Your Content Goes Here
Article extracted from this publication >>
This paper summarizes Amnesty International’s main human rights concerns in India as they have arisen since January 1987. A final section sets out a series of measures for the protection of human rights which Amnesty International recommends the government to consider implementing.
India has a Constitution which guarantees a number of fundamental rights. National and local bodies in India, including the Supreme Court High Courts in the various states do important work to protect these rights: some- times they even treat letters from victims as fundamental rights petitions and abuses have consequently been redressed. Similarly, civil liberties groups regularly high- light alleged abuses, as does the Indian press which reflects a lively debate about the observance of human rights in the country. Despite these efforts however, Amnesty International believes that many victims of human rights abuses are unable to get speedy and effective protection, especially if difficult circumstances prevail. The Govern- ment of India should take steps to ensure that the basic human rights and legal safeguards of all citizens are protected, especially the rights and safeguards of those liable to have been disregarded. This is necessary not only in order to protect and give effect to the basic principles enshrined in the Indian constitution, but also because India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention. The Covenant also stipulates that, even in times of public emergency when the life of the nation is at stake, a government should always protect all its citizens’ right to life, shield its citizens from torture and protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Although the state governments of India’s 25 states have the principal responsibility for maintaining law and order, the central government has responsibility for ensuring that the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Indian Constitution are observed throughout India and that India’s obligations under the International Covenant are fully reflected in current legislation and are also observed in practice.
Amnesty International works for the release of people detained for the non-violent expression of their beliefs and for a fair and prompt trial for all political prisoners. It opposes torture and the death penalty in all cases. Amnesty International also opposes extrajudicial killings and enforced or involuntary “disappearances.” Some of the main concerns of Amnesty International in India have arisen in the context of measures taken to counter violent activities by armed groups opposing the government, particularly in Punjab. One of the main concerns in India is that several thousand political detainees have been without charge or trial under special “anti-terrorist” laws and preventive detention legislation, which lack the basic legal safeguards required by international human rights standards. Hundreds of them have been in detention without trial for four years, among them 326 Sikhs detained in Jodhpur jail since June 1984. Some have been in detention for expressing non-violent political opinions. Amnesty International is also concerned about reports of torture and of extrajudicial killings (in India referred to as “encounter killings), and about infliction of the death penalty. In many Indian states prisoners have been ill-treated or tortured and dozens have allegedly died as a result. In 1987 in only two cases of such deaths in custody was compensation granted to relatives. In Punjab, alleged supporters of armed opposition groups – themselves frequently resorting to killings of civilians as well as of members of the security forces – are reported to have been killed in increasing numbers in “encounters” staged by the police. In various parts of India members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and of the Muslim community have been among the victims of arbitrary killing by the police; in Manipur the army has been accused of torturing and killing tribal villagers. The armed provincial police force of Uttar Pradesh has been held responsible for dozens of “disappearances” and arbitrary killings. Dozens of people have been sentenced to death and an unknown number executed.
2. Background: Demands for greater autonomy and the use of violence by armed opposition groups
Demands for increased autonomy or separatism continue to be made in various parts of India, including Punjab, West Bengal, Bihar and several parts of northeast India. Political violence has been widespread in these states, particularly in Punjab where armed Sikh groups continue to advocate “Khalistan” a separate Sikh state – and where 1,216 political killings were reported by the police to have occurred in the state during 1987. According to official sources, in 1987 armed Sikhs killed 97 police officers and 882 civilians (Hindus as well as Sikhs), and 327 armed Sikhs were killed by the security forces. Judges trying Sikhs on charges of killing officials and others as well as witnesses testifying at such trials were also among those killed by armed Sikh groups. Political killings increased in number in early 1988: a particularly large number of civilian deaths occurred, for example, on 4 March 1988, when members of an armed Sikh group killed 32 unarmed Hindus and Sikhs participating in a religious festival. As of May 1988 around a thousand political killings by armed Sikh groups had been reported in the state; many of those killed were unarmed civilians not participating in the fighting. The victims were mainly Hindus but also included Sikhs who armed Sikh groups believed were “informers” or else people opposed to the policies adopted by these groups in their fight for “Khalistan”.
There has also been political violence in West Bengal, where the Gorkha National Liberation Front has continued its campaign for a separate state. Naxalite groups have been active in several states, including Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, where they reportedly killed two dozen police officers in 1987; and, in December, members of one faction, the People’s War Group, kidnapped eight state officials and detained them in order to obtain the release of eight of the group’s members arrested several weeks earlier. All were released. In response to these and other events the government assumed even wider powers to arrest and detain people and changed the rules of evidence to facilitate the conviction of people tried under special legal procedures.
3. Laws under which political prisoners are detained and tried: further curtailment of legal safeguards
Political prisoners in India are often detained without trial under the National Security Act (NSA) which permits preventive detention for actions with a bearing on national security; in Jammu and Kashmir they can be so detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Security Act. Others are held under the loosely defined Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), most of them without being brought to trial, the act permitting up to a year’s detention without formal charge or trial. The act also lays down special procedures for the trial of prisoners which curtail important legal safeguards; similar restrictions on normal legal safeguards apply to trials of political prisoners arrested in Punjab under the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act. Below is a description of the main provisions of these laws, how they have been strengthened in recent years and how they are being used in various parts of India to detain or try political prisoners, among them peaceful dissidents and other innocent men and women not participating in armed conflict that Amnesty International would consider prisoners of conscience. ed its campaign for a separate state. Naxalite groups have been active in several states, including Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, where they reportedly killed two dozen police officers in 1987; and, in December, members of one faction, the People’s War Group, kidnapped eight state officials and detained them in order to obtain the release of eight of the group’s members arrested several weeks earlier. All were released. In response to these and other events the government assumed even wider powers to arrest and detain people and changed the rules of evidence to facilitate the conviction of people tried under special legal procedures.
3. Laws under which political prisoners are detained and tried: further curtailment of legal safeguards
Political prisoners in India are often detained without trial under the National Security Act (NSA) which permits preventive detention for actions with a bearing on national security; in Jammu and Kashmir they can be so detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Security Act. Others are held under the loosely defined Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), most of them without being brought to trial, the act permitting up to a year’s detention without formal charge or trial. The act also lays down special procedures for the trial of prisoners which curtail important legal safeguards; similar restrictions on normal legal safeguards apply to trials of political prisoners arrested in Punjab under the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act. Below is a description of the main provisions of these laws, how they have been strengthened in recent years and how they are being used in various parts of India to detain or try political prisoners, among them peaceful dissidents and other innocent men and women not participating in armed conflict whom Amnesty International would consider prisoners of conscience.
3.1 The National Security Act
Under the 1980 NSA people can be detained without charge or trial for loosely defined security reasons for up to one year (two years in Punjab), but must be brought before an Advisory Board within seven weeks of arrest. (If the Board finds insufficient grounds for detention, the detainee is bound to be released.) In 1987 the government included more stringent provisions in existing special and preventive detention laws, which were already causing concern because they lacked important legal safeguards. A June ordinance, replaced by an act of parliament in August, amended the NSA as it applied to Punjab so as to allow detainees to be held for an extended period of up to six months before being brought before an Advisory Board. The amended NSA thus reintroduced provisions which had earlier been eliminated by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as unconstitutional.
3.1.1 The use of the NSA to curb legitimate opposition
Although the Home Ministry gave assurances that the provisions of the act would not be misused, opposition members in the Lok Sabha argued that the NSA was being used indiscriminately. In March 1988 the Minister of Home Affairs informed the Lok Sabha that 74 detainees held under the NSA had been released in January but that 653 were still being held under its provisions. Many hundreds are known to have been held under its provisions throughout India, a number of them for the one-year maximum period, some of them for peaceful political activities. The NSA requires that a detainee should know the grounds of detention within five, or, in exceptional circumstances, 15 days of the date of detention but some detainees have been held without receiving this information. In January 1987, for example, the Supreme Court held that the detention on the orders of the Sikkim Government of Hem Lal Bhandari, a Bombay- based Sikkim’s lawyer, had been illegal because the police had failed to give the grounds for his detention within the legally stipulated period. The court said that there could be no relaxation of the rule that a detainee held under the NDA should be informed of the grounds of detention without delay as this provision was “a safety valve for a citizen who is robbed of his liberty and to disable the authorities from manipulating the grounds of detention.” Others reported to have been held under the NSA include leaders of the Jharkhand movement demanding a separate state structure for the largely tribal population living in Southern Bihar and neighbouring states. They also include political and religious leaders from Punjab, among them the Akali Dal leaders Prakash Singh Badal, Gurcharan Singh Tohra and Sukhjinder Singh, each of whom was held for a year under the NSA in different jails outside Punjab. At the time of writing, Gurcharan Singh Tohra is still in Jodhpur jail, now accused of “waging war” under the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act. Several hundred members of various factions of the Akali Dal, including Mr. Badal and former Chief Minister Surjit Singh Barnala were detained under the NSA on and around 14 May 1988 when they participated in a peaceful demonstration against the security forces’ operations to remove armed Sikhs from the Golden Temple. 250 of them, including Mr. Barnala, were released in early June but Mr. Badal is still believed held on grounds of involvement in activities “prejudicial to the integrity of the country.”
