Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information concerning the illegal arrest, detention and custodial violence against three men in Murshidabad, West Bengal by police personnel of Salar Police Station. The victims are leaders of a local branch of the Indian National Congress party. While in the custody, the three victims were brutally beaten by the police and forced to conduct perverse, degrading and humiliating acts. It is believed that these acts were specifically intended to punish and persecute Mr Chand Mohammad, the primary victim in this incident, for his role in exposing to the Law Minister of the Government of West Bengal the illegal activities of the police at Salar Police Station.
The brazen contravention of the three victims’ constitutional, civil and human rights is morally offensive and punishable by law. The three victims were subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention, repeated torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, conditions and treatment they clearly possess rights against. The deliberate deprivation of the three victims’ rights to liberty, security of person, health and well-being, freedom of opinion and expression, access to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal reeks of a police culture and authority constructed not upon ideals of legitimacy and respect but on violent oppression, impunity and elicited fear. The responsibility for the future protection of such rights and for the provision of effective remedy to hurts received lies with the state. As such, we urge you to appeal to the relevant authorities requesting their intervention in this matter. In so doing we hope not only to assist these victims but countless others who, believing in the merit of democracy and human rights, may courageously follow in these victims’ footsteps. In so doing, we demand that the government strengthen rule of law throughout the land, restore the people’s faith and trust in the regime and bring about a lasting peace.
CASE NARRATIVE:
An investigation conducted by MASUM yielded the following details:
Around 5pm on 18 April 2012 seven or eight policemen from Salar Police Station, three of which were identified as Mr Subrata Majumdar, Mr Sainik Tarafdar and Mr Pradip Roy forced their way into the house of Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, a well-known leader of the local Congress Party. The police searched for Chand Mohammad Seikh but, unable to find him, became enraged and began verbally abusing the female members of the house. There had been no female police personnel present during this encounter.
The policemen from Salar Police Station threatened the family members of the victims “dire consequences” if the victim failed to present himself at the police station immediately, but did not disclose reasons for the attempted arrest and detention. It was revealed that the police had also come searching for two other men, Mr Sukur Seikh and Mr Fijoj Seikh.
That same day the victims took shelter in the house of Mr Imam Sheik in Samastipur village, having been harassed by the police. Mr Imam Seikh is the father-in-law of the second victim, Mr Sukur Seikh. The policemen from Salar Police Station got wind of the whereabouts of the three victims and at approximately 45 minutes past midnight on 19 April, a large group of police from Salar Police Station, led by Mr Sainik Tarafdar, Sub-Inspector of Salar Police Station, forcibly entered Mr Imam Seikh’s house and began ransacking the place. They arrested the victims and violently assaulted them with wooden sticks and rifle butts. The victims were tied with rope, forced into a police vehicle and driven away although no memo of arrest had been issued or reason given for the arrest.
Halfway to Salar Police Station, the police vehicle stopped. The victims were taken out of the vehicle and brutally beaten again. At Salar Police Station, the men were stripped naked and beaten yet again. The men were also forced by the police personnel to carry out degrading acts such as sucking on each other’s genitalia.
News of custodial torture quickly reached the community in the three victims’ village. The villagers soon began to protest the barbarity of the acts committed against the three victims still in detention. Subsequently, reports were made that the Superintendent of Police of Murshidabad visited Salar Police Station and ordered the three victims transferred to Kandi Police Station, where the victims were produced at the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kandi on the same day (19 April). The three victims were implicated in an old “pending” criminal case (vide Salar Police Station Case No. 36/2012 dated 20 March 2012 under Sections 325/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code).
The victims’ advocate made a written complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kandi against the police personnel of Salar Police Station who had perpetrated such atrocities against the three victims. In court, it was apparent that the victims had been physically abused – Mr Chand Mohammad’s wife, Ms Seherunnesa Bibi, saw that her husband could not even stand on his own and fell down when produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. She also saw that the other two victims were unable to walk properly. She had asked Mr Sainik Tarafdar, who is Sub-Inspector of Salar Police Station and was present at the time, about the reason behind the victims’ poor physical condition. The Sub-Inspector was infuriated by her question and openly threatened to assault her as he had her husband. He kicked Ms Seherunnesa Bibi and slapped her face so hard she almost lost consciousness. She was immediately admitted to Kandi Sub-Divisional Hospital. The Magistrate also gave instructions for the three victims to be provided proper medical treatment, so the three victims were brought to Kandi Sub-Divisional Hospital for treatment on the same day (19 April).
Ms Seherunnesa Bibi was discharged on 21 April. The doctor who attended to the three victims referred Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh to Berhampore New General Hospital after examining the victim, having determined the seriousness of his condition. Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh was admitted to Berhampore New General Hospital on 19 April and was discharged only on 4 May. The discharge certificate issued by Berhampore New General Hospital stated that Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh was “suffering from physical assault by police”. The other two victims, Mr Sukur Seikh and Mr Fijoj Seikh were discharged from Kandi Sub-Divisional Hospital on 28 April. The three victims were released on bail on 18 May on the condition that they were to present themselves at Salar Police Station every day.
The victims’ family members believe that the three victims were falsely implicated in the aforementioned criminal case by the personnel from Salar Police Station. Ms Seherunnesa Bibi, wife of Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, submitted a report on 20 April before the Inspector-in-Charge of Kandi Police Station against the policemen from Salar Police Station for torturing and humiliating the victims while the victims were in their custody. On 7 May, Ms Hamida Bibi, sister of Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, submitted a separate complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Salar Police Station through registered post narrating the ill-treatment the victims endured at the hands of the police employed at that station and pleading for proper legal action to be taken against those perpetrators. To this day, the police and higher levels of administration have failed to act upon such findings and complaints condemning the criminal behaviour of rogue police.
Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh had been a signatory to a written indictment sent to the Law Minister of the Government of West Bengal against the illegal activities of the policemen at Salar Police Station. As such, his family members are particularly sensitive to the political implications of the acts of violence against Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh. It is probable that the unlawful arrest and detention, torture and humiliation of Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh and the other two victims constitute a most malicious form of recrimination intended to discourage or punish them for moving to challenge the legitimacy and moral integrity of the police personnel at Salar Police Station. It is also likely that the criminal charges and evidence brought against the three men were fabricated. The Law Minister has not moved to ensure the safety of Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh and other signatories to the official complaint against police personnel attached to Salar Police Station.
Such impunity, violence and lack of transparency in prosecution procedures collectively suppress individuals’ freedom of expression, movement, association and deny their inherent right to liberty and security of person. The acts of the police personnel, entrusted with law and order, expected to be themselves moral exemplars of the society they regulate and given military and legal power to police the communities they live in, is nothing short of abominable. Yet the passivity of the central government to the suffering and persecution of these individuals is equally criminal, given the state’s undertaking to protect the fundamental and constitutional rights of the individual.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s actions are commendable insofar as the victims were able to quickly receive medical attention for injuries sustained, the Magistrate failed to take pre-emptive and preventative action to protect them from future custodial violence. The Magistrate did not order for a formal inquiry into the shady circumstances concerning this case, wherein the police have obviously opted for threats and intimidation to cover up their illegal activities and punish Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh for attempting to expose them. The other two victims were either also signatories to the same document incriminating the police of Salar Police Station and therefore also persecuted, or were, more likely, collateral damage in the enraged policemen’s vendetta against Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has documented over the years numerous cases; this corpus suggests that such indiscriminating violence is commonplace in India.
It is mockery of the intellect for a national system to flaunt its democratic credentials yet lack space for peaceful protest and dissenting voices. Civil society has chosen to peacefully make its opinions known through avenues currently available to them: official media and governmental agencies, for instance. If such channels are closed off by the authorities, the risk of civil unrest will increase exponentially. This is an undesirable outcome for all involved.
The chicanery of a justice system unable to serve justice and protect the legal-constitutional rights of the individual is also laughable. The imperative for reform – institutional reformation to restore constitutional and legal safeguards for individuals – has never been stronger. The Central Government must take up responsibility for constitutional guarantees and its international commitment to protect human rights; it is only be doing so can they legitimise their regime amongst the Indian people. Extra effort must be made to communicate and enforce chain of command and the most crucial guiding principles of rule of law. The local police force will also have to work hard to earn back the trust of the individuals living in areas under their jurisdiction through a combination of adhering to guidelines already provided by the Central Government, cultivating respect for the inherent dignity, rights and liberties of the individual, eradicating the culture of violence and impunity and has permeated paradigms and police procedures (through institutional reform) and situating through various programmes, activities and training the service of justice as primary motivation, purpose and end goal for the police force. India may yet, with the hope and faith demonstrated by her people, become a truly first world democracy.
Without urgent state intervention, it is unlikely that Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, Mr Sukur Seikh and Mr Fijoj Seikh will ever be able to free themselves from the fabricated charges and the pernicious shadow of fear and shame that their treatment at the hands of the police of Salar Police Station will cast upon them for the rest of their lives. Without state intervention, it is likely that many more individuals demonstrating the same moral courage and conviction will tread the same psychologically, emotionally and physically devastating path these three victims have trod. Please act today to serve justice. Please act today to preserve humanity.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Rights are not merely privileges; they are entitlements. These are entitlements the Indian state has a moral and legal duty to protect. These are entitlements which the state has a duty to prevent individuals from being deprived of. Yet Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, Mr Sukur Seikh and Mr Fijoj Seikh have been shamefully robbed of these rights by actors sponsored and endorsed by the state.
India’s own laws and Constitution provide for the protection of an individual’s rights. Article 19 and 20 of the Indian Constitution guarantee every individual’s right to freedom of speech, association, movement, life and personal liberty. The individual is also guaranteed protection against arbitrary arrest and detention by Article 22 of the Constitution, which states that proper procedure for arrest requires police to inform the suspect of the grounds of his arrest, permit the suspect to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice and produce the suspect before a magistrate within twenty-four hours of the arrest. In the landmark case of D. K. Basu vs. the State of West Bengal in 1997, several precedents were set in common law for the subsequent handling of suspects. These included the need for police to produce a memo with the time and date clearly stated authorising the arrest. The memo has to be countersigned by the person being arrested. The person has a right to be informed at the time of the arrest of the offence for which s/he is being arrested. The person also has a right not to be ill-treated or tortured during arrest or while in custody. Unfortunately, such constitutional guarantees are rendered completely empty and ineffectual in the face of pervasive police violence.
The 1860 Indian Penal Code (IPC) explicitly delineates criminal acts. What is made painfully clear in this unfortunate case is not that the three victims were themselves criminals, but that crime was committed against them by the very officers tasked with upholding the law. False charge with intent to injure is a crime according to Section 211. Section 220 states that commitment for trial or confinement by a person in a position of authority who knows he is acting contrary to the law is a crime. Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt, wrongful restraint or confinement all constitutes crime (Sections 321, 322, 339 and 340 of the IPC). Assaulting or using criminal force against anyone otherwise than on grave provocation is also a crime, one that the police personnel who so viciously attacked Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, the two other victims and Ms Seherunnesa Bibi (Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh’s wife) would have been aware they were committing (Section 352). Finally, the Sub-Inspector of Salar Police Station is also guilty of criminal intimidation, again an offence under Section 503 of the IPC.
The Criminal Procedures Code, 1973, reiterates the above principles that underlie the definition and enforcement of Indian law. Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, Mr Sukur Seikh and Mr Fijoj Seikh did not fulfil any conditions for arrest without warrant. Section 15 states that persons arrested have a right to be informed of the grounds of the arrest and of his right to bail, both of which were denied to the three victims. The police are also required to report the apprehension to the District Magistrate at the earliest possible notice, but the police did not discharge that duty. It took an advocate to make a report to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate before the men were brought before a court. By that time, the men were in undeniable poor physical condition and the Magistrate ordered for their immediate medical treatment. Such acts are remedial, not preventative, and cannot hope to prevent further abuses in the future. What was perhaps most disturbing was the release of the victims on bail and the requirement for them to report back to Salar Police Station daily, to the very perpetrators who had so desperately injured and humiliated them previously. This exposes the three men to further physical and psychological abuse without even addressing the primary reports of abuse at this same police station.
International law also places a legal obligation on the Indian Central Government to ensure certain rights are protected. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by India in 1979, are important legal documents that require India to protect the life, liberty and security of person of every individual in their territory (Article 3 UDHR). Individuals should also be guarded against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 5 UDHR, Article 7 ICCPR). No one should be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law because human beings have inherent rights to liberty and security of person (Article 9 ICCPR, Article 9 UDHR). Article 10 of the ICCPR even specifies that if any person is deprived of his/her liberty, they should be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person; this agrees with Article 1 of the UDHR, which asserts that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Every individual has a right to freedom of opinion and expression, to seek, receive and impart information and ideas (Article 19 ICCPR, Article 19 UDHR). Although India ratified Convention on the Eradication of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1993, violence against women, particularly in the process of arresting their family members, is also common – Ms. Seherunnesa Bibi was kicked and slapped by none other than the Sub-Inspector of Police, a man given an important title and tasked with punishing precisely such acts of criminal violence.
The fact that Mr Chand Mohammad’s attempts to bring the criminal activities of the police to light have been met with such violent impunity suggests a critical flaw in a political and judicial system unable to receive, acknowledge, process, investigate and punish such threats to its own existence. Persistently corrupt law enforcement agencies and state agents gnaw at the very foundations upon which Indian society is constructed by encouraging an environment of fear and oppression. Such violence and impunity embitter an already oppressed and disillusioned community, endangering the legitimacy of the current provincial government. More insidiously, India’s Central Government is also challenged by the general disobedience and lack of discipline among provincial actors the central authorities only theoretically supervise and direct. By refusing to act, according to duty and conscience, to protect its people against rogue actors within the flawed justice institutions it funds and props up, the state has become complicit in the violence against its own people. This is a shameful reality that exposes the sham justice and sham democracy of India today.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the authorities mentioned below demanding a thorough investigation into this case. If the police at Salar Police Station are found guilty, punitive action should be taken against them. The suffering endured by the three victims must also be addressed and properly compensated. A formal public apology from provincial authorities for not having prevented such an atrocity would serve to highlight the government’s resolve to uphold rule of law in India and reassure the international community of India’s commitment to international treaties and obligations.
The AHRC is also writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment calling for further intervention in this case.
To support this appeal, please click here:
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear __________,
INDIA: Please investigate the persecution, torture and degrading treatment of Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, Mr Sukur Seikh and Mr Fijoj Seikh in Sarmastipur Village under the jurisdiction of Salar Police Station in Murshidabad, West Bengal
Name of victims:
1. Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, son of late Bablu Seikh
2. Mr Sukur Seikh, son of late Chilu, Seikh
3. Mr Fijoj Seikh, son of Moksuh Seikh
All the victims were residents from Hamidhati Pilkhundi Village under the jurisdiction of Salar Police Station in Murshidabad, West Bengal.
Names of alleged perpetrators:
1. Mr Subrata Majumdar, Officer-in-Charge of Salar Police Station
2. Mr Sainik Tarafdar, Sub-Inspector of Salar Police Station
3. Mr Pradip Roy, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Salar Police Station
Date of incident: From 5pm on 18 April 2012
Place of incident: In the house of Mr Imam Seikh of Sarmastipur under the jurisdiction of Salar Police Station, Murshidabad, and in Salar Police Station
I am writing to express concern regarding the persecution, torture and degrading treatment by police of Salar Police Station of three residents of Hamidhati Pilkhuni Village under the jurisdiction of Salar Police Station in Murshidabad, West Bengal.
Around 5pm on 18 April 2012 seven or eight policemen from Salar Police Station, three of which were identified as Mr Subrata Majumdar, Mr Sainik Tarafdar and Mr Pradip Roy forced their way into the house of Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, a well-known leader of the local Congress Party. The police searched for Chand Mohammad Seikh but, unable to find him, became enraged and began verbally abusing the female members of the house. There had been no female police personnel present during this encounter.
The policemen from Salar Police Station threatened the family members of the victims "dire consequences" if the victim failed to present himself at the police station immediately, but did not disclose reasons for the attempted arrest and detention. It was revealed that the police had also come searching for two other men, Mr Sukur Seikh and Mr Fijoj Seikh.
That same day the victims took shelter in the house of Mr Imam Sheik in Samastipur village, having been harassed by the police. Mr Imam Seikh is the father-in-law of the second victim, Mr Sukur Seikh. The policemen from Salar Police Station got wind of the whereabouts of the three victims and at approximately 45 minutes past midnight on 19 April, a large group of police from Salar Police Station, led by Mr Sainik Tarafdar, Sub-Inspector of Salar Police Station, forcibly entered Mr Imam Seikh's house and began ransacking the place. They arrested the victims and violently assaulted them with wooden sticks and rifle butts. The victims were tied with rope, forced into a police vehicle and driven away although no memo of arrest had been issued or reason given for the arrest.
Halfway to Salar Police Station, the police vehicle stopped. The victims were taken out of the vehicle and brutally beaten again. At Salar Police Station, the men were stripped naked and beaten yet again. The men were also forced by the police personnel to carry out degrading acts such as sucking on each other's genitalia.
News of custodial torture quickly reached the community in the three victims' village. The villagers soon began to protest the barbarity of the acts committed against the three victims still in detention. Subsequently, reports were made that the Superintendent of Police of Murshidabad visited Salar Police Station and ordered the three victims transferred to Kandi Police Station, where the victims were produced at the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kandi on the same day (19 April). The three victims were implicated in an old "pending" criminal case (vide Salar Police Station Case No. 36/2012 dated 20 March 2012 under Sections 325/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code).
The victims' advocate made a written complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kandi against the police personnel of Salar Police Station who had perpetrated such atrocities against the three victims. In court, it was apparent that the victims had been physically abused – Mr Chand Mohammad's wife, Ms Seherunnesa Bibi, saw that her husband could not even stand on his own and fell down when produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. She also saw that the other two victims were unable to walk properly. She had asked Mr Sainik Tarafdar, who is Sub-Inspector of Salar Police Station and was present at the time, about the reason behind the victims' poor physical condition. The Sub-Inspector was infuriated by her question and openly threatened to assault her as he had her husband. He kicked Ms Seherunnesa Bibi and slapped her face so hard she almost lost consciousness. She was immediately admitted to Kandi Sub-Divisional Hospital. The Magistrate also gave instructions for the three victims to be provided proper medical treatment, so the three victims were brought to Kandi Sub-Divisional Hospital for treatment on the same day (19 April).
Ms Seherunnesa Bibi was discharged on 21 April. The doctor who attended to the three victims referred Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh to Berhampore New General Hospital after examining the victim, having determined the seriousness of his condition. Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh was admitted to Berhampore New General Hospital on 19 April and was discharged only on 4 May. The discharge certificate issued by Berhampore New General Hospital stated that Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh was "suffering from physical assault by police". The other two victims, Mr Sukur Seikh and Mr Fijoj Seikh were discharged from Kandi Sub-Divisional Hospital on 28 April. The three victims were released on bail on 18 May on the condition that they were to present themselves at Salar Police Station every day.
The victims' family members believe that the three victims were falsely implicated in the aforementioned criminal case by the personnel from Salar Police Station. Mr Seherunnesa Bibi, wife of Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, submitted a report on 20 April before the Inspector-in-Charge of Kandi Police Station against the policemen from Salar Police Station for torturing and humiliating the victims while the victims were in their custody. On 7 May, Ms Hamida Bibi, sister of Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, submitted a separate complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Salar Police Station through registered post narrating the ill-treatment the victims endured at the hands of the police employed at that station and pleading for proper legal action to be taken against those perpetrators. To this day, the police and higher levels of administration have failed to act upon such findings and complaints condemning the criminal behaviour of rogue police.
Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh had been a signatory to a written indictment sent to the Law Minister of the Government of West Bengal against the illegal activities of the policemen at Salar Police Station. As such, his family members are particularly sensitive to the political implications of the acts of violence against Mr Chand Mohammad Sheikh. It is probable that the unlawful arrest and detention, torture and humiliation of Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh and the other two victims constitute a most malicious form of recrimination intended to discourage or punish them for moving to challenge the legitimacy and moral integrity of the police personnel at Salar Police Station. It is also likely that the criminal charges and evidence brought against the three men were fabricated. The Law Minister has not moved to ensure the safety of Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh and other signatories to the official complaint against police personnel attached to Salar Police Station.
Such impunity, violence and lack of transparency in prosecution procedures collectively suppress individuals' freedom of expression, movement, association and deny their inherent right to liberty and security of person. The acts of the police personnel, entrusted with law and order, expected to be themselves moral exemplars of the society they regulate and given military and legal power to police the communities they live in, is nothing short of abominable. Yet the passivity of the central government to the suffering and persecution of these individuals is equally criminal, given the state's undertaking to protect the fundamental and constitutional rights of the individual.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's actions are commendable insofar as the victims were able to quickly receive medical attention for injuries sustained, the Magistrate failed to take pre-emptive and preventative action to protect them from future custodial violence. The Magistrate did not order for a formal inquiry into the shady circumstances concerning this case, wherein the police have obviously opted for threats and intimidation to cover up their illegal activities and punish Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh for attempting to expose them. The other two victims were either also signatories to the same document incriminating the police of Salar Police Station and therefore also persecuted, or were, more likely, collateral damage in the enraged policemen's vendetta against Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has documented over the years numerous cases; this corpus suggests that such indiscriminating violence is commonplace in India.
Rights are not merely privileges; they are entitlements. These are entitlements the Indian state has a moral and legal duty to protect. These are entitlements which the state has a duty to prevent individuals from being deprived of. Yet Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, Mr Sukur Seikh and Mr Fijoj Seikh have been shamefully robbed of these rights by actors sponsored and endorsed by the state.
India's own laws and Constitution provide for the protection of an individual's rights. Article 19 and 20 of the Indian Constitution guarantee every individual's right to freedom of speech, association, movement, life and personal liberty. The individual is also guaranteed protection against arbitrary arrest and detention by Article 22 of the Constitution, which states that proper procedure for arrest requires police to inform the suspect of the grounds of his arrest, permit the suspect to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice and produce the suspect before a magistrate within twenty-four hours of the arrest. In the landmark case of D. K. Basu vs. the State of West Bengal in 1997, several precedents were set in common law for the subsequent handling of suspects. These included the need for police to produce a memo with the time and date clearly stated authorising the arrest. The memo has to be countersigned by the person being arrested. The person has a right to be informed at the time of the arrest of the offence for which s/he is being arrested. The person also has a right not to be ill-treated or tortured during arrest or while in custody. Unfortunately, such constitutional guarantees are rendered completely empty and ineffectual in the face of pervasive police violence.
The 1860 Indian Penal Code (IPC) explicitly delineates criminal acts. What is made painfully clear in this unfortunate case is not that the three victims were themselves criminals, but that crime was committed against them by the very officers tasked with upholding the law. False charge with intent to injure is a crime according to Section 211. Section 220 states that commitment for trial or confinement by a person in a position of authority who knows he is acting contrary to the law is a crime. Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt, wrongful restraint or confinement all constitutes crime (Sections 321, 322, 339 and 340 of the IPC). Assaulting or using criminal force against anyone otherwise than on grave provocation is also a crime, one that the police personnel who so viciously attacked Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, the two other victims and Ms Seherunnesa Bibi (Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh's wife) would have been aware they were committing (Section 352). Finally, the Sub-Inspector of Salar Police Station is also guilty of criminal intimidation, again an offence under Section 503 of the IPC.
The Criminal Procedures Code, 1973, reiterates the above principles that underlie the definition and enforcement of Indian law. Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, Mr Sukur Seikh and Mr Fijoj Seikh did not fulfil any conditions for arrest without warrant. Section 15 states that persons arrested have a right to be informed of the grounds of the arrest and of his right to bail, both of which were denied to the three victims. The police are also required to report the apprehension to the District Magistrate at the earliest possible notice, but the police did not discharge that duty. It took an advocate to make a report to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate before the men were brought before a court. By that time, the men were in undeniable poor physical condition and the Magistrate ordered for their immediate medical treatment. Such acts are remedial, not preventative, and cannot hope to prevent further abuses in the future. What was perhaps most disturbing was the release of the victims on bail and the requirement for them to report back to Salar Police Station daily, to the very perpetrators who had so desperately injured and humiliated them previously. This exposes the three men to further physical and psychological abuse without even addressing the primary reports of abuse at this same police station.
International law also places a legal obligation on the Indian Central Government to ensure certain rights are protected. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by India in 1979, are important legal documents that require India to protect the life, liberty and security of person of every individual in their territory (Article 3 UDHR). Individuals should also be guarded against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 5 UDHR, Article 7 ICCPR). No one should be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law because human beings have inherent rights to liberty and security of person (Article 9 ICCPR, Article 9 UDHR). Article 10 of the ICCPR even specifies that if any person is deprived of his/her liberty, they should be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person; this agrees with Article 1 of the UDHR, which asserts that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Every individual has a right to freedom of opinion and expression, to seek, receive and impart information and ideas (Article 19 ICCPR, Article 19 UDHR). Although India ratified Convention on the Eradication of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1993, violence against women, particularly in the process of arresting their family members, is also common – Ms. Seherunnesa Bibi was kicked and slapped by none other than the Sub-Inspector of Police, a man given an important title and tasked with punishing precisely such acts of criminal violence.
The fact that Mr Chand Mohammad's attempts to bring the criminal activities of the police to light have been met with such violent impunity suggests a critical flaw in a political and judicial system unable to receive, acknowledge, process, investigate and punish such threats to its own existence. Persistently corrupt law enforcement agencies and state agents gnaw at the very foundations upon which Indian society is constructed by encouraging an environment of fear and oppression. Such violence and impunity embitter an already oppressed and disillusioned community, endangering the legitimacy of the current provincial government. More insidiously, India's Central Government is also challenged by the general disobedience and lack of discipline among provincial actors the central authorities only theoretically supervise and direct. By refusing to act, according to duty and conscience, to protect its people against rogue actors within the flawed justice institutions it funds and props up, the state has become complicit in the violence against its own people. This is a shameful reality that exposes the sham justice and sham democracy of India today.
It is mockery of the intellect for a national system to flaunt its democratic credentials yet lack space for peaceful protest and dissenting voices. Civil society has chosen to peacefully make its opinions known through avenues currently available to them: official media and governmental agencies, for instance. If such channels are closed off by the authorities, the risk of civil unrest will increase exponentially. This is an undesirable outcome for all involved.
The chicanery of a justice system unable to serve justice and protect the legal-constitutional rights of the individual is also laughable. The imperative for reform – institutional reformation to restore constitutional and legal safeguards for individuals – has never been stronger. The Central Government must take up responsibility for constitutional guarantees and its international commitment to protect human rights; it is only be doing so can they legitimise their regime amongst the Indian people. Extra effort must be made to communicate and enforce chain of command and the most crucial guiding principles of rule of law. The local police force will also have to work hard to earn back the trust of the individuals living in areas under their jurisdiction through a combination of adhering to guidelines already provided by the Central Government, cultivating respect for the inherent dignity, rights and liberties of the individual, eradicating the culture of violence and impunity and has permeated paradigms and police procedures (through institutional reform) and situating through various programmes, activities and training the service of justice as primary motivation, purpose and end goal for the police force. India may yet, with the hope and faith demonstrated by her people, become a truly first world democracy.
I therefore request that:
1. The report made by Ms Seherunnesa Bibi, wife of Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, before the Inspector-in-Charge of Kandi Police Station be immediately acknowledged and acted upon;
2. The report made by Ms Hamida Bibi, sister of Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, before the Officer-in-Charge of Salar Police Station be immediately acknowledged and acted upon;
3. A thorough investigation is undertaken by a neutral and independent agency appointed by the National Human Rights Commission;
4. The false charges laid against the three victims are immediately lifted and their names cleared;
5. The three men released on bail are released from the obligation to report to Salar Police Station daily as a condition for their continued freedom on bail;
6. The perpetrators are immediately identified and punished for their criminal and violent acts against Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh and the two other victims;
7. The report to the Law Minister of the Government of West Bengal exposing the illegal activities of police personnel at Salar Police Station is immediately acknowledged, made public and investigated, and that the police officers involved are suspended from duty when the investigation is ongoing;
8. Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, Mr Sukur Seikh and Mr Fijoj Seikh are immediately and adequately compensated for the physical and psychological hurt suffered during their unlawful arrest, detention, torture and degrading treatment at the hands of the police at Salar Police Station, and that funds are provided for their continued medical treatment and counselling;
9. Ms Seherunnesa Bibi is compensated for the injury done to her by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mr Sainik Tarafdar, on 19 April at court and paid in full for the medical expenses incurred for the treatment of that injury;
10. The central authorities investigate the breaches in the most basic police protocol governing arrest, detention and trial procedures;
11. The Central Government employ concrete measures to eradicate such lawlessness amongst its law enforcement agencies and provide credible reassurance to the public that such acts of violence, impunity and humiliation will not occur again, or if they do, they will be capably met by checks and balances in the justice system
Without urgent state intervention and institutional reform, it is unlikely that Mr Chand Mohammad Seikh, Mr Sukur Seikh and Mr Fijoj Seikh will ever be able to free themselves from the fabricated charges and the pernicious shadow of fear and shame that their treatment at the hands of the police of Salar Police Station will cast upon them for the rest of their lives. It is likely that many more individuals demonstrating the same moral courage and conviction will tread the same psychologically, emotionally and physically devastating path these three victims have trod. To prevent such from becoming India's future, please act today to serve justice and humanity.
Yours sincerely,
---------------------------------------------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Director General & Inspector General of Police
Government of West Bengal
Writers Buildings, Kolkata-1
West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: +91 33 2214 5486
Email: dgp_westbengal@gmail.com
2. Chief Secretary
Government of West Bengal
Writers' Building, Kolkata, West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: + 91 33 2214 3612
Email: chiefsec@wb.gov.in
3. Additional Chief Secretary (Home)
Government of West Bengal
Writers' Building, Kolkata, West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: + 91 33 2214 3001
Email: sechome@wb.gov.in
4. Ms. Mamata Banerjee
Chief Minister
Government of West Bengal
Writers' Building, Kolkata, West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: + 91 33 2214 3612
Email: cm_wb@nic.in
5. Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg
New Delhi 110001
INDIA
Fax: + 91 11 2338 4863
E-mail: chairnhrc@nic.in
6. Superintendent of Police
Murshidabad
BMP Police Office
Berhampore 742101, Murshidabad District
West Bengal State
INDIA
Thank you
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)
