NEW YORK, NY: “There is no Indian determination of a probable cause, and the only one that has been made, is one by a Magistrate on a tainted confession,” said Judge Robert W. Sweet to a visibly uncomfortable Ping Moy, the Assistant US Attorney for Southern District of New York.

The judge was referring to the extradition case of Sukhvinder Singh and Ranjit Singh at an oral hearing for a heabus corpus petition filed by the respondents on January 26, at the US District Court of the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, here.

He was talking about the confession of Sukhvinder Singh which was found inadmissible in a Designated Court in India trying the assassination case of General Vaidya. The two respondents are wanted for that conspiracy and the “confession” had played a major role in the determination by Magistrate Hedges in New Jersey that a probable cause existed linking the respondents to the crime.

In her brief, Mary B. Pike, an attorney for the respondents said that the pathetic misconduct of the former US Attorney Judy Russell, the issue of integrity of the evidence for the probable cause, and the findings of the Bains Committee report in India which inquired into 21,000 cases of political detainees and decided that most had been held on framed evidence were, amongst other things, like Senior Superintendent’ of Police Azhar Alam’s statement in the Tribune that they killed only the terrorists who had committed five or more murders, but arrested those who had» committed less than five murders, were conditions which were anticipated to the court.

Because of this, the court should exclude the rule of non-inquiry which normally governs the conduct of an extradition case, Ms. Pike said, and told the court that it ‘was to a day, a year ago that Sukhvinder Singh and Ranjit Singh Gill’s friend, mentor, and teacher Professor Rajinder Pal Singh Gill was killed in circumstances so suspicious that the Amnesty International has asked for an inquiry, but asked for “No human rights organization has been allowed to investigate since 1978,

She referred to the Amnesty International’s amicus curiae” brief filed by the US branch of the international human rights organization, and said it “adds texture to our arguments.”

The 28 page brief, which is in tum supported by an appendix consisting of 15 separate documents, says “based on its information, Amnesty International respectfully summits, that Sikhs, particularly those suspected of advocating the transformation of the present state of Punjab to a separate and independent state of Khalistan, face a definite risk of being tortured of becoming victims in extrajudicial killings in staged encounters. In addition persons charged with politically motivated offenses carrying the death penalty, risk convictions and executions based on insufficient evidence. It is Al’s understanding that petitioner Mr. Gill and Mr. Sandhu are Sikhs and members of the All India Sikh Students Federation, a group which advocates an independent Sikh state and as such would if extradited to India, risk being sentenced to death following an unfair trial, killed in a false encounter staged by the police, or tortured.”

In such extraordinary circumstances 30 years ago a Judge of the 2nd Circuit had acted to overrule the doctrine of inadmissibility, she said, citing the Gallina vs Frazer case. She also referred to the case of Sadona who died’ of cyanide poisoning in a prison cell after he was extradited despite defense’s contention that his life would be in danger if he were to be extradited to Italy.

“Extradition is just not an executive matter, it is a judicial matter as well…What the government asks you to do is to put the court’s imprimatur on unconscionable conduct,” she said.

Presenting his argument to the court Ronald Kuby another counsel for the respondents said that he had been handed over a judgment of a Designated Court in India which had ruled that the confession statement of Sukhdev Singh was inadmissible because it was not voluntary. It was this confession statement which had been used by the Indian government against Sukhvinder Singh and had figured in Magistrate Hedge’s decision. This when the Designated Court in India had ruled it as inadmissible. Talking to the WSN afterwards he said, “For years we have been arguing over the confession of Sukhdey Singh, and for 18 months Indian government has known that the confession was found to have involuntary and untrue, and they never told this federal court.”

Questioned by the Judge, Kuby said that the evidence against Ranjit Singh Gill was also based on the confession and the identification of the respondents by the witnesses. “We believe that a single photograph was shown to the witness to identify, but we have not been able to prove it since we have not been allowed to question the witnesses,” he said.

He said that the respondents have been charged in crimes under the Indian Penal Court and the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act. The Indian government is bound to try them in all these cases, whereas the extradition treaty does not allow the extradites to be tried for any crimes other than those which they have been extradited for. “There is no guarantee, despite the affidavit that they will not be charged in other cases” he said.

The famous civil rights lawyer William Kunstler, who was representing the respondents, said that Judy Russell’s misconduct ‘was so serious that it precluded the government from the extradition. It is not important whether she was responsible or not, what is important is that the acts occurred.

Judy Russell was the Special Assistant United States Attorney who represented the Government of India in the extradition case was discovered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to have been sending threatening letters made to appear to be from sympathizers of the Sikhs, to the magistrate presiding over the case as well as her. The first letter was sent on January 14, 1988 and such letters continued until March 3, 1988.

The letters caused authorities to take stringent security measures which included shackling of the two respondents, Sukhvinder Singh and Ranjit Singh Gill, throughout the course of the proceedings posting guards on rooftops and providing around the clock security to Ms. Russell.

Judge Sweet asked him if there was any direct indication that the purported threats were by the Sikhs to which Kunstler replied, it was inferred that they were.

“Mr. Kunstler, if anyone in United States can answer this, you can. Do you know of any case in which the judgment was set aside for such misconduct?” The attorney said that his misconduct was unique but in the case of Chicago two jurors received threats purported to be from the Black Panthers and one of them didn’t attend the trial. The government had moved for the retrial of the Sukhvinder and Ranjit case, but the Magistrate refused retrial, he added.

The government attorney Ping Moy, in his argument said that the case had “more to do with our relations with India, rather than habeus corpus. India, he said had requested for the return of a fugitive. When the judge asked him if there was not, at the least, enough evidence to hold a hearing, he replied in negative.

Judge Sweet asked, “Do you want me to use a fainted confession?” I can’t imagine what the purpose of this exercise is under those circumstances. After Moy replied in the negative to these queries, the Judge said that he was beginning to understand what the second court (which held the hearing) was about.

Talking about Magistrate Hedges decision, he asked “did he consider the evidence and reject it or did he say it was improper to consider it?” To this Mary replied that it was the latter.

In her summation, Mary Pike said that the government’s position was that the courts role was merely to count the pages, tie the red ribbon so that the extradition request is properly affixed and having made that decision, that is the end of the court’s role.

The role of the state department in applying its discretion about extraditing individuals was also clarified when she told the Judge, “In the last 30 years we are not aware of any cases in which the secretary of state has not extradited people (who were certified by the court), if we go back another 25 years, we find a few cases, two of which were US citizens and extraditing them would have violated the constitution.

A large number of Sikhs, from the United States, Canada and United Kingdom, including Gurcharan Singh Dhillon, President of the World Sikh Organization, Didar Singh Bains, founder President of the body, Gurnam Singh Pamma, Vice President WSO, Gurmej Singh from Yuba City, Harbhajan Singh Gill VP WSO, Dr. Gurinder Singh Grewal President World Sikh News, Ajit Singh Khera and Iqbal Singh from London, Gurdeep Singh Sohal and Jit Singh Baniwal of the Babbar Khalsa California, Mehar Singh from Des Moines Iowa, Amarjit Singh Grewal and Kammikar Singh, President Sri Guru Singh Sabha in Glen Rock, NJ, Jagjit Singh Mangat President and Devinder Singh Saini, Treasurer of the Sikh Cultural Society, New York, Gurdey Singh Gilland Randhir Singh of the Punjab Human Rights Organization Canada, Mohinder Singh Deol, Baljit Singh Bagri and Baba Baljit Singh from Toronto, and Ranjit Singh Mann from Montreal.

After the hearing in the evening prominent community representatives met Sukhvinder Singh and Ranjit Singh Gill at the Immigration detention facility in New York for over two hours and reiterated the communities’ commitment to render all possible legal help to them. They were Didar Singh Bains, Gurcharan Singh Dhilon, Dr. Gurinder Singh Grewal, Gurdey Singh Gill, Baljit Singh Bajwa and Mohinder Singh Deol.

Commenting on the case, most of them spoke of how the attorneys for the respondents had skillfully presented the case to the Judge and on the difference in the way Magistrate Hedges and Judge Sweet conducted the case. “At lease he heard our side” one said. The government attorney was pathetic,” said another comparing him with the respondent’s attorneys, but Dr. Grewal commented; “the attorney was good but how long could he sustain the falsehood and fabrication,”

Article extracted from this publication >>