Amnesty International has called on the Indian government to clarify reports of seven disappearances that took place during 1987 and 1988. Eye-witnesses claimed that they saw three of the ‘disappeared’ while in Punjab police custody. Although some police investigations were conducted, there has been no independent investigation of these ‘disappearances’.

The following is the second part of the Amnesty report.

A Times of India (Bombay) editorial of 15 July 1988 commented on the “disappearance” of the four men from Hapur district (Uttar Pradesh) whose cases are described on pages 8-11 by drawing attention to the way in which the Delhi police had disregarded normal legal safeguards when carrying out the arrests:

“the Delhi police officers had no legal right to spirit away residents of another state. Policemen have the right to make arrests in other states but the suspects have to be produced before a magistrate. Only on his orders can they be then taken to another state for interrogation. Not only was this not done in this case, but even the fact of the arrests was not formally shown. That led to the sad result. Since there was nothing on the records, it was essential that all those who were directly involved in the case be also removed.”

In addition to these and similar reports received by Amnesty International, Amnesty International’s representatives have themselves spoken to former detainees who complained that they were arbitrarily detained and : that the police did not comply with legal safeguards designed to prevent arbitrary arrests and detentions. One example of such breach of procedures was the arrest and detention of Mr. Babaiah who the police claim was a

“Naxalite” (leftist revolutionary) from Andhra Pradesh. He was arrested-on 23 April 1986 in Bangalore the capital of Karnataka state. He told Amnesty International that he was interrogated by police from Andhra. Pradesh who tortured him on the night of his arrest by beating him and inserting a roller behind his knees, which they pressed down. He also claimed he was threatened with being killed by police in a false “encounter”. He was brought before a magistrate two days after his arrest, on 25 April, but said he was kept in a police van waiting outside the magistrate’s house while the police got the order for his detention signed by the magistrate. He was again taken to the magistrate’s house on 30 April, eight days after his arrest, and was this time allowed to enter the magistrate’s office, but was denied permission to see or-speak to him. The police later claimed Mr. Babaiah was arrested on 25 April, the day he was first brought before the magistrate. His account is typical of several others received by Amnesty International.

An important legal remedy to prevent “disappearances” is the right to habeas corpus. This right exists in India and detainees have in a number of cases been brought to court, and released as a result of habeas Corpus proceedings initiated by their relatives (for example the petitions which were successfully brought in the Karnataka High Court resulting in the release of several detainees within days of the filing of these petitions. But in other cases, habeas corpus has not been an effective remedy to “disappearances” because the courts have dismissed them on technical grounds or because police apparently obstructed its implementation.

An example is the habeas corpus petition brought by colleagues of S. Veeramani. It was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court on the grounds that the petition failed to name the police officers involved in the alleged abduction and that the petition did not address the Tamil Nadu police who, according to some press reports could be involved in the abduction. It is precisely because of the secrecy surrounding “disappearances” and the denial of responsibility by officials that those involved in “disappearances” cannot be identified and that habeas corpus petitions failed to produce results in court. Another example is the letter written by the grandmother of Shyam Singh which was taken up as habeas corpus petition by the Delhi High Court. That court dismissed the petition, agreeing with the New Delhi police that Shyam Singh had never been arrested. But relatives complain that they were never notified of the court hearing and were therefore unable to present eye-witness evidence in court of his abduction by the South Delhi police. According to one press report the summons for their court appearance may not have been delivered to the relatives because the policeman charged with taking the summons to ‘the village was he allegedly involved in Shyam Singh’s abduction.

The difficulties in bringing effective legal action in cases of “disappearances” have been recognized by one regional international court, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which recently carried out investigations into reported “disappearances” in one Latin American country. In its decision of 29 July 1988, the Inter American Court found:

…while there existed in Honduras, at the time when the disappearances occurred, legal remedies which might have made it possible to trace a person detained by the authorities, such remedies were ineffective both because the detention was clandestine and because, in practice, they ran up against red tape which rendered them inapplicable or because the authorities against whom they were exercised, simply ignored them or because attorneys and sheriffs were threatened or intimidated by those authorities.”

The Court therefore stressed that it was not sufficient for a legal remedy to “disappearance” to exist as a provision in law; that remedy also had to be adequate and effective as a means to find the person allegation detained and to ascertain the lawfulness of their detention.

In India another factor inhibiting the effectiveness of habeas corpus to resolve “disappearances” cases is that such legal action has to be brought in the higher courts. It ” is especially hard for relatives of victims who are poor and or illiterate to obtain the special legal assistance required to initiate such court action and to do so promptly, in time for a habeas corpus till to provide an effective remedy to “disappearance.”

The cases presented i in this report illustrate the failure of legal remedies to resolve cases of “disappearance”. In order to clarify such cases and further “disappearances” it vent is important that the various branches of the central and state governments as well as the judiciary promptly act whenever such

“disappearances” are reported. As the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances noted in its 1983 report: “The occurrence of government connected disappearances is a sign of the breakdown not only of the security of police services directly responsible but also of the judiciary and executive in the responsibility for ensuring respect for law and order. Each arm of the government has a role to play in preventing or ending disappearances.

Nine Cases of “Disappearances”

The nine cases of “disappearances” described in this section followed detentions in the state of Uttar Pradesh (involving the South Delhi police), Karnatak (involving the Tamil Nadu police) and Punjab. The four men who “disappeared” from Uttar Pradesh are people who were suspected of criminal acts, the other five men who “disappeared” from Punjab and Karnataka were suspected of involvement in violent crimes of a political nature.

Uttar Pradesh: the “disappearance” of Puran Singh, Shyam Singh, Veer Singh and Tilak Ram

Puran Singh (described by the policeas a “notorious? robber) and Shyam Singh were allegedly taken away members of the special staff of the Lajpat Nagar police station, Delhi, from Hapur district in Uttar Pradesh on 10 April 1987, apparently on suspicion of robbery. Police admit that they went to the house of Puran Singh and Shyam Singh but claim that they never managed to arrest them. However, several eye witnesses gave detailed accounts of seeing the two men being taken away by police. Relatives later established that they belonged to the South Delhi police. When they made inquiries at the Lajpat Nagar police station, New Delhi, police first told them that the two men were at various places in Uttar Pradesh but later denied any knowledge of their abduction or whereabouts. Two others believed to have been also arrested at the same time by the South Delhi police in Hapur district, Veer Singh and Tilak Ram, have’ also “disappeared” their whereabouts remain unknown.

Puran Singha truck driver who was married with four children and his 18 -year old assistant Shyam Singh belonged to the Scheduled Castes also known as “harijans”or “untouchables”. Both were reportedly taken away in the presence of several villagers on 10 April 1987 while staying at a rented flat in Nai Abadi mohalla (area) near Kothi Gate in Hapur district, Uttar Pradesh. One of the neighbors is quoted in an Indian Express press report of 30 July 1988.

“Puran Singh had been away for several days. He returned that day around 2:30 pm. I was right next to his house. Suddenly, around 3 pm six or seven men ran up the stairs to his house and dragged him and Shyam Singh out.

They were all in plainclothes. Puran Singh was only in vest and lungi (long cloth wrapped around the lower part of the body). They clamped his hands behind his back and handcuffed him. Another man was pulling Shyam Singh by the loops of his trousers.” The arrests were carried out by plainclothes men who reportedly identified themselves to several eyewitnesses as policemen: In a sworn statement Puran Singh’s landlord said:

“I went to the house but just 10 minutes after my ‘Teaching, some unknown 4 persons in plain clothes climbed to the room of upper floor and caught hold and clutched* Fouji (name under’ which Puran Singh was ‘known in the mohalla). On my asking what happened…they told (me): that they are policemen. A revolver and another weapon, the name I do not know, they removed from a cloth and put on the chest of Fouji…After 5 minutes of this, one person out of those unknown ‘persons brought hand cuffs and handcuffed Fouji and:.Shyam Singh who was standing nearby they also took away with them a motorcycle that belonged to Fouji, bearing No. URP 3708. Their cars colored white and blue, their numbers T do not know where parked for 3-4 days in the Rajkiya Shiksha Vidyalaya, Kothi Gre. Hapur. Both were lifted and taken away in these cars…

He also said:

“We asked the solisennen to produce their identity cards and two of them did. Their names were (names withheld). The policemen slipped a black mask over Puran Singh’s face, put him and Shyam Singh in a jeep and drove away. Another: policeman started Puran’s motorcycle URP 3708 and drove away. We haven’t seen Puran or Shyam after that.”

Another villager reporter that the men carrying out the arrests had waited for several days in the village and had: stayed with a unit of the special police force in Uttar Pradesh, the Provincial Armed Constabulary, he said:

“These men had been staying at Rajkiya Adarsh lage (local school) in Kothi Gate market for four Five days before they got Puran. They came in a blue van, There was also a white Ambassador. They had camped with the PAC (Provincial Armed Constabulary) in the school.”

A neighbor claims to have seen Shyam Singh and two or three others men leaving the car in which he was taken away, entering Puran Singh’s flat and leaving it with a small bag. Puran Singh was, according to this witness not with them.

The police reportedly told the villagers that Puran Singh and Shyam Singh were wanted in connection with a number of robberies that had taken place in South Delhi. The police have admitted that the two men named by witnesses as the arresting officers on the Special Staff of the Lajpat Nagar police traveled to Nai Abadi in Hapur on 10 April 1987 but claim that no arrests were made. Two others “disappearance the same day in a case apparently cleated to the “disappearance” of Puran Singh and Sayam Singh. 32 year old Veer Singh, married with three children, and his cousin, 28 year old Tilak Ram both farmers from Baraundi in Ghaziabad district of Uttar Pradesh, reportedly “disappeared” on the same day as Puran Singh and Shyam Singh. Baraunid is a village about 30 kilometres away from Hapur and is the home village of Puran Singh.

In the days following the detentions the relatives of Puran Singh and Shyam Singh made several inquiries at Lajpat Nagar police station in South Delhi. At first, police appeared to acknowledge their detention, but later they denied this. The father of Shyam Singh stated:

First they told me that my son and brother in law were in Gurgaon. Then I was told they were in Meerut. Then that they were in Lucknow. I made about 10 trips and now the Lajpat Nagar Special Staff says that they do not know anything about Puran or Shyam’s disappearance.”

Police continued to deny any knowledge about the whereabouts of the two men and reportedly threatened relatives, telling them not to return. They also apparently refused to register a complaint until a prominent citizen assisted the relatives more than a year later, in July 1988.

Relatives have sent appeals to the President, the Prime Minister the Minister of Home Affairs, the Minister of State for Home Affairs, the Lieutenant governor of New Delhi, the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and other authorities, but have received no reply. One of the letters, written by the grandmother of Shyam Singh, which she sent on 15 August 1987 to Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, was brought before the High Court of New Delhi. The court heard the allegations of the “disappearances” of Shyam Singh (Criminal Writ Petition No. 3747), but the relatives say they were never summoned and were therefore unable to appear before the court to give evidence of his abduction. According to a report in The Statesmen of 20 July 1988, the policeman who apparently took the summons to Baraundi village, where Shyam Singh’s relatives live, was sub-Inspector (name withheld) himself one of the men allegedly involved in the abduction of Shyam Singh. On 8 September 1987, the High Court dismissed the petition agreeing with the police view that Shyam Singh had never been arrested. The Court held: “The affidavit of Sub-Inspector (name withheld) clarifies the position. Shyam Singh was never arrested or detained by the Delhi police. We are satisfied that he is not in the custody of Special Staff, South District, Delhi as alleged in the complaint. Dismissed Relatives appealed against the High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court on 2 August 1988, but, as of writing, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case was not known.

In July 1988 detailed reports about the “disappearances” of the four men and their alleged abduction by the Special Staff of the New Delhi police appeared in the New Delhi press. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District told a reporter of the Statesmen Delhi on 11 July 1988: “I don’t know anything about the case. No report has come to me.” The day after this report had appeared in the New Delhi press, the “disappearance” of the four men, some 15 months earlier to be carried out in the district. Six days later on 18 July 1988, the preliminary inquiry conducted by the South Delhi police which was it accused of responsibility for the abductions-absolved its members from involvement in the “disappearance” of the four men from Uttar Pradesh. The Indian Express of 19 July 1988 reported that the police party had never managed to arrest Puran Singh as they were unable to locate him. “The police party did go to Baraundi but Puran Singh was not at home,” according to the preliminary report. The report _ described Puran Singh as a & “notorious” robber who was wanted by the police in two cases of robbery being investigated by the Defense Colony police, New Delhi. According to the preliminary police report, Puran and Shyam Singh had never been arrested by the Delhi police.

The New Delhi press reported that the police officers carrying out the preliminary inquiry did not visit Hapur or Baraundi and did not talk to any eyewitnesses such as neighbors to the detention of Shyam Singh or Puran Singh (nor did they apparently contact relatives of the two other missing men, Tilak Ram and Veer Singh). Instead, they reportedly relied entirely on one witness who claimed to have seen Puran Singh and Shyam Singh one month after their abduction. This witness was, according to several New Delhi press reports, a police informer and, when questioned by ‘reporters, gave contradictory information about the time when she said she last saw Puran Singh.

After the preliminary report had been submitted another police team, headed by Mr. P.N.. Aggarwal, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (South) visited Hapur later in July and reportedly spoke to over a dozen people who said they witnessed the abduction of Puran and Shyam Singh. According to press reports Mr. Aggarwal is reported to have said: “It seems now that the men were picked up and taken away…though our team had gone to Hapur we can’t say however that our officers picked them up.” This contradicts the testimony of various eyewitnesses that police officers, whom’ they later learned worked at the Lajpat Nagar police station in South Delhi, carried out the arrests.

“An important legal remedy to prevent “disappearances” is the right to -habeas corpus. This right exists in India and detainees have in a number of cases been brought to court, and released as a result of habeus corpus proceedings initiated by their relatives (for example the petitions which were successfully brought in the Karnataka High Court resulting in the release of several detainees within days of the filing of these petitions. But in other cases, habeas corpus has not been an effective remedy to “disappearances” because the courts have dismissed them on technical grounds or because police apparently obstructed its implementation.”

“The cases presented in this report illustrate the failure of legal remedies to resolve cases of “disappearance”. In order to clarify such cases and prevent further “disappearances”’ it is important that the various branches of the central and state governments as well as the judiciary promptly act whenever such “disappearances” are reported. As the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances noted in its 1983 report: “The occurrence of government connected disappearances is a sign of the breakdown not only of the security of police services directly responsible but also of the judiciary and executive in the responsibility for ensuring respect for law and order. Each arm of the government has a role to play in preventing or ending disappearances.”

Article extracted from this publication >> September 1, 1989