INDIA: Two peaceful protestors on hunger strike chained to hospital beds 

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has been informed regarding the chaining of two peaceful protesters to hospital beds in Puri, Orissa, India. Siba Shankar Sahu and Debadutta Pradhan, who were on hunger strike, were taken into custody by police and taken to Puri Hospital on 6 February 2006. The Police have admitted to forcibly detaining the men to stop them from escaping custody. Please see the following link for photographs of the incident: http://www.ahrchk.netimages/ua-066-2006.jpg

On 6 February 2006, Siba Shankar Sahu and Debadutta Pradhan, both members of a farmers’ group called Suanda Sethu Sangathan, were taken from their site of protest by the Orissa police and placed in custody. Mr. Sahu and Mr. Pradhan had begun a hunger strike to demand a water canal for their agricultural land. The two men were then taken to Puri Hospital where they were force-fed and shackled to the bed for over 24 hours.

This action is clearly contrary to Indian domestic legislation, such as the Code of Criminal Procedure (1973), and various High and Supreme Court judgements, such as the D.K.Basu case, which prescribes certain guidelines under which arrests must occur. The Supreme Court also ruled, in D.K. Basu, that people who are placed into custody by the police retain their fundamental rights under the Constitution and should not be subject to violations such as custodial torture or ill-treatment.

Gobinda Mahapatra, president of the Suanda Sethu Sangathan alleges that the Puri district administration were more concerned with using means to suppress the protest than protecting the victims. Thus, he alleges that the administration failed to fulfill their obligations to the victims under Indian law in light of their desire to end the protest.. The Suanda Sethu Sangathan has been conducting a campaign that irrigation facilities are made available to the farmers in the area.

In clear contravention of domestic law, Puri Superintendent of Police, Sanjeeb Panda, has openly stated that the protestors had been detained and chained to their hospital bed. However, he insisted that the police did so to provide medical treatment to the protesters when doctors had certified that their condition was worsening and chained them to stop them from escaping. Superintendent Panda has also assured that a case would be registered against Mr. Sahu and Mr. Pradhan in due time.

The AHRC calls to your attention the fact that, had the police been concerned whether the detainees would escape from the hospital while undergoing treatment, the police should have posted officers on duty at the hospital rather than chaining the detainees to their hospital bed, which amounts to inhuman treatment and is thus a clear violation of law. The very fact that the district chief of police publicly admitted and justified chaining detainees to their hospital beds while they underwent treatment, while making no admission that retraining people with chains constituted inhuman treatment, shows the extent to which atrocities committed by the police in India remain unchallenged and the level of impunity which police enjoy.

This is not an isolated case of the police brutality. On 2 January 2006, 12 protesters, who are mostly members of the indigenous communities of Chandia, were shot dead by the Orissa police in Kalinga Nagar (See further: UA-016-2006). India has signed but failed to ratify the Convention against Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (CAT) on the objection that Indian domestic law sufficiently protects the rights enshrined in the Convention. However, it is clear in the case that Indian domestic laws are not being sufficiently complied with to warrant India’s objection to ratification of the CAT.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the concerned local authorities liseted below calling for the immediate investigation into the incidence of illegal detention and inhuman treatment committed against Mr. Pradhan and Mr. Sahu. Please ask that those police officers involved be subject to disciplinary punishment and prosecution and that the victims receive compensation for their suffering.

 

 

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER