Appeal to the PM Regrding Binayak Sen, Final

8/7/2019 Appeal to the PM Regrding Binayak Sen, Final

1/4

Page 1 of4

To

Dr. Manmohan SinghPrime Minister of India

South Block, Raisina Hill

New Delhi-110001

Subject: Appeal to release Dr. Binayak Sen, protect HRDs and repeal laws that violates

human rights norms

Respected Sir,

Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC) is shocked and deeply concerned at theincarceration of Dr. Binayak Sen, an internationally recognized physician, health worker and

human rights defender. He has been convicted by an Additional District and Sessions Judge of

Raipur, Chattishgarh on 24 December 2010 along with Kolkata based businessman Piyush

Guha and maoist ideologue Narayan Sanyal. The judge has sentenced them to rigorous

imprisonment for life under sections 124A read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 and sections 8(1), 8(2), 8(3) and 8(5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha

Adhiniyam (Chhattisgarh Special Public Safety Act), 2005 and section 39(2) of the Unlawful

Activities Prevention Act, 1967. Narayan Sanyal has been additionally sentenced under section

20 of the UAPA Act, 1967. The sentence came after two and a half year long trial. Dr. Sen has

been in prison for over two years during trial and more than one month after the sentence.

Dr. Sen, giving up great career opportunities, dedicated his life in providing health care to thepoorest people in the remote villages in Chattishgarh without access to public medical care,where he founded a hospital and trained women to provide basic health care. He also served as

an adviser to the state government's public-health committee until May 2007, when he was

arrested. As human rights defender holding the positions of national vice president and

president of Chattishgarh Unit of the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), a leading civil

liberties organization in India, Dr. Sen documented numerous cases of gross human rights

violations by the security forces and Salwa Judum, a private militia held to be sponsored by the

Chattishgarh government, in the name of fight against Maoists, an armed opposition group

which also does not respect the rights of people. Dr. Sen often raised his voice against the

massacres of people by both the sides and appealed for dialogue and peace. Dr. Sen has been

active in exposing the capricious politics of assassination by both the sate and the non-stateactors. In a 2005 memo, Sen outlined evidence of torture and abuse by the group and issued an

appeal to all democratic forces, all human rights organizations, to join hands in investigating

the reality of the Salwa Judum.

BHRPC believes that Dr. Sen as been targeted maliciously for his peaceful and legitimate

human rights works and criticism of the government policy that violates international human

rights norms. His prosecution is malafide; in fact it is a persecution. He has been made an


2/4

Page 2 of4

example of by the state as a warning to other human rights defenders not to expose human

rights violations. The belief of BHRPC is because his trial was not fair.

The prosecution could not produce admissible evidence to establish that Dr Sen has been

involved in sedition and conspiracy for sedition as defined in the IPC. Or he has had

membership of, association with, and has acted in furthering the interests, financially or

otherwise, of organizations notified and banned under the CSPS Act as unlawful. Or he has had

membership of a terrorist gang or association, has held proceeds of terrorism, or has supported

a terrorist organization as required to attract provisions of the UAPA. Documents have been

fabricated by the police and false witnesses introduced. The judgment suggests that the judgehas ignored evidence provided by the defence and has relied on hearsay evidence of the

prosecution. Guilt of Dr. Sen has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as required by

criminal jurisprudence.

It is apparent that the judge has been influenced unduly and as a result he has ignored the well

established rules of evidence that a statement made before a police officer is not admissible and

rules of specificity that the charges framed against an accused should establish the manner,

mode and particulars of an offence as laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and

the Evidence Act, 1872. He has also ignored substantive laws pronounced by the Supreme

Court of India that a charge of sedition could be upheld if only it was proved that the accused

acted to incite violence or public disorder in Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State Of Bihar (1962 AIR

955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769). The SC interpreted section 124A limiting its import only to

incitement of violence and public disorder in order to save it from the blows of right to freedom

of speech provided by Article 19 of the constitution.

BHRPC understands and hopes that these legal questions will be addressed in the High Court

and Supreme Court expeditiously. But there is no judicial avenues to undo the damage done

particularly to the mental and physical health of Dr. Sen who is a 61 year old heart patient, his

family and friends by putting him in this legal wrangle. Facing trial in India is itself a

punishment and deterrent. Human rights works in India and countrys image in the world have

been affected adversely by this trial. This unfair trial has also put the Indian judiciary and

democracy on trial before the international community. Further damage must be stopped and it

can be done by releasing Dr. Sen and providing him with adequate reparation and by bringing

to book those who conspired to falsely implicate Dr. Sen, fabricated evidence, committed

perjury and unduly influenced the judge.

Human rights defenders like Dr. Sen provide services that should be provided by the

government. They play a great role in upholding and fulfilling the constitutional mandates and

establishment of the rule of law by documenting incidents of unlawful actions and atrocities of

state agencies, offering legal advice and intervention and constructive criticisms of the wrong

policies. They provide legitimate outlet for the grievances of the people. They are not theenemies but the friends of the state and people.


3/4

Page 3 of4

This has been recognised by the United Nations as well as by the government of India. The UN

adopted a Declaration on Human Rights Defenders in 1998 that provides for the support andprotection of human rights defenders in the context of their work. The Indian parliament passed

the Protection of Human Rights Act in 1993 that recognises the role of HRDs and mandates the

National Human Rights Commission to support non-governmental organisations in their human

rights work. But in reality people like Dr. Binayak Sen are persecuted and prosecuted under the

same laws that were used by the British colonial rulers against people like Mahatma Gandhi

and Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

BHRPC believes that using repressive laws of colonial era against HRDs and innocent people

and enacting new such laws empowering the law enforcement agencies to trample uponuniversally recognised human rights of the citizens is not the solution to the problem of unrestand insurgency. The rule of law, fundamental constitutional rights and universally recognised

human rights must be upheld. To establish the rule of law the enforcement agencies and courts

must not violate legal boundaries and the norms of natural justice. Laws passed by the

parliament and state assemblies to be just and good at law must fulfil requirements of

constitutionality, conformity with international human rights standards as enshrined in the

treatises to whish India is a state party and rules of natural justice. There are legitimate inbuilt

derogation provided in the constitution and international human rights treatises to deal with

extra-ordinary situations. Many Indian laws meant to deal with insurgency and terrorism fall

well short of the constitutional and human rights standards even keeping in consideration the

derogation provided therein. Some of them have been struck down by the SC (for example,some provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985), some of

them have been modified and their imports narrowed down (for example, section 124A of the

IPC) and in cases of some others the SC provided additional guidelines to save them from

unconstitutionality (for example, the National Security Act, 1980, the Armed Forces (Special

Power) Act, 1958 some special laws enacted by state legislatures including the Assam

Disturbed Areas Act, 1955 etc.). The UN Human Rights Committee and other organs continue

to recommend the Indian state to repeal or amend such laws in order to make them compatible

with the international human rights standards. However, these laws are maliciously being used

against HRDs increasingly in many states in India.

BHRPC, therefore, urges you to intervene to ensure the following:

1. Dr. Binayak Sen must be released immediately and his appeal must be disposed of assoon as possible.

2. An independent inquiry must be instituted to find out those who conspired to falselyimplicate Dr. Sen, fabricated evidence, committed perjury and unduly influenced the

judge.

3. Dr. Sen and his family must be provided with adequate reparation.


4/4

Page 4 of4

4. Human rights defenders must be provided full protection and special professionalprivileges.

5. Repressive laws such as section 124A of the IPC, the Chattishgarh Special Public SafetyAct, 2005, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Armed Forces (Special

Power)Act, 1958 etc. must be repealed or adequately amended and brought in

conformity with the international human rights standards.

Looking forward for your actions,

With best regards,

Copy to:

1. The Chief Minister of Chattishgarh, for information and actions concerning relevant matters;2. The Chief Minister of Assam, for information and actions concerning relevant matters;3. The Union Minister for Home Affairs, for information and actions concerning relevant matters;4. The Union Minister for Law and Justice, for information and actions concerning relevant matters;5. The Chief Justice of India, for information and actions concerning relevant matters;6. The Chief Justice of Chattiahgarh High Court, Bilaspur, for information and actions concerning

relevant matters;

7. The Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission, for information and actions concerningrelevant matters

Yours sincerely

Neharul Ahmed Mazumder

Secretary General

Yours sincerely

Neharul Ahmed Mazumder

Secretary General, BHRPC