisgarh. His PUCL colleague, Binayak Sen, is in a Chhattisgarh jail on charges of lending covert support to Maoists.

Writer and historian Ramachandra Guha, who spoke soon after the screening, said Chhattisgarh was caught in a cycle of violence between the police, Salwa Judum and Maoists. “Adivasis are most affected. Dantewada district, in particular, has been hit badly. The arrest of Sen and Ajay reflects the conditions prevailing in Chhattisgarh,” Guha said.

Ajay was picked up after his camera was allegedly found in the Maoists’ possession. He will address a meet in Delhi on his arrest, the reasons given and the circumstances under which he was jailed.

Related posts

• Update on PUCL challenge to Chattisgarh Special Public security Act (1)
• The statesman Cover Story: THE EVIL WITHIN (1)
• The saga of State impunity: K G Kannabiran on Rediff.com (0)

I’m no Maoist: Filmmaker Ajay TG

MSN India

Incarcerated for 93 days on charges of being a Maoist, independent documentary filmmaker Ajay TG has vehemently denied the label, saying he will fight for repealing the draconian law under which he was arrested.

“I am no Naxalite (Maoist). I have never been associated with any acts of insurgency or terror. I don’t know what I am being charged with,” Ajay, who was held under the notorious Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act (CSPSA) and accused of sedition, said.

He was released on conditional bail after the police failed to file a chargesheet against him in court within the stipulated 90 days. The case against him has not been closed and he has to report to the police in Bhillai town every alternate Monday. He has also been barred from leaving the country.

“There is no FIR (first information report), no charge sheet. How do I defend myself?” asked Ajay, who is a member of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). He was in the capital to attend a meeting convened by the Committee for the Release of Ajay TG, to celebrate his release.

Ajay was released on August 5 but another prominent rights activist, Binayak Sen, who was arrested under the same act on May 14, 2007, is still in jail. Sen is the PUCL’s general secretary.

Read more

Related posts

• Update on PUCL challenge to Chattisgarh Special Public security Act (1)
• Trials of a campaigner for civil liberties (0)
• The statesman Cover Story: THE EVIL WITHIN (1)

Prison diaries of a suspected Naxal

Sreelatha Menon
EAR TO THE GROUND

Business Standard, August 10, 2008

Ajay TG, arrested on suspicion of being a Naxalite, plans a film on those who are jailed for no reason at all.

What does a film-maker do in jail? When it is Ajay TG, the jail becomes his muse, prompting to him stories about a man spending his time in jail for no reason at all, stories about 74 men like him in Durg jail who have been branded Naxalites.

For Ajay TG, arrested four months ago and released this week, the prison was a time to revisit the past three decades he spent in Bhilai since he left his village in Engandiyur in Thrissur district of Kerala as a 15 year old.

He came to Bhilai to join his father, who ran a petty business to keep afloat a large joint family back home. But he learned to wield the camera and worked for anthropologists like Jonathan Perry, who was researching on poverty amid industrialisation , and finally landed in jail after being accused of being a Naxalite.

Ajay TG was released this week after the Chhattisgarh police failed to gather enough evidence. The release was the culmination of a loud chorus of condemnation from film-makers like Adoor Gopalakrishnan and Mrinal Sen. It was a victory of illusion-makers as the Chhattisgarh police realised they were chasing an illusion.

Read more

Related posts

• The statesman Cover Story: THE EVIL WITHIN (1)
• Update on PUCL challenge to Chattisgarh Special Public security Act (1)
• Ten-day fast in protest against the black laws & for immediate release of dr. Binayak Sen, Ajay TG & Others (16th to 25th June, 2008) (0)

AJAY T G GRANTED BAIL AS CHHATTISGARH POLICE FAILS TO FILE THE CHARGE SHEETAJAY T G GRANTED BAIL!

PUCL UPDATE (4th August 2008)

Today the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), at Durg District Court in Chhattisgarh granted bail to Mr. Ajay T G, a film-maker and member of the State Executive Committee of Chhattisgarh PUCL, who was detained under the draconian law called The Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act 2005.

The Chhattisgarh Police failed to file the Charge Sheet in the case during the mandatory 90 days. After completion of 90 days on 2nd August, 2008, the lawyers moved bail application u/s 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The matter was heard today, and in the evening the Bail was granted to Ajay TG. However, he is likely to be released only tomorrow, because of technicalities involved. Instead of filing the Charge Sheet, the police took 10 days remand on 2nd August, 2008.

During the hearings, Adv K Bose Thomas (Former Member, State Executive Committee, CG PUCL), Adv Dalip Ingle, represented Ajay T G. Adv Sudha Bhardwaj (Member, State Executive Committee, CG PUCL), and Adv Mahindar Dubey, were also present in the Court, along with family and friends of Ajay TG.

The failure of the Chhattisgarh Police to file the Charge Sheet in Ajay TG’s case is to be viewed against the backdrop of concerted campaign where Ajay himself, and the CG PUCL have been claiming that he has been falsely implicated only to target human rights activists like Ajay TG, and also organisations like the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, which have carried on a systematic struggle for preservation and promotion of human rights in Chhattisgarh. PUCL would study the implications of the case, and seek further legal action.

The CG PUCL is of the view that the case of Dr. Binayak Sen (it’s General Secretary, and National Vice-President) should be reviewed by an independent agency, and subsequently withdrawn as the prosecution has, so far, not been able to establish its case, at all.

It may be worth mentioning here, that the Director General of Police (DGP), Chhattisgarh, Mr. Vishwaranjan had met Ajay TG on 19th July, 2008, in person. According to the reports appearing in a section of the press, it appears that the State Government is contemplating withdrawing the case against Ajay TG. In that context, the meeting of the highest police official with Ajay TG, while in judicial custody, carries some significance. However, it is only Ajay TG would be able to reveal the nature and content of this meeting.

Rajendra K Sail
President
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES–CHHATTISGARH
Post Box No. 87, Main Post Office, Raipur – 492001: Chhattisgarh: India
E-mail: pucl.cg@gmail.com
Mobile: 094242-01288

Related posts

• Weak states make bad laws and kill the messenger (0)
• Update on PUCL challenge to Chattisgarh Special Public security Act (1)
• The statesman Cover Story: THE EVIL WITHIN (1)

Next Page →