The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you to express our deep concern over the continuing detention of Mr. Yengkokpam Langamba Meitei alias Thabi, the Publicity Secretary of the Threatened Indigenous People’s Society (TIPS), Manipur and Mr. Leitangthem Umakanta Meitei, the Secretary General of the TIPS. Mr. Umakanta is a member of the All Manipur Bar Association and also a human rights activist. He is the spokesperson for Apunba Lup, a collation of 34 human rights organisations working in Manipur.
Prior to the arrest the house of Umakanta and Langamba was surrounded by the officers from the Assam Rifles stationed in Manipur and the arrest was made by police officers from Imphal West police station. Umakanta was arrested around 4am on 24 August 2006 from his home at Porompat Thawanthaba Leikai, Imphal East District, Manipur while Langamba was arrested the previous day. Both these arrests were carried out in breach of all procedures and mandates of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the directives issued by the Supreme Court of India regarding arrest, detention and questioning of persons by law enforcement agencies.
It is alleged that the Assam Rifles wanted to place some incriminating evidence to justify the arrest. For this, it is alleged that the Assam Rifles pressured the state police, to place on record some compact disks as recovered from their custody, connecting the two with secessionist forces operating in Manipur. Both Umakanta and Langamba have denied that no such articles were recovered from their house. This is further reiterated by the fact that a proper arrest or seizure memo was not prepared at the time of arrest. It is alleged that both Umakanta and Langamba were tortured while in custody. The AHRC has issued an urgent appeals on 25 August 2006 through its urgent appeals programme regarding this case as UA-278-2006.
Later the police registered a First Information Report number 140 (8) 2006 of Porompat Imphal Police Station for charges under Sections 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [as amended in 2004] claiming that Umakanta and Langamba had connections with Kanglei Yawol Kanba Lup (KYKL), a secessionist group operating in Manipur. The two were produced before the court on 24 August and were remanded to judicial custody till 29 August 2006.
Umakanta and Langamba when produced before the Magistrate had complained to the Magistrate that they were brutally tortured while in custody. They explained to the Magistrate how they were tortured and the injuries they sustained from torture. The Magistrate has recoded these submissions made in the court. However, the Magistrate refrained from taking any action in this regard but for asking the Investigating Officer to prepare a report on the allegation. Umakanta was later produced before an ENT specialist instead of a General Practitioner to be examined for the injuries he sustained while in custody.
Umakanta and Langamba were again produced before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal on 29 August 2006. The Magistrate ordered the release of Umakanta observing that the police could not substantiate the charges levelled against him. However, the Magistrate also ordered Umakanta to furnish security for his release against which Umakanta made his protest through his lawyer. This was on the ground that if the arrest itself is illegal and if there is no substantial case made out against him why should he be asked to furnish a security. He insisted on an unconditional release and the withdrawal of the charges levelled against him and his colleague.
Massive protests by hundreds of persons, especially women, were held in Manipur against the arrest and detention of Umakanta and Langamba. The protest that began from the day of arrest is continuing. The members from the All Manipur Bar Association condemned the atrocities committed against Umakanta and Langamba and also visited them in custody. However, they failed to take the matter any further.
It appears that this is the general attitude of anyone who is in a position to raise their voice against the atrocities committed by the armed forces and other law enforcement agencies in India, particularly in Manipur. It is because anyone who consistently protests against atrocities committed by the law enforcement agencies will be silenced using force in India. They also risk the possibility of being involved in non-bailable offences and arrested and tortured against which there is no law in India.
As you might be aware, there is no law in India which criminalise custodial torture. In addition, in places like Manipur draconian laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 is used to silence anyone who raises voice against the atrocities committed by the armed forces in Manipur. The enormous powers conferred to the rank and file of the armed forces by virtue of the above Act and owing to the absence of any specific law to prosecute the perpetrators, nobody dares to challenge the armed forces and other law enforcement agencies stationed in Manipur beyond a limit.
This case, while being yet another example showing the deterioration of rule of law in India also substantiate the requirement that India must ratify the United Nations Convention against Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The directives of the Supreme Court regarding the procedures to be followed during arrest, detention and questioning of a suspect seem to be continuously violated in India. The only effective implementation of the order of the Supreme Court appears to be posting the courts guidelines as a public notice in the police stations across the country.
The AHRC has been raising our concern to the relevant authorities in India for the past few years that India must ratify the convention and come-up with appropriate domestic law to prevent custodial violence. However, it appears that the government of India has not initiated any action in that regard, but rather defended all such demands on the ground that the current domestic law and the judiciary in India is good enough to prevent custodial torture in India.
Regarding Manipur in particular, the government of India must also initiate an open ended discussion with the people in Manipur to bring an end to the ongoing violence in Manipur. The possible first step towards this end would be to repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958.
As it has turned out in the court, the charges levelled against Umakanta are fabricated. The Magistrate was not convinced why he was arrested and charged with offences that could not be substantiated in the court. The case of Langamba will also soon reveal itself as a fabricated case. The AHRC is aware that the actual reason for the arrest is to enforce silence upon those who work on human rights issues in Manipur. It appears that the local police also have been forced into conceding to the pressure from the paramilitary. As of today Langamba and Umakanta are held at the Sajiwa Central Jail in Manipur.
Umakanta is a lawyer who has his freedom and obligation to represent clients and their cause in a court of law in India. This is his fundamental right. The challenge to this right, in Umakantas case in particular, assumes more gravity given the fact that he was actively involved in challenging human rights violations committed by the armed forces and other law enforcement agencies in Manipur. Umakanta is the spokes person for a consortium of human rights organisations working to protect and promote human rights in Manipur. It is apparent that the intention behind the arrest of these two persons was an attempt to silence the entire human rights movement in Manipur.
In this context the AHRC would like to raise the following issues to the Bar Council of India expecting that the Council will take immediate measures to address these concerns.
1) As a lawyer and a human rights defender, Mr. Umakanta Leitanthem was targeted by the Armed Forces, arrested by the police and fabricated in a false case. There is evidence already placed in court that he was tortured while in custody and that the reason for arrest and torture were fabricated by the Assam Rifles. As a governing body responsible to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates in India under Section 7 (1) b of the Advocates Act, 1961 what action will the Bar Council of India take in this case?
2) An advocate practicing in India has been illegally arrested along with his colleague where the arresting officers have violated all legal mandates including the directives of the Supreme Court of India regarding arrest, detention and questioning. The Supreme Courts directives are now considered to be incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Code of India. The AHRC is sure that this is not an isolated case. Is the Bar Council of India planing to take any action within a reasonable time to prevent such breach of law repeatedly happening in India?
3) This case and thousands of other cases are examples of violation of fundamental rights in India. All these apparently stem out from the absence of a specific law in India against custodial torture. By virtue of the powers conferred upon the Council by Section 7 (1) b of the Advocates Act, 1961 will the Council take any steps to pressure the government of India to ratify the United Nations Convention against Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment?
4) Will the Bar Council of India take any steps to bring these issues before the government of India and the Supreme Court of India for appropriate consideration and further action?
5) Will the Council conduct an impartial inquiry into the incident and publish its findings within a reasonable time?
6) If the council conduct such an inquiry and if the enquiry reveals that the charges against Umakanta and Langamba are false and fabricated will the Council: (1) take up Umakantas and his colleagues case to see to it that the fabricated case is quashed and the officers responsible for torturing Umakanta and Langaba are punished? and (2) further pressure the government of India to repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958?
Yours sincerely,
Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong
Cc:
1) Justice Mr. Y. K. Sabharwal, Chief Justice of India
2) Mr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India
3) Mr. Justice A. S. Anand, Chairperson – National Human Rights Commission of India
4) Mr. Leandro Despouy, UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
5) Prof. Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture
