Asian Centre for Human Rights

In SAARC Human Rights Violators Index 2006, India has been given lowest negative ranking because of the existence of institutional checks and balances.

There were consistent reports of gross human rights violations in India but the democratic institutions remained intact and operational. Its judiciary, despite being plagued by delay, remained more independent than its SAARC counterparts. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), despite its systematic, institutional and operational flaws remained the most effective in South Asia. Human rights defenders did face challenges but their status virtually remained the same across South Asia. The press freedom was more enjoyed in India. Most importantly, there was no governmental policy per se to repress press freedom.

According to the statistics of the National Crime Records Bureau of the Government of India and the National Human Rights Commission show, India had the largest incidents of human rights violations. India also had over one billion (1000 millions) populations in comparison to 152.6 million in Bangladesh according to 2001 census, 132 million in Pakistan according to 1998 census, 22.73 million in Nepal according to 2001 census, 18.73 million in Sri Lanka according to 2001 census, 0.67 million in Bhutan according to 2005 census, and 0.28 million in Maldives according to 2004 census. The vulnerable groups like the Dalits and indigenous/tribal peoples and those who reside in armed conflict situations remained more vulnerable to human rights violations. These violations did occur not because of the lack of laws unlike in few other SAARC countries but because of the lack of implementation of the laws. The attitude of the government of India and its agencies towards human rights violations remained the same as in other SAARC countries. India also had in place a number of laws to provide impunity to the security forces for human rights violations. It is the existence of institutional checks and balances that ultimately improved India's human rights ranking. The activism of judiciary and quasi-judicial institutions like the National Human Rights Commission, despite having flaws, had been instrumental for the realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in India more than in other SAARC countries.

II. Political freedom

Though India by large provided more political freedom than other SAARC countries but the vulnerable groups continued to be denied political freedom.

About 10 lakh refugees, mainly Sikhs, who came to Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan during the partition of India in 1947[1] continued to be denied the right to citizenship as they have not been recognized as citizens of Jammu and Kashmir under the Jammu and Kashmir constitution. The government of India failed to ensure their political participation in the last 60 years. The conditions of those living in the bastis (colonies) were the worst. Although the refugees have been living in these bastis since 1947, they lacked developed roads, drinking water facilities, medical facilities and schools.[2]

In addition, about 65,000 Chakmas and Hajongs who migrated to northeast Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh in 1964 continued to be denied political freedom. The government of India also failed to implement the Supreme Court judgement of 9 January 1996 in the case of National Human Rights Commission versus State of Arunachal Pradesh & Another (W.P. (c) No. 720 of 1995) and applications for citizenship of 4,627 Chakmas and Hajongs under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act of 1955 remained indisposed till the end of 2005. Despite repeated interventions by the Election Commission of India, the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh continued to prevent more than 15,000 Chakma and Hajong eligible voters from enrolling their names in the electoral rolls during the Intensive Revision. On 23 March 2005, the Election Commission of India passed specific guidelines as to how to enroll the names of the Chakma and Hajong voters. Instead of complying with those guidelines, the Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers and other electoral officers who are also employees of the State Government summarily rejected the applications of the Chakma and Hajong citizens for inclusion of their names. The representative organization of the Chakmas and Hajongs namely Committee for Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh (CCRCAP) complained to the Election Commission of India against gross non-compliance of ECI's guidelines of 23 March 2005 by the electoral officers in Arunachal Pradesh. Taking cognizance of CCRCAP's complaints, the ECI suspended publication of electoral rolls of all four Chakma and Hajong inhabited State Assembly constituencies. At the end of 2005, the Election Commission failed to give its final order.

The Scheduled Castes, who are also known as the Dalits, continued to face discrimination while exercising their political freedom – from casting of votes to denial of privileges if elected. On the night of 6 February 2005, four members of a Dalit family were shot dead at Saidpur village under Kako police station area in Jehanabad Assembly constituency in Bihar after they voted in the first phase of the assembly elections.[3] On 21 October 2005, a Dalit woman, Prabhavati Devi, contesting local elections on a Bahujan Samaj Party ticket was reportedly set ablaze by her rivals for refusing to pull out from the fray at Mujehra Khurd village in Mirzapur district of Uttar Pradesh.[4] She succumbed to her over 90 per cent burn injuries.[5] Earlier, on 15 August 2005, a Dalit woman Sarpanch, Village Council head, identified as Anita Bai Ahiwar of Patehra village under Damoh district in Madhya Pradesh was not allowed by government officials to hoist the national flag in a market place because of her caste.[6] In June 2005, it was reported that Deomanti Devi, a Dalit woman, who was elected as the chairperson of the Bodhgaya Nagar Panchayat in Bihar in August 2002, had been deprived of allowances and other entitlements privy to a civic body head.[7]

III. Human rights violations by the security forces

According to the 2005 Annual Report of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) of the government of India, a total of 61,560 complaints were reported against police personnel in the country. Out of these, inquiries into 19,941 cases - 18,940 departmental inquiries, 713 magisterial inquiries and 288 judicial inquiries – were instituted. About 1,668 police personnel were sent for trial after investigation and framing of charges. During the year, trials of 225 police personnel were completed out of which 128 were acquitted and 97 convicted. Cases against 373 police personnel were withdrawn or disposed off.[8]

Yet, the statistics of the NCRB do not reflect the reality of human rights violations by the security forces. The complaints against the armed forces – the army and para military forces under the Central government - are not covered by the NCRB. The armed forces have also been kept out of the purview of the NHRC under Section 19 of the Human Rights Protection Act of 1993.

The Human Rights Cell in the army headquarters claimed that between 1993 and August 2005, only 342 allegations of human rights violations were made against the armed forces in the insurgency-hit North Eastern states. Out of the 318 cases investigated, 290 allegations were found to be baseless while 28 allegations involving 63 army personnel were found to be true.[9] But the armed forces seldom admitted human rights violations brought against them.

The security forces were responsible for serious human rights violations including torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, rape and other violations.[10] Majority of the cases of enforced disappearances were seldom inquired into. The Jammu & Kashmir High Court in early May 2005 issued a non-bailable arrest warrant against Ghulam Ahmad Bhat, Station House Officer (SHO) of Panta Chok for not registering a First Information Report (FIR) against the army personnel for arresting Mohammad Hussain Ashraf of Chowdhary Bagh, Rainawari in Srinagar, who went missing after being arrested by the troops of 7th Rajputana Rifles from Sempora in Balihama on 24 May 2003.[11] On 26 February 2005, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge of Patiala of Punjab sentenced two police personnel —Assistant Sub Inspector Massa Singh and Havaldar Baljit Singh — to three-years imprisonment on charges of causing the disappearance of Aj Di Awaz journalist, Sukhpal Singh Palli in 1994.[12]

a. Custodial violence

Torture and other forms of custodial violence have been an integral part of administration of justice in India. The NHRC received a total of 1493 cases of custodial deaths during 2004-2005, out of which 136 deaths occurred in police custody and 1357 deaths in judicial custody.[13]

However, prosecution of the guilty officials was extremely low as the government of India provided impunity to the security forces under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) of 1958. On 11 March 2005, the Assam Rifles challenged the legality of instituting the Judge C Upendra panel by the State Government of Manipur to probe the Bungte Chiru firing incident in which LD Rengtuiwan was killed on 16 November 2004 on the ground that the State Government had no jurisdiction to inquire into the conduct of the personnel belonging to the armed forces under the AFSPA of 1958.[14]

In Jammu and Kashmir, about 230 police and security personnel were reportedly awarded punishments for human rights violations committed from 1990 to 2004[15] but the details were not made public. The state government of Jammu and Kashmir also failed to make the report of a magisterial probe into the killing of a school student Nitish Sharma alias Nishu of Roop Nagar on 28 October 2005 public though the report was submitted on 29 November 2005.[16]

Medical examinations into the custodial death of Satnam alias Satta, a Dalit youth at Lohian Police station under Jalandhar district of Punjab on 6 February 2005;[17] death of Kishan Singh on 16 March 2005 at Shahdara police station in East Delhi;[18] death of Rawoof on 9 May 2005 at Jayanagar police custody in Bangalore, Karnataka;[19] death of Gurmail Singh at Pehowa police station of Kurukshetra district in Haryana on 13 May 2005;[20] and death of Udayakumar, resident of Nedungadu, Kerala at City Fort police station on 27 September 2005[21] reportedly confirmed torture of the victims.

Many police officials were suspended after prima facie evidence of violations of rights was found against them. Those police personnel who were reportedly suspended included Circle Inspector Ravi Kumar and Sub-Inspector of Police Mallikharjuna Gupta for custodial death of one Chalapathi in Tiruputi in Andhra Pradesh on 12 January 2005;[22] a police sub-inspector Anisetti Raghu for the custodial death of Irpha Sitaiah at Charla police station in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh in January 2005;[23] five policemen, namely, Head Constable Pawan, Constables Manoj, Surender, Malkeet and Pankaj of the Special Staff of East district of New Delhi for the torture of Akhtar, a tea stall owner in February 2005;[24] four policemen including Rajendra Prasad Bahera, the inspector-in-charge of Shahid Nagar police station of Orissa for the custodial death of Dilip Kumar Sahoo alias Swain on 3 March 2005;[25] and two policemen including SHO of Malihabad police station, Shashi Bhusan Dwivedi, who were suspended for the custodial death of Rashid, the Block Development Committee member of Rahimabad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh on 3 December 2005.[26] Following the filing of a habeas corpus petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in October 2005, five policemen including Kurnool town circle-inspector Sivashanker Reddy and sub-inspector Maheswar Reddy were suspended for the illegal detention of Mr Seshanna Goud, Mr Panduranga Swamy Goud and Mr Ravindra Goud in October 2005. Their detention was not recorded and the police initially denied in the court that the three were in their custody.[27]

Magisterial inquiries were ordered in a number of custodial death cases including the custodial death of Abdul Gani Dar at the hands of Special Operation Groups personnel at Magam police station in Budgam district in Jammu and Kashmir on 19 January 2005;[28] Dwipen Bayan at the Udalguri police station in Darrang district of Assam on 26 January 2005;[29] Tadipatri Eswaraiah, resident of Akutotapalli village in Anantpur district of Andhra Pradesh in January 2005;[30] and Buru Bhumij at Mathurapur police station in Sivasagar district of Assam on 21 December 2005.[31]

In a few cases, the courts awarded punishment including sentencing of five policemen namely Sub Inspector (SI) Anand Pratap Singh Parihar, Additional Sub-Inspector (ASI) Nand Kishore Mishra, constables Vijay Pandey, S Mishra and Mohan Singh to 5 years of imprisonment by a special court in Shahdol district of Madhya Pradesh for the custodial death of Suhawan Kewat on 10 December 1997;[32] and sentencing of constable Kishore Singh to life imprisonment, 10 years jail term to ASI Sumer Dan and 5 years jail terms to the then SHO of the Barmer police station, Sohan Singh, by the Additional District Judge Chandra Sekhar Sharma of Fast Track Court, Barmer, Rajashthan on 21 December 2005 for severing the private part of Jugta Ram in police custody.[33]

In a few cases, the courts also directed the authorities to take actions against guilty personnel. In June 2005, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed to arrest and initiate action against the Superintendent of Police of Lokayukta, Bhopal, Mokham Singh Nayan, Inspector BP Singh and two constables for the custodial death of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax Department, Rishabh Jain at Lokayukta police office on the night of 15 July 2004.[34] The Andhra Pradesh High Court in its order on 21 December 2005 also directed to take action against inspector T. Srinivas Reddy of LB Nagar police station for the illegal detention and torture of one Ms Shoba Rani in November 2005.[35]

The courts also awarded compensation in a few cases of torture and custodial deaths. These included grant of compensation of Rs 10 lakh by the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court in January 2005 to the family of a young jeweler who died in illegal police custody in Nagpur in 2003;[36] grant of Rs 1 lakh by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Shillong in February 2005 to the next of kin of Banjoplang Kharbamon, who was gunned down by CRPF personnel in May 2003;[37] grant of Rs three lakh by the Delhi High Court in May 2005 to the kin of a custodial death victim Indal Singh who was killed in January 1996;[38] grant of Rs 75,000 in May 2005 by the Gauhati High Court to one Ningthoujam Pishak-macha Devi, who was beaten up at her house by the security forces in Manipur on 2 March 1996;[39] grant of Rs 2 lakh by the Delhi High Court in September 2005 to a taxi-driver, Surender Singh who was shot and injured by a traffic police ASI Anoop Singh on 9 August 2004;[40] and grant of Rs 1 lakh by the Guwahati High Court in November 2005 to the kin of Mayengbam Bisheshwar and Maibam Naobi of Manipur who were killed by troops of the 8th Assam Rifles on 22 July 2000.[41]

b. Extra-judicial killings

Besides torture, there were also reports of killings in fake encounters and indiscriminate use of fire-arms. During 2005, 355 civilians were killed and 373 civilians were injured in police firing alone.[42]

Some of the cases of killings in police firing included killing of Bal Singh and Ratan at Peepalkhedi village near Soyat in Shajapur district of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April 2005;[43] killing of six Telugu Desam Party supporters at Penukonda in Andhra Pradesh's Anantapur district on 8 May 2005,[44] killing of Insaf Ali and Saifuddin Ahmed, members of a Joint Forest Management Committee at Borotari village under Sipajhar police station in Darrang district of Assam on 14 May 2005,[45] killing of Dillip Mahanta in Keonjhar district of Orissa on 8 June 2005,[46] killing of five farmers at Pipli village near Jaipur, Rajasthan on 13 June 2005,[47] and killing of five students at Williamnagar in East Garo Hills district and four students at Tura in West Garo Hills district of Meghalaya in indiscriminate firing by the security forces on 30 September 2005.[48]

The highhandedness of the security forces also led to violations of the right to life. Some of such cases included killing of a lorry driver Jhantu Das by Assistant Commandant W Rajendra Singh of 46th Battalion of Border Security Force under Kalamchoura police station in West Tripura district on 26 March 2005;[49] killing of Dudhnath Yadav by Railway Protection Force constable G S Pandey at Sewree railway station on 25 April 2005;[50] and killing of Ashutosh Roy by BSF personnel at Sreepur border outpost in West Bengal on 24 August 2005.[51]

There were also reports of extrajudicial executions in fake encounters including of Deven Lahkar by the army personnel at Burburi village under Ghograpar police station in Nalbari district, Assam on the night of 17 January 2005;[52] Mohammad Rafiq Ganie and Mukhtar Ahmad Bhat by the 17th Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry personnel on 27 February 2005 after arresting them while traveling from Yaripora to Munadgufan in Jammu and Kashmir;[53] Kamkhosei Khongsai of Lhungjang village under Saikul subdivision of Manipur by 13th Assam Rifles troops after picking him up on the evening of 23 April 2005;[54] Keshorjit Singh of the Nongada area in Imphal East district, Manipur in an alleged fake encounter on 21 June 2005 by the Assam Rifles personnel;[55] Ahanthem Rameshwor by the Assam Rifles troops based at Sagolmang in Manipur on 30 June 2005,[56] and Sajad Ahmed Budroo, an autorickshaw driver, in the custody of Rashtriya Rifles in Dooru Anantnag of Jammu and Kashmir on 27 October 2005.[57]

In some cases of indiscriminate use of fire-arms, the state governments paid compensation. On 19 January 2005, the state government of Manipur agreed to pay an ex-gratia of Rs 1 lakh[58] to the family members of Lourembam Maipak and a 9-year-old girl Thokchom Puspa who were extrajudicially killed by personnel of the CRPF personnel in Thoubal district on the evening of 18 January 2005.[59] On 16 March 2005, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Babulal Gaur announced ex gratia of Rs 1 lakh each to the family of deceased, Honey alias Aniket (6) and Pappu Lodhi (17) and Rs 10,000 each to those injured (over 12) when the police opened fire at a protesting mob on 15 March 2005 at Banda in Sagar district of Madhya Pradesh.[60] But prosecution of the guilty personnel remained elusive.

c. Arbitrary arrest, illegal detention and torture

Cases of arbitrary arrest, illegal detention and torture of detainees were consistently reported from across the country. The complaints included arbitrary detention and torture by application of electric shock to a tea vendor, Sami Akhtar at Mayur Vihar Phase-II in Delhi on the night of 17 February 2005;[61] torture of Rajpal Singh by Delhi police at Bhati Mines police post of Mehruli on 19 September 2005;[62] beating of one Dinesh by Line Par Police Station House Officer Virender Singh in Bahadurgarh town in Jhajjar district of Haryana on 15 October 2005;[63] and beating of Showkat Ahmad Shalla at Nawa Kadal in Jammu and Kashmir on 27 June 2005.[64] In several cases, torture of the victims was confirmed by medical reports. Medical test conducted by the Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital in Delhi reportedly confirmed the presence of burn marks and physical injuries on Raju and Titoo of Palam Colony, who were tortured after being picked up by the police from Dabri in southwest Delhi on 30 August 2005.[65]

The armed forces were also responsible for torture, including of Mohammad Lateef Mir by the security forces of Bonora camp in Pulwama district of Jammu and Kashmir on the intervening night of 23 and 24 January 2005;[66] Hemin Khongsai and Manginlun Thangsing by the 14th Assam Rifles at Kangpokpi area in Manipur in February 2005;[67] Jitul Saikia and Nripen Saikia at Biyakorua village under Merapani police station in Golaghat district of Assam in May 2005;[68] Alok Basumatary, president of Jharbari unit of All Boro Students' Union by the army personnel of Jharbari in Kokrajhar, Assam on 4 May 2005;[69] and torture of 50-year-old mentally challenged Okram Kunjabihari of Nambol Kha-jiri Mamang Leikai in Manipur by the personnel of the 22 Maratha Light Infantry on 21 May 2005.[70]

The armed forces desployed in armed conflict situations rarely admitted arrests of innocent persons and suspects. On 7 March 2005, Tongbram Ibungomcha Singh of Thanga along with four others was picked up by four Assam Rifles personnel without issuing arrest memo from Phumlou area of Bishnupur district in Manipur. Following the Manipur State Human Rights Commission's intervention, the Officer- in-Charge of Lamshang police station, after investigation, confirmed that Tongbram Ibungomcha Singh was under the custody of the Assam Rifles till 24 March 2005 while other four were released on different dates.[71]

IV. Judiciary and administration of justice

India's judiciary remained more independent than its counterparts in South Asia. However, it continued to be plagued by judicial delay.

a. Legal reforms

The adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005[72] was an important initiative for legal reforms on the administration of justice. Through this Amendment Act, the Central Government effected 33 amendments in the existing provisions while 10 new sections were inserted. Some of the key amendments were - setting up of a Directorate of Prosecution by State Governments {Section 25-A}, prohibition of arrest of women after sunset and before sunrise, barring exceptional circumstances {Section 46 (4)}; mandatory requirement of informing by the arresting officer(s) about the arrest to a person nominated by the arrestee {Section 50-A}; mandatory requirement of furnishing report of medical examination of the accused to the accused or to a person nominated by him (Section 54 (2)}; power to prohibit carrying arms in procession or mass drill or mass training with arms {Section 144-A}; medical examination of the victim of rape {Section 164-A}; mandatory requirement of holding an inquiry by Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate in case (a) any person dies or disappears, or (b) rape is alleged to have been committed on any woman in custody {Section 176 (I-A)}; under trial already detained for a period up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment shall be released on personal bond {Section 436-A} etc.

Many of the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code were regressive and faced opposition. Following wide spread protests by the lawyers throughout India against some of the provisions like setting up Directorate of prosecution; requirement of physical presence of the accused in court for anticipatory bail; declaration of an accused as proclaimed offender; attachment of properties of an accused etc, on 14 July 2005, the Central Government passed an order keeping in abeyance all the amendments.[73] In another notification in December 2005, the Ministry of Home Affairs set crucial amendments like the ones prohibiting arrest of women after sunset for implementation, while others like the setting up of Directorates of Prosecutions in States and cancellation of bail etc were put on hold.[74]

b. Judges' accountability

In 2005, Congress led United Progressive Alliance Government proposed to establish a National Judicial Council (NJC) by amending the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968. The government drafted the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2005 and sought the opinion of Chief Justice of India. Both the former Chief Justice Ramesh Chandra Lahoti[75] and present Chief Justice of India Justice Yogesh Kumar Shabbarwal, who succeeded Mr. Justice Lahoti on 1 November 2005, expressed reservations to the proposal of establishing the NJC.[76]

c. Judicial delay

Judicial delay continued to plague India. The lack of judges continued to hamper delivery of justice.[77] According to a Supreme Court judge, six times more judges were needed for expediting the pending cases and supporting the present judicial system.[78]

As of December 2005, there were four vacancies in the Supreme Court and as many as 141 vacancies in the 21 High Courts in the country with Calcutta (21), Madras (20), Allahabad (14), Punjab and Haryana (11) topping the list.[79] As on 31 December 2005, 34,481 cases were pending with the Supreme Court, 35,21,283 cases with the High Courts, and 2,56,54,251 cases with the subordinate courts.[80]

In the Salem Advocate Bar Association of Tamil Nadu Vs Union of India (2003 1 SCC 49) challenging the 2002 Amendments to the Civil Procedure Code, the Supreme Court in its judgement in August 2005 directed the Central Government to conduct “judicial impact assessment” and provide finance and infrastructure to deal with additional cases every time a new law is enacted.

In a case of judicial delay and gross negligence of the administration, in July 2005, the Kamrup Chief Judicial Magistrate released Machang Lalung Lalung on a token personal bond of Rupee 1 from LGB Regional Institute of Mental Health.[81] Lalung was an under-trial for 54 years and he was never produced before any court. The NHRC had intervened with regard to Lalung and four other under-trials at the LGB Regional Institute of Mental Health - Khalilur Rehman, an under trial for 35 years, Anil Kumar Burman, an under trial prisoner for 33 years, Sonamani Deb, an under-trial prisoners for 32 years, and Parbati Mallik for 32 years.[82] On 11 November 2005, the Supreme Court issued notices to the state government of Assam questioning the illegal detention of Lalung.[83]

As many as 1,734 fast track courts (FTCs) have been operational across India since 1 April 2001. The incumbent Congress led UPA government did not pursue with the 12th Finance Commission to get the funds approved in 2005 and the tenure of FTCs expired on 31 March 2005. However, following the Supreme Court's extension of term of the FTCs till 30 April 2005, the Central government decided to continue the functioning of the FTCs across the country and the government sanctioned Rs.509 crores for another 5 years.[84]

Besides this, in order to speed up delivery of justice, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in August 2005 also directed the High Courts to take prompt measures to speed up all cases, civil and criminal, within a specific time frame. The Supreme Court suggested that the cases should be graded as sprint; middle-distance and long-distance with a view to clear the burden of backlog of cases. The apex court segregated cases in different tracks on the basis of their nature, quantum of evidence and possible time the courts would take to clear them. For instance, civil suits covering maintenance, divorce, rent and eviction would be in Track-I. These cases should be cleared in nine months. Track-II, covering suits for money, would have a one-year limit and Track-III and Track-IV, covering suits for partition, property disputes, etc, would have a two-year limit. In the criminal side, the bench classified criminal cases in five segments. Cases of murder, rape and dowry deaths in Track-I and other non-bailable offences in Track-II would have deadlines of nine months and one year respectively. Economic offences in Track-III and offences tried by special courts under special laws like Prevention of Terrorism Act and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act in Track-IV would have deadlines of one year and 15 months respectively.[85]

V. Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions

Established on 12 October 1993, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India disposed of 85,661 cases during the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 while 49,548 cases were pending before the Commission as on 31 March 2005.[86]

Despite its critical role, the NHRC suffered from serious credibility crisis due to both statutory limitations and operational flaws. The statutory limitations included inability to investigate abuses committed by the armed forces, inability to visit prisons without prior permission from the executive authorities, inability to investigate into complaints which are more than one year old, and the lack of power to implement its recommendations. NHRC often failed to respond to the victims in time, ensure transparency in its operation and follow the principle of natural justice for adjudication of the complaints.

Only 16 states - Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and West Bengal - established State Human Rights Commissions.

The SHRCs were in shambles. They lacked financial resources, necessary, infrastructure and investigative skills.

Since 10 December 2003, Manipur Human Rights Commission had been functioning with a single member, its chairperson, retired Chief Justice W A Shishak. In April 2005, the Imphal branch of Gauhati High Court directed the state government of Manipur to fill up the vacancies[87] but the State government failed to comply with the directions of the Court. On 20 August 2005, Justice Shishak pointed out that he himself had not been getting his salary.[88]

The recommendations of the State Human Rights Commissions were seldom implemented.

The Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission stated that the State government did not submit any Action Taken Report (ATR) on the 2,112 cases of human rights violations that had been disposed off by it since its inception in 1997.[89] In its 2003-2004 Annual Report, the State Human Rights Commission of Jammu and Kashmir stated that state government and its officials, especially the Deputy Commissioners, blatantly ignored the recommendations of the Commission, and instead ordered fresh inquiries of their own. The findings of many such fresh enquiries contradicted the findings of the Commission.[90]

In January 2005, the then Chairman of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, Justice V.P. Mohan Kumar alleged that the government of Kerala did not take any action against certain police officials against whom the SHRC recommended action after finding them guilty of committing human rights violations.[91]

When the State Government of Karnataka issued the notification on 16 April 2005 to set up human rights courts as provided under Section 30 of the Human Rights Act, 1993[92], there was little euphoria.[93]

VI. Repression on human rights defenders

Frontline human rights defenders continued to suffer from repression by the State and the armed opposition groups while the Central government maintained strict control under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act of 1976. In 2005, human rights defenders came under severe attacks from the security forces, state sponsored vigilante groups, religious fundamentalist groups, self-styled vigilante groups etc.

In Andhra Pradesh, human rights defenders faced the worst form of repression from the State police and the self-styled anti-naxalite groups like ‘Narsi Cobras' and other vigilante groups.[94] Between August and November 2005, the vigilante groups killed at least four activists for allegedly supporting the Naxalites. On 24 August 2005, “Narsi Cobras” gang killed a rights activist Kanakachari, a teacher at a local school in Mahbubnagar district allegedly to avenge the killing of Congress MLA Narsa Reddy by the Maoists.[95] The State Police Chief Swaranjit Sen justified the threats and killings by the vigilante groups as “a natural reaction against the atrocities of the Maoists”.[96]

On 29 July 2005, police arrested Debashis Chakraborty, a member of the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights and Siliguri Welfare Organisation, from his Hyderpara office in Siliguri town of West Bengal, accusing him of giving shelter to members of the banned Naxalites.[97] He was booked under Sections 121, 121(a) and 121(b) of the Indian Penal Code for “waging war against the State.” On 29 October 2005, he was granted bail by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri after the police failed to file a chargesheet against him within the stipulated 90-day period.[98]

Human rights defenders were also harassed by the rightwing fundamentalist groups. On 14 June 2005, San Francisco-based academic Angana Chatterji, along with other women members of the Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights, were allegedly threatened with rape by some members of the Hindu fundamentalists while investigating the spread of communalism and human rights violations in Orissa.[99]

VII. Freedom of the press

Although press freedom was generally respected in India, the journalists had to face attacks, harassment and intimidation from the law enforcement agencies and the armed opposition groups as well as the government servants, leaders and the cadres of political parties etc. In December 2005, the Chattisgarh government passed “Chhattishgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005” prohibiting the media from reporting any activity that could be termed “unlawful”.[100]

a. Attacks by the state agencies and political activists

The security forces continued to invoke obsolete laws to restrict press freedom. In June 2005, Meghalaya police registered cases under section 502 (sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter) and section 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) of the Indian Penal Code against Editor of The Shillong Times, Mr Manas Chaudhuri, who was also a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Meghalaya; Executive Editor of The Meghalaya Guardian, Mr MA Venugopal; and photojournalist of The Meghalaya Guardian, Mr Suraj Joshi over news reports relating to eviction of Khasis residing in the disputed Lumdorbar area of Karbi Anglong in Assam.[101] In December 2005, M. Venkateswara Rao, Revenue Divisional Officer of Visakhapatnam of Andhra Pradesh served an interim order on Andhra Jyothi and Leader to go for screening before publication of news reports pertaining to public servants.[102]

Journalists reporting from conflict areas were more vulnerable to atrocities of the security forces. On 20 February 2005, N Noren of The Sangai Express and W Lukhoi of the Mannaba daily were brutally assaulted by personnel of the 130th Central Reserve Police Force posted at Sajiwa Jail, when they were covering the agitation launched by activists of Meitei Erol Eyek Loinasillon Apunba Lup near the Sajiwa Jail in Manipur.[103]

In Jammu and Kashmir, security forces often targeted the journalists. In May 2005, a group of photo-journalists including Habib Naqash of The Asian Age, Tauseef Mustafa of Agence France-Presse, Omar of Subah Kashmir and Qazi Irshad of Khidmat were hit with rifle butts and caned by the police while covering a protest at Lal Chowk in Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir.[104] On 13 September 2005, two cameramen, Sajjad Ahmed of state-owned Doordarshan and Tabrez Madni of Zee Kashmir, were beaten up by the army personnel in Srinagar for inquiring as to why vehicular traffic was stopped.[105]

In Andhra Pradesh too journalists were targeted. On 30 May 2005, N. Venugopal, senior journalist and editor of the Telugu-language fortnightly Veekshanam, was arrested under sections 121A (“waging war against the state”), 122 (“conspiracy”) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code along with three other members of the Revolutionary Writers Association, G. Pinakapani, editor of the pro-Maoist literary magazine Aruna Tara, Chenchaiah and Ravi Kumar and two alleged members of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) in Nizamabad in Andhra Pradesh. They were produced before a judge in Bodhan only on 3 June 2005.[106] On 16 June 2005, N. Venugopal was released on bail.[107]

In Assam, the police arrested Binod Behari Nath, the Bongaigaon correspondent of Assamese daily Ajir Dainik Batori and vice-president of Bongaigaon District Journalist Association in Assam on 11 October 2005 on the basis of a case (88/47/94) filed against him in 1994 accusing him of having links with the proscribed United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA).[108]

The media also came under the attack of the right-wing groups.

On 11 March 2005, the Meitei Irol Eeyek Loynsillon Apunba Lup (MIELAL) of Manipur declared a ban on distribution of all newspapers published in Manipuri language, demanding publication of newspapers in the Meitei script instead of Bengali script.[109] The MIELAL activists tore copies of newspapers at Keisampat area in Imphal West district.[110] On the same day, Shiv Sena activists rampaged India Today office at Nariman Point in Mumbai, the capital of Maharastra, in protest against inviting Union Petroleum Minister Mr Mani Shankar Aiyar to an awards function by the magazine's sister publication, Business Today. The Shiv Sainiks accused Mr Aiyar of disrespecting freedom fighter Veer Savarkar.[111]

b. Attacks by the AOGs

The armed opposition groups especially in Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur targeted the media persons.

On 23 February 2005, ESPN/ Star Sports correspondent, Obed Longvah was assaulted by some unidentified armed cadres of an underground organization at Litan in Ukhrul district of Manipur.[112]

On 29 July 2005, seven journalists identified as Ejaz Ahmed and Aamir Ahmed (ANI), Manzoor Ahmed (India TV), Muzamil Rashid (Srinagar Mail), Firdous Ahmed (Zee Kashmir), Amir Hussain (Subhe Kashmir) and cameraman Muzaffar Ahmed (Sahara TV) were injured in a grenade attack by the armed opposition groups at Budshah Chowk in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir. Two Islamic groups, Al Mansoorian and Jamiat-ul Mujahideen reportedly claimed responsibility for the attack.[113]

The press in insurgency-hit Manipur state faced continued harassment, threats and intimidation from the armed opposition groups. On 14 June 2005, Manipur Hill Journalists Union suspended publication of all Churachandpur-based newspapers from 16 to 19 June 2005 protesting against “interference” and “pressure” from several armed opposition groups.[114]

On 7 September 2005, armed opposition group Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL) imposed ban on two local dailies Matamgi Yakairol and Mannaba and cable network ISTV for allegedly not “properly” reporting on the abduction of the Manipur University Students Union president, Ashok Kumar Singh.[115] In protest against the ban, All Manipur Working Journalists' Union called one-day shutdown of Imphal-based newspapers and ISTV on 8 September 2005.[116]

On 28 October 2005, media houses in Manipur did not publish newspapers in protest against diktats from armed opposition group, Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) to the media houses. Earlier, on 27 October 2005, KCP chief City Metei had reportedly warned newspaper editors against publishing newspapers if they did not carry the press release sent to them by the KCP.[117]

VIII. Violations of the rights of indigenous peoples

Over 84 million indigenous/tribals peoples of India, known as the Scheduled Tribes, continued to be disproportionate victims of “development”, displacement and dispossession. Many tribal communities including Birhores of Jharkhand,[118] Karbongs of Tripura,[119] the Great Andamanese, Onges, Shompens, Jarawas, and Sentinelese of Andaman and Nicober[120] have been facing extinction. In 2002, the Supreme Court ordered the closure of those parts of the Andaman Trunk Road that run along and through the Jarawa Tribal Reserve as it threatens their survival. But the Andaman Trunk Road continued to remain open in gross violation of the Supreme Court orders.[121]

a. Atrocities against tribals

According to the 2005 Annual Report of the National Crime Records Bureau, a crime against the tribals was committed in every 29 minutes. In 2005, a total of 5,713 cases against Scheduled Tribes were reported in the country as compared to 5,535 cases in 2004 showing an increase of 3.2% in 2005 from 2004. These included 1,283 cases reported under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 and 162 cases under the Protection of Civil Rights Act. Although the average charge-sheeting rate for the crimes against the STs was 91.6 per cent, the average conviction rate was only 24.5%. A total of 8,273 persons (83.8%) out of 9,870 persons arrested for crimes committed against Scheduled Tribes were charge-sheeted but only 24.2% were convicted consisting of 1,934 persons out of 7,981 persons against whom trials were completed.[122]

In many cases, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 was never invoked to prosecute the accused. On 28 April 2005, Rameshwar Steels' factory manager Dinesh Gupta and security guard Remaul Kujur in Raipur, Chhattisgarh allegedly forced two Adivasis identified as Shyam Lal and Shadanand to sit on burning iron plates on the charges of stealing raw material from the factory. The tribal victims reported the matter to local police at Gharghora police station but their complaint was allegedly not entertained.[123]

In addition, the tribals were often intimidated to withdraw the cases.[124] On 20 October 2005, a Gond tribal identified as Suraj Singh Gond, the president of the Teacher-Guardian Association of the village school, was allegedly burnt alive by members of an upper caste family at Kataria village under Katni district of Madhya Pradesh.[125] Suraj Singh Gond had refused to withdraw the complaint of theft of school material against the accused.[126]

On 10 November 2005, two tribal village leaders identified as Dinu Gurjibhai Gamit and Rameshbhai Melekbhai Gamit of Motherkui village were reportedly beaten up with sticks and poles in front of the public by the police officers at Areth police outpost under Mandvi police station in Surat district of Gujarat. The victims were arrested on the basis of a case filed at Mandvi police station (number 113/2005) on 8 November 2005 by Haribhai Parmar after the Gram Panchayat, Village Council, passed a resolution against the quarry of Haribhai Parmar. The quarry was illegally operating and adversely affecting the environment and health of the villagers. On 9 November 2005, both the tribal leaders were granted bail by the Magistrate Court in Bardoli but the police registered a new case against them and detained and tortured them.[127]

Tribal women were extremely vulnerable to sexual violence. In 2005, a total of 640 rape cases were reported against the Scheduled Tribe women as compared to 566 cases in 2004. During 2005, Madhya Pradesh reported the highest number of rape cases against Scheduled Tribe women (294) accounting for 45.9 percent of the total rape cases of tribal women in the country.[128]

On the night of 9 December 2005, the right hand of a tribal woman Kamlabai was chopped off in an attack on her family by the upper caste men at Nigari village in Raisen district of Madhya Pradesh. The attack was made following her refusal to withdraw her complaint of rape against two upper caste villagers Manmod Singh Mehra and Siyaram Raghuvanshi despite repeated warnings. The assailants barged into the house of the victim, dragged her to the courtyard and brutally chopped off her hand with an axe after tying her hands and feet. They also beat up her family members and set afire the house. The victim had filed a rape case against Manmod Singh Mehra and Siyaram Raghuvanshi with Silwani police station on 9 April 2002. On 27 September 2005, the victim's sister filed another complaint alleging rape by Manmod Singh Mehra.[129] The police arrested five persons identified as Manmod Singh, a schoolteacher, Devi Singh, Premnarayan, Ramsevak and Dinesh Raghuvanshi in connection with the attacks on 9 December 2005.[130]

b. Land alienation and displacement

The tribals constituted 8.2 % of the total population of India according to the 2001 census. But they also constituted 55.1% of the total displaced persons as a result of socalled developmental projects like dams, mining, industries and conservation of nature.

The Sardar Sarovar Project, the largest dam being constructed on the Narmada river would displace 400,000 persons including 200,000 by the reservoir at the proposed height of 136.5 meters.[131] In November 2005, the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) alleged that the Narmada basin States were violating the Supreme Court order of March 2005 in the Sardar Sarovar Project case by disbursing cash to the displaced families instead of providing “land for land.”[132] Earlier in September 2005, the Government of Madhya Pradesh informed the Narmada Control Authoritty that out of 30,690 families to be affected in 177 villages by Sardar Sarovar Project at the proposed dam height of 121.92 metres, 17,288 had been resettled including 4,262 families in Gujarat. The remaining 13,402 families were yet to be resettled. These included a backlog of 13,233 families at the current height of the dam, which was 110.64 metres at the end of 2005.[133] These figures were contested by the NBA.

The Jharkhand Government reportedly signed over 42 MoUs with investors including Mittal Steel, Tata Steel, Jindal Steel and Power Company Limited worth about Rs 1,69,198.26 crores since Jharkhand became a state in 2000. Approximately 47,445 acres of land would be required for the projects in mineral-rich Kolhan Region, which was likely to affect about 10,000 families and cause deforestation of 57,15 kms land.[134] A study by People's Union for Civil Liberties showed that over 74 lakh tribals were displaced in Jharkhand by different projects between 1950 and 1990. Out of them, only 18.45 lakhs displaced tribals were rehabilitated.[135]

During 2002-2005, the Orissa government signed 42 MoUs with companies for proposed steel and other plants in the state and thousands of tribals would be displaced.[136] The MoU with Korean steel major Pohang Steel Company (Posco) signed on 22 June 2005 for setting up a steel plant at Paradeep in Jagatsinghpur district in Orissa with a total investment of $12 billion would displace around 4,000 tribal families.[137]

About 1.4 million people, most of them tribals, have been reportedly displaced in Orissa between 1951 and 1995 due to dams, canals, mines and other industries. Majority of the displaced persons have not received compensation and rehabilitation. Another 80,000 to 1,00,000 tribals from 50 villages in Subdega and Balisankra blocks in Jharsuguda district of Orissa faced imminent displacement due to the proposed dam on the Ib river.[138]

In October 2005, the Central government reportedly granted “forest and environmental clearance” to the multi-purpose Polavaram project being built across the Godavari river at Polavaram in West Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh.[139] The proposed 46-metre high Polavaram multi-purpose dam is likely to displace nearly 2,00,000 people, of which about 150,000 are tribals. The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests also admitted that about 193,350 persons would be displaced in three states - Andhra Pradesh (175,275), Orissa (6,316) and Chhattisgarh (1,766).[140]

c. Repression under the forest laws

Thousands of petty cases have been lodged against the tribals under the Forest Act of 1927.

On 8 November 2005, the Forest Department of Chattisgarh reportedly decided to close 2,57,226 forest cases registered against 1,62,692 tribals between 1953 to 30 June 2004 under Sections 26, 33 and 41 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 pertaining primarily to illegal felling of trees for domestic use and ferrying of wood by bullock carts.[141] On 11 March 2005, Chief Minister of Orissa, Navin Patnaik stated that his government withdrew 2531 cases against the tribals, and returned 1183.40 acres of land to the tribals.[142] The opposition leaders in Orissa contested the claims of the Chief Minister.[143]

Tribals faced false prosecution because of the connivance of the mafia and the police and the forest officials. On 8 June 2005, the timber mafia in alleged connivance with the forest officials attacked and burnt the houses of Agaria tribe at Kumba Kurd village under Nagar Untari police station limits of Garhwa district in Jharkhand after the tribals opposed the activities of the timber mafia. One eight-month-old baby was reportedly burnt alive and 140 huts of the Agaria tribe were burnt to ashes. A case was lodged with Nagar Untari police station against 23 persons including 13 forest officials. On the other hand, the forest department lodged an FIR against the Agaria tribals on the basis of which the police swiftly arrested eight Agaria tribal villagers. But the police refused to take action against the accused forest officials.[144]

The Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee in its report submitted on 29 April 2005 stated that the State government of Kerala could transfer forest land to tribals if compensated with afforestation programmes. The State government was reportedly willing to resettle 53,000 tribal families in the forests of Muthanga Sanctuary by transferring nearly 7,000 hectares of forest land.[145] But the Kerala government failed to take action into the Muthanga firing incident of Feburary 2003.[146]

The government also failed to place the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill 2005, which seeks to protect the rights of those who had been occupying forestland prior to October 1980, before the parliament.

d. Encroachment by non-tribals

Despite various laws prohibiting transfer of tribal lands to non-tribals, alienation of the tribals' lands continued unabated. In 2005, the government of Jharkhand identified 1500 tribals in Ranchi who had lost their land to outsiders and decided to give back physical possession of their land under an action plan drawn up by the land revenue department.[147] The non-tribals encroached upon the tribal lands and harassed them by filing false cases with the police.[148]

In Assam, a report tabled before the State Assembly on 6 April 2005 by the State Revenue Minister Goutom Roy stated that over 2.20 lakh bighas of tribal land were either transferred to or encroached upon by non-tribals in the state. This included tribal land measuring 1,77,082 bighas in Lakhimpur, 518 bighas in Goalpara, 4,867 bighas in Nalbari, 4,451 bighas in Barpeta, 14,895 bighas in Dhemaji, 417 bighas in Morigaon, 5,366 bighas in Dhubri, 2,21,257 bighas in Udalguri and 196 bighas in Kamrup districts.[149]

IX. Violations of the rights of the Dalits

The Scheduled Castes, known as “Dalits”, constituted 16.2 % (166,635,700) of the total population of India according to the 2001 census. They continued to face atrocities and discrimination in all spheres of life.

The 2005 Annual Report of the National Crime Records Bureau reported a total of 26,127 cases - 8,497 cases under the Protection of Civil Rights Act and 291 cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 - against the Scheduled Castes. Although the average charge-sheeting rate for the crimes against the SCs was 94.1 per cent, the average conviction rate was only 29.8%. A total of 46,936 persons (82.4%) out of 57,804 persons arrested for crimes committed against Scheduled Castes were charge-sheeted but only 28.3% were convicted consisting of 12,691 persons out of 44,842 persons against whom trials were completed.[150]

Madhya Pradesh topped the crime rates against Dalits with 6.6 per cent, followed by Rajasthan (6.2%) and Andhra Pradesh (3.9%) against the national average of 2.4%.[151] The conviction rate under the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was low because of biases against the Dalits.[152]

Accountability for violations of the rights of the Dalits was seldom established. The findings of the Justice K S Lodha Commisson which probed the Kumher massacre in Rajasthan in which 17 Dalits were burnt alive in June 1992 was not made public by the state government despite a High Court order to place the report in the State Assembly.[153]

a. Denial of access to public places

Untouchability is still practised across India and the Dalits continue to be denied access to public places including temples, tube-well, etc. In some temples, idols of deities are removed if the Dalits come to offer prayers.[154]

In Gulbarga district of Karnataka, untouchability was reportedly being practised in 542 villages of the total 1,530 villages in the district.[155] The Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes also received several complaints on the untouchability from capital city Hyderabad.[156]

Despite the government's directive for recruitment of women preferably from the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for the mid-day meal schemes in schools in Kendrapara district of Orissa, Dalit women applying for the job of cooks were allegedly turned away by the school authorities for the fear that upper caste students might not eat the food if cooked by the Dalits.[157]

In Badhram village in Pulwal district of Haryana, Dalit villagers were ostracized and confined by the landlords after they offered prayers at the village temple on 20 July 2005. They were prevented from buying essential commodities from the village shops. Many were beaten up and the moustache of one 65-year-old Bhajan Lal was forcibly shaved off on 10 August 2005. On 11 August 2005, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes asked the Inspector-General of Police (Gurgaon range) to provide security to the Dalit villagers and submit an action-taken report within 10 days.[158] On 12 August 2005, a Deputy Superintendent of Police visited Badhram village but atrocities reportedly continued to take place.[159]

b. Physical attacks against the Dalits

Physical attacks against the Dalits were extensively reported. The National Crime Records Bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs recorded a total of 669 cases of killing, 258 cases of kidnapping and abduction and 210 cases of arson against the Dalits during 2005.[160] Hundreds of cases are seldom reported to the police.

The failure of the police and the administration in the prevention of attacks against the Dalits has been glaring. Following the murder of a Jat youth allegedly by some Dalit youths of Balmiki colony in Gohana under Sonepat district of Haryana on 27 August 2005, the Dalits had sought police protection in view of threats by the Jats. But the police instead allegedly asked the Dalits to flee their houses. Between 27 August and 30 August 2005, about 1000 Dalits reportedly fled from the Balmiki colony to safer areas. On the day of the attack on 31 August 2005, about 54 Dalit houses were set on fire and several others ransacked and looted by a mob of the Jats.[161] Field investigations by National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights[162] and the All India Lawyers Union[163] confirmed that the police remained silent spectators during the violence which lasted for nearly three hours. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes in its interim report to the Haryana government blamed the district administration for its failure to take any preventive measures, although the authorities had prior information about such a threat from the Jat community to the Dalits.[164] The police reportedly registered cases against 23 persons under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and some were reportedly arrested. Following intense political pressure and condemnation from all quarters, the Haryana government acted by moving out Deputy Commissioner S K Goel, Superintendent of Police Anil Kumar and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paunki Ram[165]and also suspended some police officers.[166] On 5 September 2005, Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda ordered a CBI probe into the incident, and increased the compensation to Rs 1 lakh for each victim.[167]

The Dalits were targeted because of their caste. On 1 March 2005, a Dalit youth identified as Mohanlal Meghwal was killed in broad daylight allegedly by former Congress Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Thakur Shivdan Singh at Bedkalan village in Pali district of Rajasthan. The deceased was first stabbed with a dagger and later a tractor was run over his body in broad daylight. Thakur Shivdan Singh, his son Tikam Singh, and his brother Daler Singh were arrested and sent to judicial custody.[168]

On late night of 10 July 2005, three members of a Dalit family identified as Bhagirath, Kachru and Ramchandra were hacked to death by an upper caste Rajput family on alleged charge of stealing a buffalo near Bamankheda village in Ujjain of Madhya Pradesh. A compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the victim's family was announced by the district administration.[169]

Many Dalits were tortured and subjected to humiliation and degrading treatment in public.

On 27 February 2005, a 15-year-old Dalit boy C. Muthukumar of Arunthathiyar Colony in North Kaavalaakurichi under the Ooththumalai police station limits in Tamil Nadu was tortured by an upper caste youth Kaalaisamy. The accused thrashed the Dalit boy, tied his hands at the back and then suspended him from his genitals in a well. Instead of taking stern action, the police allegedly released the accused without registering any case.[170]

In November 2005, 19-year-old Dalit youth Banesh Malayya Pulluri was reportedly beaten up in public, garlanded with chappals, sandals, and forced to eat human excreta by the gram sabha, village council, for writing a love letter to an upper caste girl at Jamanpalli village under Sironcha tehsil in Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra. The police reportedly arrested four persons .[171]

c. Violence against Dalit women

Though Dalits are considered untouchable, rape of Dalit women is common. The National Crime Records Bureau recorded a total of 1,172 cases of rape against the Scheduled Caste women during 2005.[172]

On the night of 10 April 2005, a Dalit woman, wife of a Dalit policeman from Begusarai, was abducted and gang raped by four upper caste men after taking her to a hotel in Munger in Bihar.[173]

On 12 June 2005, a 5-year-old Dalit girl was reportedly gang raped after taking her to an abandoned area at Sukhdevpur village under Dhaulana police station in Ghaziabad district of Uttar Pradesh. The police reportedly refused to register the case.[174]

Dalit women have been subjected to brutal torture, degrading treatment, humiliation and rape.

On 2 August 2005, a young pregnant Dalit woman Manju Devi, wife of Binod Sada, reportedly died after being brutally hit with rifle butt by former Rashtriya Janata Dal MLA Sunil Kumar Pushpam because she failed to move out of the road quickly when his jeep started honking at her on the muddy road at Beethan village in Samastipur, Bihar.[175]

On 28 April 2005, a Dalit woman Nirmala Devi was allegedly beaten up, tonsured and paraded naked after blackening her face by the upper caste men for refusing to work as domestic maid in Paswan Tola at Dhameli village under Mirganj police station in Purnia district of Bihar. A case was filed with the Mirganj police station on 2 May 2005.[176]

On 19 September 2005, a group of Dalit women belonging to the barber community were reportedly dragged out of their houses and paraded naked on the streets by some men from upper-caste Khandayat community in Bhubanpati village in Puri district of Orissa after their husbands refused to wash the feet of upper caste bridegroom and other members of the marriage party.[177]

d. Denial of land rights

The Dalits also faced dispossession from their lands.

In Rajasthan, lands of Dalits were illegally encroached upon and occupied by the upper caste people. Agricultural land measuring thousands of bighas belonging to Bheel tribals and Dalits in Chittaurgarh, Baran and Kota districts were either illegally occupied by the influential upper caste people or declared as Government property under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.[178]

The state government of Karnataka also failed to provide houses to the Dalits under different welfare schemes. As in December 2005, in Nimbarga of Karnataka, title deeds were not given to 63 Dalit families despite allotting houses under Ashraya Housing Scheme.[179]

In Andhra Pradesh, the Dalits were often allotted pattas for land, but not the actual land. On the other hand, such land schemes of the government allegedly took away the original lands of the Dalits. On the night of 22 August 2005, a Dalit farmer Katuri Moses committed suicide fearing that his 22 cent land would be taken away by the administration at Pedapalaparru under Mudinepalli mandal in Andhra Pradesh.[180]

X. Violence against women

According to the National Crime Records Bureau's 2005 Annual Report, 1 crime was committed against women in every 3 minutes, 1 rape in every 29 minutes, 1 molestation in every 15 minutes, 1 dowry death case in every 77 minute in the country during 2005. The NCRB recorded a total of 1,55,553 cases of Violence Against Women (VAW) including 18,359 cases of rape involving 18,376 victims, 34,175 cases of molestation, 15750 cases of kidnapping, 6,787 cases of dowry deaths and 58,319 cases of torture in 2005.[181] Despite high rate of violence against women, only 24 out of 28 states in India have established State Commission for Women by 2005.[182]

Women also became victims of violence by the security forces and armed opposition groups and as a result of cruel cultural practices.

a. Violence by the security forces

The law enforcement personnel responsible for sexual violence included officers like Inspector-General of Police Mr P.S. Natarajan of Ranchi, Jharkand[183] to constables. On 23 December 2005, the personnel of Indian Reserve Battalion of Haryana shot dead three Boro tribals identified as Thomas Basumatary, Ramen Moshahary, and Raju Basumatary who were protesting against the molestation of eight girls from Gossaigaon College who had boarded the 4056 UP Brahmaputra Mail at Salakati railway station under Basugaon in Kokrajhar district of Assam.[184]

Many officers and police personnel were arrested for rape including Circle Inspector of Nandapur in Orissa Mr S K Odu, Nageswar Rao and a doctor, P K Rath of Nandapur Community Health Centre who were arrested on 12 January 2005 for alleged gang rape of a 30-year-old tribal woman at their official residence,[185] constable Hamid Nazir Kazi of Nerul police station for raping a former bar girl in her house at Sector-8 in Nerul of Navi Mumbai[186] and Delhi police constable Rajendra in December 2005.[187]

Many police personnel were dismissed from services including Sub Inspector J D Bhardwaj of Bhajanpura police station of Delhi in June 2005[188], 7 policemen including Head Constable Arjan Singh, constables Nishan Singh, Balbir Singh and Mohan Lal of Tarn Taran police district in Punjab in October 2005,[189] and constable Sunil More who raped a 17-year-old girl at Marine Drive police outpost in Mumbai. Marine Rive rape victim gets Rs 3 lakh compensation, The Free Press Journal, 27 September 2005.[190]

In armed conflict situations, the security forces perpetrated similar atrocities. In early December 2005, two Tripura State Rifles personnel were arrested for raping the wife of one Purna Mohan Rupini at gunpoint under the guise of searching for the outlawed National Liberation Front of Tripura cadres in Agartala, Tripura.[191]

b. Violence by the AOGs

During 2005, there were also reports of violence against women by the armed opposition groups (AOGs) especially from Jammu and Kashmir. On 5 November 2005, a school girl was gang raped by alleged militants at her residence at Muradpur in Rajouri district of Jammu and Kashmir. The victim later committed suicide by consuming poison.[192]

On 14 December 2005, a Public Interest Litigation was filed in the J&K High Court for seeking justice for a minor girl, daughter of Ashiq Hussain from Laroti village in Rajouri district. She was kidnapped by members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, forcibly married off and raped by their members. After the minor girl escaped from the captivity, the Lashkar-e-Taiba announced reward of Rs 50,000 on her head. Though Ashiq Hussain went to the nearby police station to lodge an FIR, the SHO Javed Manhas refused to lodge the FIR.[193]

c. Cruel cultural practices

Women continued to become victims of violence because of cruel cultural practices like Sati (the traditional Hindu practice of a widow immolating herself on her husband's funeral pyre), honour killings, witch hunting etc and the traditional justice delivered by the panachayats and clerics.

Though police arrested 11 persons including a 42-year-old woman, Basanti Devi, who allegedly attempted to commit Sati at a temple at Sumel village in Rajasthan's Pali district on 20 March 2005 in front of over 10,000 villagers from Pali, Ajmer and Nagaur districts in Rajasthan,[194] the Rajasthan Tourism Development in its guidebook, Popular Deities of Rajasthan, released on 30 May 2005 glorified Sati and described Rajasthan as “‘best-known for various Sati Matas”.[195]

There were also reports of honour killings. On 7 October 2005, a businessman shot dead his 24-year-old daughter identified as Neeru at Rohini multiplex in Delhi for marrying one Saranjeet Singh against the family's consent. Saranjeet Singh managed to escape with bullet injuries.[196]

Dozens of women were killed for alleged witchcraft especially in Assam, Tripura, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh. Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) recorded killing of 34 persons, mostly women, and attack on 7 others on the charges of practising witch-craft. The victims who were killed included Chatu Tirki at No. 1 Daolabari village in Kokrajhar of Assam on 17 November 2005,[197] Budhuni Singh at Birwal village in Sundargarh district of Orissa on 20 March 2005,[198] Savitri Devi who was beaten to death by the villagers in Gulabbagh village under Sadar police station of Purnea district of Bihar on 17 April 2005,[199] Munni Bandra, who was raped and killed at Uttam Basti on the outskirts of Rourkela city in Sundargarh district of Orissa on 21 April 2005,[200] Lakshmi Murmu at Kumodda village in Sagardighi in Murshidabad district of West Bengal on 5 June 2005,[201] Kosharam Reang who was beaten to death at Tainani in South Tripura on 26 June 2005,[202] Soli Oraon and his wife Mungri who were killed in Mill Bagan tea estate in Darjeeling, West Bengal on the night of 12 October 2005,[203] Jayanti Chatar who was killed at Belabahali village under Tomka police station in Jajpur district of Orissa on 17 November 2005,[204] Pinpina Turi and Golapi Bhumij who were killed at Rajmai Tea Estates in Sivasagar district of Assam on 20 November 2005,[205] and three members of a family identified as Karuna Devi, her husband Marari Singh and son Kaushal Prasad who were shot dead by their relatives at Pyarepur village under Giriak police station in Nalanda district of Bihar on 28 November 2005.[206]

The village panchayats acted as “cultural courts” where victims were held guilty. In September 2005, the panchayat of Muslim-dominated Padhyar village in Banka district of Bihar allegedly forced a rape victim to publicly lick the spit of her husband Mohammad Farooq, who had instantly pronounced talaq when she told him that she had been raped by one Mohammad Ajaz on 28 August 2005. The rape victim was also thrown out of the house by her husband. On the other hand, the rapist was let off by payment of a paltry fine of Rs 15,000 after he refused to marry the victim. The victim filed a case in the court of chief judicial magistrate and the court directed the Dhoraiya police station to lodge an FIR against Ajaz and his father.[207]

XI. Violations of the rights of the child

The situation of children remained vulnerable with the lack of effective programmes for the child labourers, recruitment as child soldiers, sexual violence against girl child and deplorable conditions of the juveniles in conflict with the law.

a. Child labour

According to the 2001 census data of the government of India, there were 1,2,666377 child labourers across the country with 19,27,997 in Uttar Pradesh alone, followed by Andhra Pradesh with 13,63,339, Rajasthan with 12,62,570, Bihar with 11,17,500, and Madhya Pradesh with 10,65,259.[208] Of the total of 604 districts across the country, only 271 districts were covered by government's rehabilitation process. While 250 districts were covered under the National Child Labour Project[209] and 21 districts under the Indo-US Child Labour Project,[210] the child labourers in rest of the districts were left to fend for themselves.

The failure of the government of Delhi to rehabilitate some 477 child labourer rescued by the police and labour department officials in November 2005 showed the failure and reluctance of the government to rehabilitate the child labourers. Immediately after their rescue, the children were reportedly housed at a Raen Basera, a night shelter for beggars at August Kranti Bhawan at Bhikaji Cama Place in Delhi. Failing to put together rehabilitation plans for the children and unable to bear the cost of food and lodging, the children were reportedly sent to 11 observation homes, which mainly housed the juvenile delinquents.[211] A Division Bench of Delhi High Court on 22 December 2001 directed the government to file an affidavit explaining

SAARC HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT 2006

INFO BY COUNTRY

INFO BY THEME

Main page

India

Contents

I. Ranking in Human Rights Violators Index: 7th