According to official figures issued in July 1990 about 10000 suspects had been arrested in Punjab since President’s rule (direct rule from New Delhi) was imposed in the state in May 1987. It is difficult to give precise estimates of the numbers of political prisoners in Punjab because some of those arrested are held for short periods of time and because official figures of the number of prisoners held are rarely given and when they are   inconsistent. When former Prime Minister V.P.Singh announced on 11 January 1990 a review of all cases of political detainees held in the state officials in New Delhi said that 12000 people were in detention whereas state officials put the number at less than 6000.8

Many new arrests under anti-terrorist laws have been made since the January 1990 review over 900 arrests of alleged members of armed opposition groups had been officially reported in Punjab by June 1990. Since then scores and sometimes hundreds of new arrests have been reported each month. For example in late November 1990 Sikh political leaders and human rights activists were among some 500 men and women detained to prevent them from attending a meeting at Anandpur. The meeting was reportedly called to discuss peaceful political reform and the position of the Sikh community. They were released 10 days later.

The Indian government does not publish statistics of the number of people held in connection with political activities under preventive detention or special anti-terrorist legislation in Punjab but human rights groups in the state estimate the number of those held at any one time to be between 15000 and 20,000.

Arbitrary and unacknowledged arrests

Amnesty International has received many complaints of arbitrary arrests by the police and paramilitary forces operating in Punjab. According to these reports arrests have been made without warrant the security force agents making the arrests have not identified themselves and the arrested person or his or her relatives have not been informed of the grounds of the arrest or the specific charges against the arrested person. In many cases the arrests are not recorded in the daily registers of the police stations found many of the detainees then awaiting trial complained that police had detained those weeks before formally arresting them. In his unpublished report the High Court judge has reportedly criticized official behavior in the registration of cases against detainees under the Arms Act for allegedly harboring terrorists and raising antinational slogans. Justice Sodhi observed: A stereotyped set pattern of their content emerges almost as if there is a prescribed preform where names etc . Are filled in  What is more one has to strain one’s credibility to accept the version given in these reports (India Today 30 September 1989).

Many detainees told Justice Sodhi that they were tortured during the initial period of unacknowledged detention and that when they were finally granted bail the police immediately re-arrested them on fresh charges. Such claims continue to be made. For example Hardev Singh son of Gurmail Singh of Nandpur village Ludhiana claimed in a sworn statement of 29 October 1990 that just after he had been released on bail by the local court on September 21,1987 T was picked up by the police right outside the prison gate. He claimed that between September 1987 and March 1989 he was illegally detained by police no less than 38 times.

Detainees are often not brought before a magistrate within 24 hours as normally required by section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During detention detainees are often held incommunicado and tortured. In many cases police officials have simply denied knowledge of arrest or detention. They sometimes claimed later than the person in question either e5caped or if faced with a habeas corpus petition brought by the relatives acknowledged the arrest but gave contradictory information about when and how the arrest was made. The case of Lakhwinder Singh illustrates this practice. His illegal detention was confirmed by the High Court which also granted compensation to the victim.

Article extracted from this publication >> June 14, 1991