Objective
of the Study:
The
subject of Human Rights mostly gives the readers an insight on the society
where people are wronged based on their fundamental rights. The department of
Mental Health has defined Human Rights as the values and fundamental principles
that are needed in order to support and promote the full respect, dignity, and
care of each individual.[1]
However, these rights are often ignored in the contemporary Indian society, not
deliberately, but because of the more serious and grave cases that the judicial
system has not yet solved, which makes Human Rights violation cases seem petty
before the system, as according to any rational man, a homicide is more serious
than a person who was called black and discriminated.
However,
this ignorance has led to a lazy judicial system which does not give much
support to the people who suffer from human rights violation. In this study, we
will look at some of the contemporary human rights issues which have become big
matters of concern, although they were ‘petty’ at first.
The
topics I will be covering through this research study are briefly mentioned as
follows:
1. The
Jaffrabad Case, where Safoora Zargar was arrested under UAPA act and accused of
spreading terror through a strong speech delivered in public, which apparently
caused riots in Delhi. Brief touch on Natasha Narwal and Devangana issue.
[1] Massachusetts. Department of
Mental Health. (2000). “Human Rights 101: for Human Rights Coordinators, Human
Rights Officers, Human Rights Committees and the People You Serve”, Massachusetts
Department of Mental Health (2000).
2. Umar
Khalid’s feminist, anti-hate peaceful group – “India against Hate”, for which
he was arrested, as his speeches were misleading and caused riots in
Delhi.
3. Divyangana
Trivedi being an anti-feminist while a woman herself.
4. Brief
touch on the prison issue in India. 89% of prison population is only
undertrials. Slow, lazy Indian Judiciary, huge burden on those who are
innocent, poses as a threat to the whole country.
Introduction:
Before
diving into the issues that are going to be discussed in this research study,
the author would like to first start by sharing Akhilesh Maheshwari’s[1]
(Co-Founder of Naya Sawera NGO – dealing with POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice
Act majorly) these issues. Naya Sawera
NGO has taken several initiatives, such as, in order to human rights violations
issues the NGO operates a shelter home
for children who have been abused, who have lost their homes, who have run away
due to several issues, etc. and also makes the presumed less-dominant gender in
our country- the women, feel more comfortable in their skin by providing them
employment, health care facilities, skill-training, etc. The NGO majorly deals
with the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ) and the POCSO Act (Prevention of Children
from Sexual Offences) and women-empowerment is a secondary facility that it has
to offer.
According
to Mr. Maheshwari, as a responsible citizen of the country, an individual
should not hesitate to help in cases where they can help, without involving the
busy authorities, and solve the matter through easy and supportable solutions.
It should be from within, that an individual thinks that such instances should
be dealt with on a serious note and swiftly handled like any other case that
the judicial system is capable of dealing.
I. Jaffrabad Case of Safoora Zargar,
Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and other Human Rights Defenders
[1] Poulomi Chatterjee, “Interview
with Akhilesh Maheshwari – Co-Founder of Naya Sawera NGO”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpLf-q58GdQ (Accessed 25th June
2020).
public functions), 188
(disobedience to order duly promulgated
by public servant), 353 (assault to deter public servant from discharge of his
duty), 283 (danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation), 341
(punishment for wrongful restraint), and 109 (punishment of abetment if the act
abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for
its provision) read with Sections 147 (punishment for rioting) and 34 (acts
done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of Indian Penal
Code (IPC). On 24th May 2020, they were granted bail, however, were
arrested once again in a very short time period, under FIR No. 59/2020 which consisted
of different charges than the prior FIR No. 48/2020, specifically, Sections 147
(rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly), 353 (assault to deter public servant from
discharge of his duty), 283 (danger or obstruction in public way or line of
navigation), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 332 (voluntarily
causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 307 (attempt to murder),
302 (punishment for murder), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of
fifty rupees), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 188 (disobedience to order duly
promulgated by public servant) of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 3, 4 of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPP), and Sections 25, 27 of Arms
Act.
the Crime Branch received
information that these riots were a pre-planned conspiracy, after which an
investigation procedure was appointed by the Special Cell, which led to the
formation of a different FIR for those who were involved.[1]
Other sources told The Indian Express that the police invoked the UAPA because
of alleged links with the Popular Front of India (PFI).
[1] Infra Note 14.
[2] FIDH(June 23 2020), “India:
Release on bail on humanitarian grounds of Ms. Safoora Zargar”, Available at: https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/human-rights-defenders/india-release-on-bail-on-humanitarian-grounds-of-ms-safoora-zargar [Accessed on 30 June 2020].
[3] UN Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC), (September 2008), “Handbook for Prison Managers and Policymakers on
Women and Imprisonment”, Available at https://www.refworld.org/docid/4a096b0a2.html [Accessed on 27 June 2020].
[4] UNODC (16 March 2011), “United
Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures
for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules)”, Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Bangkok_Rules_ENG_22032015.pdf [Accessed on 27 June 2020].
when it was high time which caused
immense stress to both Ms. Zargar and her well-wishers, including her family.
The detention of such human rights
defenders is completely uncalled for, as addressed to the Home Minister[1],
that such an action was designed to merely punish these human rights defenders for
defending human rights and engaging in peaceful protest against a
discriminatory law despite the alarming situations of a pandemic which is
unnecessarily putting their lives and health at a serious risk. It is observed
by a rational eye that after considering all the provisions of laws available
to mankind which are applicable in the territory of India, it is nowhere found
beyond reasonable doubt that these human rights defenders did not have the
right to freedom of expression and that of peaceful assembly. Moreover, the
Indian Prison staff has also taken decisions to grant non-custodial means for
the prison inmates on account of COVID-19 and the unsafe scenario. More
specifically, 42,529 undertrial prisoners and 16,391 convicts have been
released, according to the report from National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).[2] Thus,
it is difficult to assume that the prison staff cannot grant bail to Ms. Zargar
and other human rights defenders in this context.
[1] OMCT (26 May 2020), “India:
Joint Open Letter To The Indian Government Calling For The Release Of Human
Rights Defenders At Risk” Available at: https://www.omct.org/human-rights-defenders/urgent-interventions/india/2020/05/d25863/ [Accessed June 27 2020].
[2] Krishnadas Rajgopal (17 May
2020), “Over 42,000 undertrials released to unclog prisons: NALSA report”, The
Hindu Available at https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/over-42000-undertrials-released-to-unclog-prisons-nalsa-report/article31609154.ece#:~:text=Legal%20services%20institutions%20have%20intervened,Services%20Authority%20(NALSA)%20said. [Accessed 3 July 2020].
India, National Human Rights
Commission of India that they should put an end to all the acts of harassment
that the above human rights defenders are facing, even at judicial level. They
should also adhere to all the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on
Human Rights Defenders adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1998,
in particular, the Articles 1, 6, 8, 11 and 12.2.[1] In
addition to this, the arrests of peaceful protesters violates the country’s
obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), i.e., to respect and protect the rights to liberty, to freedom of
expression and peaceful assembly, set out in Articles 9, 19 and 21 of the above
mentioned treaty.[2]
It is also submitted before the above addressed, that the observatory of FIDH
(International Federation for Human Rights) recalls that these human rights
defenders should never have been detained in the first place, as this detention
was only aimed at punishing them for their legitimate human rights activities.[3]
[1] FIDH(May 29, 2020), “India:
Arbitrary detention of several defenders for protesting against the CAA”,
Available at https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/human-rights-defenders/india-arbitrary-detention-of-several-defenders-for-protesting-against [Accessed 25th June 2020].
[2] Supra Note 7.
[3] Supra Note 4.
[4] Gurmeet Nehra (May 2016),
“Correctional system vis a vis prison reforms in India”, International
Journal of Law. 2(3) 43-47.
about 74.18% of the prison
population in India are undertrials[1],
like the detainees mentioned above. If the Indian prison is going to test
people based on their fundamental rights, they must solve the contradiction
between the constitution and the politics.
I. Umar Khalid’s “India Against Hate”
[1] NHRC, “74.18 per cent of prison
population are undertrials”, Press Release Test English, Available at: https://nhrc.nic.in/press-release/7418-cent-prison-population-are-undertrials [Accessed on 30 June 2020].
[2] Mahender Singh Manral , Pritam
Pal Singh (22 April 2020). “UAPA against Umar Khalid and Jamia activists over
riots in Northeast Delhi”. The Indian Express Available at https://indianexpress.com/article/india/uapa-against-umar-khalid-and-jamia-activists-over-riots-in-northeast-delhi-6373398/ [Accessed 2 July 2020].
[3] Id 14.
with intent to cause damage to
amount of Rs 100), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to
destroy house, etc.), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault
or wrongful restraint), 454 (lurking house-trespass), 109 (abetment), 114
(abettor present when offence is committed), 147 (punishment for rioting), 148
(rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 124A (punishment
for sedition), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language) and 34 (common intention)
in addition to 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP)
Act and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.[1]
[1]
Aditi Chattopadhyay (3 May 2020). “Fact Check: Did Umar Khalid make
Inciting Comments in his Speech?” The Logical Indian Crew Available at https://thelogicalindian.com/fact-check/umar-khalid-delhi-riot-uapa-fir-united-against-hate-20901 [Accessed 2 July 2020].
[2] The Wire Analysis (13 March
2020). “Selectively Quoting His Speech, BJP MPs Blame Umar Khalid for Delhi
Riots”, The Wire Available at https://thewire.in/rights/umar-khalid-bjp-amit-shah-delhi-riots [Accessed 2 July 2020]. (https://youtu.be/9tpM9-llpOk).
[3] Supra Note 16.
whilst the fight for freedom of
India. In fact, in his speech, Khalid also thanked the Prime Minister of India
for recognizing and giving recognition to Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi, and other
appreciations. However, he claims that he himself along with his supporters are
pressurized to conduct Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation movements as
suggested by Gandhi, as they believe they have not been given justice by the
authority of India (in relation to the attacks on JNU on 15th
December 2019) when they asked for help by going to the police. However, even
after following all correct procedures, they were not granted any assistance.
It seems very evident to them that there is a religious oppression against the
Muslim minority which enraged them to such a point, they are pressurized to
follow Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation movements as suggested by
Mahatama Gandhi, however, with a firm principle of Ahimsa. This can be
confirmed from his speech at Amravati, where he said, “Agar wo nafrat
phelaenge, toh hum pyaar se jawaab denge…lekin desh ko barbaad karne nahi
denge.”[1]
In order to give a firmer base to this argument, Mr. Khalid also admitted the
same in his speech at the admin block of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)
where he said, “If anyone speaks up against something in this country, then,
If someone is an Adivasi, they call him a Maoist, if someone is a Muslim, they
call him a terrorist. There has been a whole process like this (in the media)
with the backing of the entire state apparatus, behind this kind of media
trial.”[2]
[1] Supra Note 17.
[2] Hisham Ul Wahab P. (29 February
2016), “The Way Umar Khalid Is Being Singled Out Proves Him Right”, India
Resists Available at https://indiaresists.com/umar-khalid-is-being-targeted-separately/ [Accessed 4 July 2020].
assault, murder, attempt to murder,
and other violent crimes that he is charged for.
Thus, the claims of Mr. Umar Khalid
making inciting comments in his speech is full of reasonable doubt, and thus
cannot be assumed correct by the authorities in this regard. Hence, it is
correct to say that the claims against Mr. Khalid are false.
0 Comments
Please do not enter any spam link in the comment box.