Posts Tagged ‘Discrimination’

UN Special Rapporteurs express concerns over discriminatory procedure of NRC updation in Assam

June 22, 2018

Worried About Fate of Bengali Muslims, UN Special Rapporteurs Write to Govt. of India

The Wire Staff

June 21, 7:00 pm

People waiting to check their names in first draft of NRC publish on 31st December 2017

People waiting to check their names in first draft of NRC publish on 31st December 2017 (Photo: thehindiu.com)

New Delhi: Four special rapporteurs of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHCR) have jointly written to Indian external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj expressing “serious concern” over the discrimination of “members of Bengali Muslim minority in Assam” in getting “access to and enjoyment of citizenship status on the basis of their ethnic and religious minority status”.

The letter, written on June 11 by special rapporteur on minority issues Fernand de Varennes, special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance E. Tendayi Achiume, special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of right to freedom of opinion and expression Daid Kaye and special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief Ahmed Shaheed, from the OHCHR’s Geneva headquarters, has categorically linked their concern to the ongoing process of updating the National Register of Citizens (NRC) 1951 in the state.

The update is being carried out under the supervision of the Supreme Court, to honour the Assam Accord signed between the All Assam Students Union (AASU) and the Central government in 1985 to “detect, delete and deport” all “foreigners” who entered the state, mostly from neighbouring Bangladesh, after March 25, 1971. The NRC authorities are mandated to ready the final draft of the updated citizenship register by June 30.

The letter has also sought a response from the Indian government “within 60 days” on eight different allegations of wrongdoing brought to their notice with regard to the NRC update, stating that it “will be made available in a report to be presented to the Human Rights Council for its consideration”.

When asked about the letter, sources in the MEA told The Wire, “Such letters on different issues are received all the time. Reply is sent based on inputs received from relevant ministries”.

The letter said:

“There is no official policy outlining the implications for those who will be excluded from the final NRC. It is reported that they will be treated as foreigners and that their citizenship rights may be revoked in the absence of a prior trial. They may subsequently be asked to prove their citizenship before so-called Foreigners’ Tribunals. In December 2017, a local government minister in Assam was quoted as stating that ‘the NRC is being done to identify illegal Bangladeshis residing in Assam’ and that ‘all those whose names do not figure in the NRC will have to be deported.’

In this context, the NRC update has generated increased anxiety and concerns among the Bengali Muslim minority in Assam, who have long been discriminated against due to their perceived status as foreigners, despite possessing the necessary documents to prove their citizenship. While it is acknowledged that the updating process is generally committed to retaining Indian citizens on the NRC, concerns have been raised that local authorities in Assam, which are deemed to be particularly hostile towards Muslims and people of Bengali descent, may manipulate the verification system in an attempt to exclude many genuine Indian citizens from the updated NRC.”

The special rapporteurs particularly highlighted the May 2, 2017 judgment of the Gauhati high court which directed the Assam Border Police to open inquiries concerning relatives of those persons declared foreigners by the Tribunals. Calling it an “alleged misinterpretation” of the judgment by state coordinator of the NRC Prateek Hajela, leading him to refer two such cases (on May 2 and May 25, 2018) to the Border Police, they stated that the duty to conduct a prior inquiry before keeping such names out of the draft NRC has not been mentioned in the order.

“Once relevant NRC authorities have been informed about the referral of a case, the concerned family member will automatically be excluded from the NRC. Their status will be recorded as ‘pending’ until their citizenship has been determined by a Foreigners’ Tribunal. It is, therefore, alleged that these orders may lead to the wrongful exclusion of close to two million names from the NRC, without a prior investigation and trial. In addition, it is alleged that the orders contravene a High Court judgment of 3 January 2013 (State of Assam vs. Moslem Mondal and Others), which stipulates that automatic referrals to Foreigners’ Tribunals are not permissible as a fair and proper investigation is required prior to the referral of a case.”

The special rapporteurs have underlined that the “orders may also contravene section 3 (1) (a) of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship at birth to anyone born in India on/after 26 January 1950, but prior to 1 July 1987.” Besides seeking clarifications and/or additional information on these allegations from the Indian government, they also sought to know the “steps taken to ensure that the NRC update does not result in statelessness or human rights violations, including arbitrary deprivation of citizenship, mass expulsions, and arbitrary detention” of Bengali Muslims.

Among seeking other information, the letter asked for data from the government on the ethnicity and religion of those individuals who would find themselves excluded from the draft NRC as well as those declared foreigners by the Tribunals, besides an official word on whether they would face detention or deportation.

The UN rapporteurs also sought “the present status” of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016 and asked why it doesn’t include Bengali Muslims.

“The proposed amendment suggests a broader context of vulnerability of Bengali Muslims to unlawful exclusion from Indian citizenship. While we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, we would like to express serious concern that members of the Bengali Muslim minority in Assam have experienced discrimination in access to and enjoyment of citizenship status on the basis of their ethnic and religious minority status. We are particularly concerned that this discrimination is predicted to escalate as a result of the NRC.”

The majority population in Assam has expressed their opposition to the Bill as it will divide the undocumented immigrants allegedly residing in the state on religious grounds. In the last few months, the streets have witnessed vociferous public protests demanding the withdrawal of the Bill as it violates the Assam Accord. As per the Accord, whoever has crossed over the international border into the state without valid documents after March 24, 1971, would be declared a foreigner without considering their religious affiliations. The state would thereafter make provisions for deportation to their country of origin. The Accord brought to an end a six-year-long anti-foreigner movement in the state, but its core clause of “detection, detention and deportation” has not been implemented yet. As per a tripartite agreement reached by the state and Central governments with AASU in 2005, the Registrar General of India, under the supervision of the apex court, is conducting the ongoing update of the NRC only for Assam.

The letter can also be accessed here.

This story was first published in the wire.in and has been reproduced here verbatim.

 

A minor patient allegedly raped by government doctor in Cachar, Assam

December 31, 2011

Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC) received information about rape of a minor girl by Physician In-Charge of Dholai Primary Health Centre (PHC) in Cachar, Assamat his residence about 4 pm on 27th November 2011. Miss Rajia Begun, (name changed to protect identity) a minor girl, went to a pharmacy at Dholai Bazar, where Dr. Paul privately practices, for medical consultation for her ailment. Dr. Paul asked her to visit him at his residence in the evening. Accordingly she went there, accompanied by her sister-in-law (brother’s wife), where she was allegedly raped by Dr. Paul. Later, on the same day she filed a complaint at the Dholai Police Station and the case has been registered as First Information Report No. 302/11 dated 27/11/11 under Section 367 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The victim has not yet been provided with any compensation and there is also the risk of impunity involved in the case.

BHRPC first received information about the case from a news paper report published on 28 November 2011 in local newspapers. BHRPC then contacted the victim and her relatives, and collected certified copies of the FIR and deposition of the victim under section 164 of Cr. P C, 1973 before a Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Silchar.

According to the information thus gathered, the victim Miss Rajia Begum is a student of class X, aged about 17, daughter of Khalil Uddin and a resident of villageIslamabadunder Dholai Police Station in the district of Cachar,Assam. The alleged perpetrator is Dr. Dilip Paul of village Sadagram under Dholai Police Station. He is the In-charge physician of Dholai Public Health Centre at Dholai Bazar,Cachar,Assam.

According to Miss Rajia Begum on 27 Nov, 2011at about 4pm she along with her sister-in-law Nur Nahar (name changed to protect identity) went to a pharmacy at Dholai Bazar to consult a physician. There they met Dr. Dilip Paul who asked about her illness and advised her to go to his residence in the evening. The victim also stated that accordingly she went to the residence of Dr. Paul accompanied by Mrs. Nur Nahar (name changed to protect identity) in the evening. Dr. Paul asked her to come inside the room but did not allow her sister-in-law inside. He asked Mrs. Nur Nahar to wait outside.

 According to the deposition of the victim before the magistrate, after she entered the room, Dr. Paul closed the door and asked her to lie on the bed and close her eyes. She also stated that Dr. Paul then suddenly put his hand on her mouth and forcibly raped her against her will. She claimed that she could not cry out for help because of the tight grip of Dr. Paul’s hand on her mouth. According to her, when he finished, his grip fell loose and she pushed him aside and ran out by opening the door.

She also stated that she told her sister-in-law all about the incident. They both went home crest fallen and humiliated. Later, on the same day they went to the Dholai Police Station accompanied by her brother and lodged a complaint which was registered as mentioned above. The case has been assigned to Sub-Inspector of Police Mr. Bimal Shaikia for investigation.

It is reported that even after more than one month of the incident and registration of the FIR the police failed to arrest the accused and the officer in charge of the police station has not forwarded to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report under section 173 of the CrPC.

BHRPC thinks that the information provided in the FIR and in the deposition U/S 164 of the Cr.PC reveals prima facie case of violations of fundamental right to life and personal liberty provided under Art 21 of the Constitution of India along with an offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC.

This is also a prima facie case of violations of the universally recognized human rights as stated in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the UN Declaration on Violence Against Women as well as the provisions of legally binding International human rights treaties, to which India is a state party, including ICCPR, UN Convention Against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment, The UN Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Public meeting on the situation of women’s rights in Barak valley

March 7, 2011
Time
Tuesday, March 8 · 2:30pm – 5:30pm

Location
Communication Centre, Barak Human Rights Protection Coommittee, First Floor, Kachari Masjid Complex

Sadarghat Road
Silchar-788001, Assam, India


More Info
Senior members of BHRPC and local women’s rights activists will discuss the situation of women’s right in Barak Valley of Assam on the occasion of Internation Women’s Day.

Urgent Appeal: Assam police harass and threaten a rape victim

February 10, 2011

BARAK HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION COMMITTEE

Urgent Appeal No. BHRPC Case No 60/2011/UA/23/210 Dated: 10 February 2011

Dear Friends,

Acting on the information provided by Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC), the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) issued the following Urgent Appeal concerning the case of assault of a 24 year-old-girl and her mother by the police in Cachar district, Assam. Please take the suggested actions.

Yours sincerely

Waliullah Ahmed Laskar

Urgent Appeal Desk

Barak Human Rights Protection Committee

Rongpur, Silchar-9, Assam, India

INDIA: Assam police harass and threatened a rape victim

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-024-2011

To take actions please click here

8 February 2011
——————————————————
INDIA: Assam police harass and threatened a rape victim

ISSUES: Violence against woman; rape; assault; police corruption
——————————————————

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from the Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC), Assam concerning the case of rape of a 20 year-old-woman by her father-in-law. The victim was raped because she belongs to a poor family and was unable to provide the dowry during the time of her marriage. A complaint was then lodged to the local police station but to-date no action has been taken. Instead, the victim was threatened by the investigating officer to withdraw the complaint.

CASE NARRATIVE:

On December 2009, Mrs. Sonia (name changed) aged about twenty years was married to Mr. Pabitra Das. Sonia’s husband Pabitra does not have any proper source of income for their livelihood. He sells low quality ornaments in remote villages. Sonia’s father-in-law, Mr. Haricharan Das is a widower and works as a teacher in a government school.

Sonia belongs to a poor family and her father Mr. Dondodhar Das could not provide a sufficient dowry during the time of her marriage. Sonia alleged that after four/five months after her marriage, hers husband’s family demanded Rs. 50,000/= and a bicycle as dowry. When Sonia expressed her father’s inability to provide the demanded dowry, the entire husband family gradually started subjecting Sonia to mental and physical harassment. This was perpetrated mainly by Sonia’s father-in-law.

Sonia’s husband, and his unemployed younger brother Mr. Jayanta Das, used to leave home early in the morning everyday in search of work and return around 10pm. Sonia alleged that her father-in-law Haricharan beat her one day in his son’s absence and forced Sonia to have sex with him. This incident left Sonia traumatised. Sonia was at her wit’s end and could not tell anyone out of shame, disgust and fear. She has since been compelled to have sex with her father-in-law on several occasions.

The conditions became unbearable for Sonia that finally she told everything to her husband. Pabitra, instead of trusting his wife, hurled verbal abuse at her and accused Sonia of trying to malign his father and his relatives with the intension of breaking up the family. Sonia could no longer endure the agony and anguish and returned to her maternal home on July 2010. Sonia told her father and mother about the demand of dowry, ill-treatment and cruelty towards her but did not tell them of rape and molestation by her father-in-law.

Sonia’s father Dondodhar thought it was a normal wear and tear of conjugal life or at most a little ill-treatment for dowry. Dondodhar insisted that his daughter reconcile with her husband and their family so that She could start a new life, forgetting the past incidents. Dondodhar along with other village elders went to Haricharan’s house to discuss all matters other than the sexual harassment of his daughter Sonia. Sonia was then told by her father to stay with her husband and their family after the discussion.

It is reported that on September 2010 Haricharan with his whole family moved to Dhoomkar village from Salimabad. The place was new for Sonia and she did not know anyone. At this juncture, Haricharan once again started sexually assaulting his daughter-in-law. When Sonia could no longer bear to keep quiet and suffer in silence she told her husband on 29 November 2010. Pabitra became furious as he was already convinced of his father’s innocence and started beating Sonia. Sonia’s father-in-law and brother-in-law, Jayanta, joined him in assaulting Sonia.

Sonia alleged that the three men were trying to kill her and later that night at around 10 pm managed to escape the house. The father and sons tried to follow Sonia but could not trace her in the darkness. Mr. Somorendra Deb, resident of Dhoomkar and other passers-by including Ms. Ratna Das, President of Korkori Gaon Panchayat and Mr. Narat Lal Das, Vice-president of Korkori Gaon Panchayat found Sonia, gave her shelter, and informed the local police.

It is reported that on 30 November 2010 Sonia lodged a complaint to the Kalain police outpost but it was not registered in the police station. Therefore, Sonia filed two other complaints in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Silchar on 6 December 2010. The CJM clubbed both the complaints together and directed the Katigorah Police Station (PS) to register a First Information Report (FIR) and investigate the case.

Thereafter, an FIR was registered at Katigorah PS as Case no. 666/10 under Sections 376 (punishment for rape) and 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against Sonia’s husband Pabitra, brother-in-law Jayanta and Haricharan, father-in-law. Mr. Prabhat Saikia, a Sub-Inspector of Police and In-Charge of Kalain police outpost was made the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case.

However, the police did not take any actions to investigate the case based on the FIR. Instead, the IO met the victim, Sonia, and pressured her to withdraw the complaint and to settle the matter amicably. Sonia alleged that the IO threatened to render her family beggars and homeless if she continued to pursue the case in courts or any other legal forums.

On 30 December 2010, Sonia wrote a written complaint to the district Superintendent of Police (SP) about the misconduct of the IO and requested the SP to intervene in investigating her case. There has been no response or action from the SP as yet on Sonia’s complaint.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write letters to the authorities mentioned below expressing your concern in this case and urge them to ensure legal redress to the victim.

The AHRC is writing separate letter of concern to the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, calling for an intervention in this case.

To take actions please click here

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear __________,

INDIA: The rape of a 20-year-old woman must be investigated and prosecuted

Name of victim: Mrs. Sonia (name changed) aged about 20 years, resident of village Korkori Part-III, Kalain under Katigorah Police Station, Cachar district, Assam state
Names of alleged perpetrators:
1. Mr. Pabitra Das, Sonia’s husband
2. Mr. Haricharan Das, Sonia’s father-in-law
3. Mr. Jayanta Das, Sonia’s brother-in-law
All residents of Dhoomkar village under the jurisdiction of Katigorah Police Station, Cachar district
Date of incident: Between July – November 2010
Place of incident: Dhoomkar village, Kalain under Katigorah Police Station, Cachar district

I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the rape case of Sonia (name changed), a 20 year old woman by her father-in-law. I am informed that Sonia was raped because she belongs to a poor family and her family could not provide the dowry during the time of her marriage. Sonia was married on December 2009 to Mr. Pabitra Das. Sonia alleged that after four to five months after her marriage her husband’s family demanded Rs.50,000 and a bicycle as dowry. When Sonia expressed her father’s inability to provide the demanded dowry, the entire husband family gradually started subjecting Sonia to mental and physical harassment. This was being perpetrated mainly by Sonia’s father-in-law.

I am informed that Sonia’s husband Pabitra sells low quality ornaments in remote villages to earn money. Pabitra and his younger brother Mr. Jayanta Das used to leave home early in the morning and return around 10pm everyday in search of a job. Sonia’s father-in-law Mr. Haricharan Das is a widower and works as a teacher in a government school. Sonia alleged that her father-in-law beat her one day on his son’s absence and force her in sexual submission. This incident left Sonia shattered at the core and traumatised. Since then Sonia was at her wit’s end and could not tell anyone out of shame, disgust and fear and was compelled to have sex with her father-in-law several times.

I am informed that the conditions became unbearable for Sonia that she told everything to her husband. Pabitra, instead of trusting his wife, he verbally abused her and accused Sonia of trying to malign his father and relatives with the intension of breaking up the family. Sonia could no longer endure the agony and anguish and returned to her maternal home on July 2010. Sonia told her father and mother about the demand of dowry, ill-treatment and cruelty towards her but did not tell them of rape and molestation by her father-in-law. Sonia’s father Dondodhar thought it was a normal wear and tear of conjugal life or at most a little ill-treatment for dowry.

I am informed that Dondodhar insisted on his daughter Sonia to reconcile with her husband and their family so that Sonia can start a new life forgetting the past incidents. Dondodhar along with other village elders went to Haricharan’s house and discuss all matters other than the sexual harassment of his daughter Sonia. Sonia was then told by her father to stay with her husband and their family after the discussion.

I am informed that on September 2010 Haricharan with his whole family has moved to Dhoomkar village from Salimabad. The place was new for Sonia and the neighbours were unacquainted. At this juncture, Haricharan once again started sexually assaulting his daughter-in-law Sonia. When Sonia could no longer bear to keep quiet and suffer, she told her husband on 29 November 2010. Pabitra, Sonia’s husband, got furious as he was already convinced by his father and started beating Sonia. Pabitra’s father Haricharan and his younger brother Jayanta joined him in assaulting Sonia.

Sonia alleged that she was trying to kill by father-sons trio during an assault. Sonia managed to escape her husband’s house the same night around 10pm. The father-sons trio followed Sonia but could not trace her in the darkness. Mr. Somorendra Deb, resident of Dhoomkar and other passers-by including Ms. Ratna Das, President of Korkori Gaon Panchayat and Mr. Narat Lal Das, Vice-president of Korkori Gaon Panchayat found Sonia, gave her shelter, and informed the local police.

I am informed that on 30 November 2010 Sonia lodged a complaint to the Kalain police outpost but it was not registered in the police station. Therefore, Sonia filed two other complaints in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Silchar on 6 December 2010. The CJM clubbed both the complaints together and directed the Katigorah Police Station (PS) to register a First Information Report (FIR) and investigate the case.

I am informed that thereafter an FIR was registered at Katigorah PS as Case no. 666/10 under Sections 376 (punishment for rape) and 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against Sonia’s husband Pabitra, brother-in-law Jayanta and Haricharan, father-in-law. Mr. Prabhat Saikia, a Sub-Inspector of Police and In-Charge of Kalain police outpost was made the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case.

However, the police did not take any action to investigate the case based on the FIR. Instead, the IO met the victim, Sonia, and pressured her to withdraw the complaint and to settle the matter amicably. Sonia alleged that the IO threatened to render her family beggars and homeless if she continued to pursue the case in courts or any other legal forums.

I am informed that again on 30 December 2010, Sonia wrote a written complaint to the district Superintendent of Police (SP) about the misconduct of the IO and to seek his intervention in investigating her case. There has been no response or action from the SP as yet on Sonia’s complaint.

I therefore request you to intervene in this case to ensure the following:

1. The police must immediately record the statement of the victim;
2. Should there be any request from the victim for protection against further threat, the police must provide the same to the victim;
3. The statements of other witnesses in the incident are to be recorded by the police without any further delay;
4. The suspicious conduct of the police officer who is in charge of the investigation of the case must be investigated by a superior officer and if the inquiry finds that the officer is at fault, he must be punished;
5. A female officer must investigate the case

Yours sincerely,

—————-
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Justice S. Barman Roy
Chairperson
Assam Human Rights Commission
STATFED H.O. Building, GMC Road
Bhangagarh, Guwahati
Pin – 781005, Assam
INDIA
Fax: +91 361 2529450, 2527076
Email: hrca@sancharnet.in

2. Mrs. Krishna Tirath
Minister of State
Ministry of Women and Child Development
Shastri Bhavan, Jeevandeep Building
New Delhi
INDIA
Fax: +91 11 23074052, 23074053, 23074054

3. Mr. Tarun Gogoi
Chief Minister of Assam
Assam Secretariat, Dispur
Guwahati-6, Assam
INDIA
Fax: +91 361 2262069

4. Chief Secretary
Assam Secretariat, Dispur
Guwahati-6, Assam
INDIA
Fax: +91 361 2260900
Email: psccy_it@assam.nic.in

5. Director General of Police
Assam, Ulubari
Guwahati-7, Assam
INDIA

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

To take actions please click here

Posted on 2011-02-08

AHRC URL: http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2011/3649/

URGENT APPEAL: Police assaulted mother and daughter during mid-night at home

February 1, 2011

BARAK HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION COMMITTEE

Urgent Appeal No. BHRPC Case No 59/2010/UA/23/210 Dated: 01 February 2011

Dear Friends,

Acting on the information provided by Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC), the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) issued the following Urgent Appeal concerning the case of assault of a 24 year-old-girl and her mother by the police in Cachar district, Assam. Please take the suggested actions.

Yours sincerely

Waliullah Ahmed Laskar

Urgent Appeal Desk

Barak Human Rights Protection Committee

Rongpur, Silchar-9, Assam, India

Download the Urgent Appeal

INDIA: Assam police assaulted mother and daughter during mid-night at home

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-019-2011

Click here to support the appeal

1 February 2011
——————————————————
INDIA: Assam police assaulted mother and daughter during mid-night at home

ISSUES: Assault; Threats; Witness protection; Police inaction and negligence
——————————————————
Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from the Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC), Assam concerning the case of assault of a 24 year-old-girl and her mother by the police in Cachar district, Assam. This incident occurred at midnight when the police were searching for a fugitive, Mr. Hussain Ahmed Laskar. Police then threatened the victims when a written complaint was filed with the local police station. Insofar, the local police have taken no actions on the victim’s complaint.

CASE NARRATIVE:

At midnight on 15 December 2010, a team of police officers knocked on the door of Ms. Hasina Begum Laskar’s house while they were sleeping. Hasina, aged about 24 years, lives with her 60-year-old mother, Mrs. Alfatun Nessa Laskar. Her father has passed away and the family lives at Barjatrapur Village under the jurisdiction of Borkhola Police Station in Cachar district of Assam.

Hasina asked the persons to identify themselves and the reason for the visit. The officers told her that they were from the police and wanted to enquire about a fugitive name Mr. Hussain Ahmed Laskar. Hasina replied that she did not know the person. The police officers then demanded that Hasina open the door and when she refused they entered the house forcefully after breaking open the door.

It is reported that Sub-Inspector Mr. Ibrahim Khalilullah Kabir of Borkhola Police Station in Cachar district of Assam state led the police officers. Ibrahim is also the Officer-in-Charge of Bhangarpar Police Out-Post of Borkhola Police Station. Hasina alleges that the police officer was accompanied by his fellow constables and not any woman police officer, as is required by the law.

Officer, Ibrahim, asked Hasina a few questions about the fugitive Hussain before suddenly grabbing Hasina’s hand. Hasina claims that the officer pulled her closer as if he had intentions to sexually harass her. Hasina resisted the officer’s advances and that resulted in a scuffle. Hasina then started screaming for help. Upon hearing Hasina, her mother woke up. When the mother came into the room where Hasina and the officer were struggling she tried to stand in between the officer and her daughter, in order to protect her daughter and free her from the officer. The officers infuriated by the resistance of the two women, started assaulting them. Hasina’s mother vomited at the time, after suffering injuries from the assault and undoubtedly from shock due to fear. Then she fainted and fell to the ground.

It is reported that Hasina’s neighbours started gathering near the house after hearing the cries of Hasina and her mother. The police left the house after seeing the people. Hasina’s neighbours dialed an emergency helpline number 108 (free medical services provided by the government) and explained the incidents briefly. An ambulance came and picked-up Hasina’s mother and took her to the Silchar Medical College Hospital. Hasina’s mother was later discharged from the hospital but is still under medication.

On 18 December 2010, Hasina lodged a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Borkhola Police Station, Cachar district, Assam. However, following this, Hasina alleged that an unknown person called her mobile and threatened that if she proceeded against the police officer, she would suffer grave consequences. Again on the following day, the day Hasina lodged a complaint to the SP, she received another called from unknown person at 11.03am on her mobile and the same threat was repeated. Hasina received both incoming call on her mobile from the same number +91 9859628761. To-date, the SP has taken no action on Hasina’s complaint.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write letters to the authorities mentioned below, in particular to the Home Minister of Assam, expressing your concern in the case. The statements of the victims and witnesses must be recorded without any delay. The AHRC is writing separate letter of concern to the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women calling for an intervention in the case.

To support this appeal, please click here

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear __________,

INDIA: Assault of a 24 years old girl and her mother must be investigated

Name of victim: Ms. Hasina Begum Laskar, resident of Village Barjatrapur under the jurisdiction of Borkhola Police Station in Cachar district of Assam state
Names of alleged perpetrators: Mr. Ibrahim Khalilullah Kabir, Sub-Inspector of Borkhola Police Station and his fellow constables
Date of incident: 15 December 2010
Place of incident: Barjatrapur Village, Cachar district, Assam state

I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the assault of a 24-year-old girl and her mother. I am informed that on 15 December 2010, at midnight, a team of police officers knocked on the door of Ms. Hasina Begum Laskar’s house while they were sleeping. Hasina lives with her 60-year-old mother, Mrs. Alfatun Nessa Laskar. Her father has passed away and the family lives at Barjatrapur Village under the jurisdiction of Borkhola Police Station in Cachar district of Assam.

I am informed that Hasina woke up hearing the knocking at the door asked the persons to identify and for why they are at their home. The officers told her that they were from the police and wanted to enquire about a fugitive name Mr. Hussain Ahmed Laskar. Hasina replied that she did not know the person. The police officers then demanded that Hasina open the door and when she refused they entered the house forcefully after breaking open the door.

It is reported that Sub-Inspector Mr. Ibrahim Khalilullah Kabir of Borkhola Police Station in Cachar district of Assam state led the police officers. Ibrahim is also the Officer-in-Charge of Bhangarpar Police Out-Post of Borkhola Police Station. Hasina alleges that the police officer was accompanied by his fellow constables and not any woman police officer, as is required by the law.

I am informed that officer, Ibrahim, asked Hasina a few questions about the fugitive Hussain before suddenly grabbing Hasina’s hand. Hasina claims that the officer pulled her closer as if he had intentions to sexually harass her. Hasina resisted the officer’s advances and that resulted in a scuffle. Hasina then started screaming for help. Upon hearing Hasina, her mother woke up. When the mother came into the room where Hasina and the officer were struggling she tried to stand in between the officer and her daughter, in order to protect her daughter and free her from the officer. The officers infuriated by the resistance of the two women, started assaulting them. Hasina’s mother vomited at the time, after suffering injuries from the assault and undoubtedly from shock due to fear. Then she fainted and fell to the ground.

It is reported that Hasina’s neighbours started gathering near the house after hearing the cry from Hasina and her mother. The police left the house after seeing the people. Hasina’s neighbours dialed an emergency helpline number 108 (free medical services provided by the government) and explained the incidents briefly. An ambulance came and picked-up Hasina’s mother and took her to the Silchar Medical College Hospital. Hasina’s mother was later discharged from the hospital but is still under medication.

On 18 December 2010, Hasina lodged a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Borkhola Police Station, Cachar district, Assam. However, following this, Hasina alleged that an unknown person called her mobile and threatened that if she proceeded against the police officer, she would suffer grave consequences. Again on the following day, the day Hasina lodged a complaint to the SP, she received another called from unknown person at 11.03am on her mobile and the same threat was repeated. Hasina received both incoming call on her mobile from the same number +91 9859628761. To-date, the SP has taken no action on Hasina’s complaint.

I ask for your immediate intervention in order to ensure that an investigation is carried out into this incident.

Yours sincerely,

—————-
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Justice S. Barman Roy
Chairperson
Assam Human Rights Commission
STATFED H.O. Building, GMC Road
Bhangagarh, Guwahati
Pin – 781005, Assam
INDIA
Fax: +91 361 2529450, 2527076
Email: hrca@sancharnet.in

2. Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, APS
District Superintendent of Police
Borkhola Police Station
Cachar district, Assam
INDIA

3. Mrs. Krishna Tirath
Minister of State
Ministry of Women and Child Development
Shastri Bhavan, Jeevandeep Building
New Delhi
INDIA
Fax: +91 11 23074052, 23074053, 23074054

4. Mr. Tarun Gogoi
Chief Minister of Assam
Assam Secretariat, Dispur
Guwahati-6, Assam
INDIA
Fax: +91 361 2262069

5. Chief Secretary
Assam Secretariat, Dispur
Guwahati-6, Assam
INDIA
Fax: +91 361 2260900
Email: psccy_it@assam.nic.in

6. Director General of Police
Assam, Ulubari
Guwahati-7, Assam
INDIA

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

Click here to take actions

Posted on 2011-02-01

See the appeal at its original location

Urgent Appeal: Woman forced to quit job and denied justice after sexual harassment in Assam

January 25, 2011

BARAK HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION COMMITTEE

Urgent Appeal No. BHRPC Case No 58/2010/UA/23/210 Dated: 25 January 2010

Dear Friends,

Acting on the information provided by Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC), the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) issued the following Urgent Appeal. Please take the suggested actions.

Yours

Waliullah Ahmed Laskar

Urgent Appeal Desk

Barak Human Rights Protection Committee

Rongpur, Silchar-9, Assam, India

Click here to send an appeal to the authorities

 

INDIA: Woman forced to quit job and denied justice after sexual harassment

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-011-2011

25 January 2011
——————————————————
INDIA: Woman forced to quit job and denied justice after sexual harassment

ISSUES: Violence against women; Sexual harassment; Police corruption
——————————————————

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from the Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC) concerning the case of Ms. Lara (name changed) a victim of sexual harassment from Assam state. It is reported that the victim had to resign from her job since her superior colleagues tried to sexually molest her. On the day of her resignation, the suspected officers tried to rape the victim at their office. The police, despite having registered a case against the suspects are now demanding the victim to forgive the suspects and settle the case.

CASE DETAILS:

It is reported that on 2 December 2010 at about 2.30pm, Lara’s two senior colleagues, Mr. Sandip Sarkar and Mr. Rajeeb Nath, assaulted, molested and attempted to rape Lara at the office of her company. Lara worked as an office assistant and a computer operator at Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Ltd., at Bhaga Branch in Assam state. The incident happened at the regional office of the company, where she was asked to report by her seniors. The company where Lara was employed is a subsidiary of Rose Valley Group with Registered Head Office at RGM-25/3010, Raghunathpur, VIP Road, Kolkata – 700059, West Bengal.

Sarkar is the Assistant Regional Manager at the regional office at Silchar, Assam state. Sarkar called Lara on 18 November 2009 at about 9pm on her mobile telephone and demanded sexual favours from Lara. Lara refused and requested Sarkar not to use such language with her in the future. Due to this, Lara alleges that Sarkar deliberately transferred her from Aizawl branch, Mizoram state to an office in Bhaga which is nearer to the regional office (about 45 Kilometres from Silchar).

Lara alleges that Sarkar then repeatedly called Lara and continued using unsolicited and sexually implicit language in the conversations, despite Lara’s request to stop it. Lara claims that Sarkar also tried requesting Lara’s colleague, Ms. Dolly (name changed), to convince Lara to pay heed to Sarkar’s unsolicited demands. Both Lara and Dolly being subordinate staff were helpless and worse, it was impossible for them to avoid Sarkar’s calls.

On one occasion Sarkar asked Lara and Dolly to come at Silchar Branch at 4pm. Lara and Dolly informed Sarkar that the last bus from Silchar to Bhaga stops at 4pm. Sarkar then offered Lara and Dolly to stay at a hotel at Silchar. However, they refused to travel to Silchar on that occasion.

Both Lara and Dolly complained to the Senior Marketing Officer Mr. Mrinal Kanti Dutta about the harassment to which Sarkar subjected them to. Dutta enquired into the matter. Instead of taking action against Sarkar, Dutta and the vigilance officer of the company requested Lara and Dolly to forgive Sarkar for the sake of the company’s name and goodwill.

Lara alleges that due to the complaint, Sarkar withheld her salary increment by misusing his senior position in the company. It is alleged that soon another senior colleague, Mr. Rajeeb Nath, became Sarkar’s accomplice in his misadventures against Lara. Nath contacted Lara and informed her that her pending salary increment would be released only if Lara agreed to Sarkar’s unsolicited requests for sexual gratification. Nath also informed Lara that she would be posted to her hometown Aizawl branch should she comply. Lara once again refused to the demands. Sarkar and Nath continued harassing Lara regularly over the mobile telephone continuously then on.

The situation gradually became so unbearable to Lara that she decided to resign. Lara submitted her resignation letter on 2 November 2010 to Mr. Jyoti Prasad Mohan, the Regional Manager, requesting the company to relieve her from the job on 30 November 2010. The same day, Lara went to the regional office at Silchar for the final settlement of her salary and other dues including the amount due to her from the Employees’ Provident Fund. Lara reached the regional office at Silchar by noon and found the Regional Manager not at the office.

Sarkar was in-charge of the regional office in the absence of the Regional Manager. It is alleged that Sarkar intentionally kept Lara waiting outside his cabin until 2.30pm. When Lara entered the cabin and took a seat, Sarkar called Nath over his extension to visit him. Nath came to the room immediately. Thereafter, both Sarkar and Nath asked Lara to stay in a hotel and have sex with them. They also told Lara that all her problems would be resolved if she obliged.

Lara sternly rejected the proposal and stood up from the chair. Suddenly, both Sarkar and Nath jumped over Lara and assaulted her physically. Both tried to overpower Lara and rape her then and there. Lara gathered strength and started shouting for help. Other colleagues in the office assembled near the room after hearing Lara shouting for help. However, Sarkar and Nath managed to escape from the office. Lara alleges that Sarkar was vigorously trying to remove her shirt. While they escaped, Sarkar snatched Lara’s gold chain that she was wearing. In the attempt to snatch the chain, Sarkar tore off Lara’s shirt. Lara alleges that the chain is worth Rs. 15,000.00.

Immediately after the incident, Lara filed a complaint at the Vairangte Police Station in Kolasib district, Mizoram state. The officer-in-charge (OC) forwarded the complaint to the Silchar Sadar Police Station on 3 December 2010. It was reported that on 4 December 2010 the OC of Silchar Sadar Police Station registered a case, number 2254 under Sections 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman) and 427 (mischief causing damage) read with Section 34 (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against Sarkar and Nath.

It is also reported that Mr. Puia, Sub-Inspector of police is the Investigating Officer (IO) in the case. Lara alleges that the IO did not show any interest in investigating the case. Instead, the IO made several calls to Lara from various telephones asking her whether she wanted to rejoin the company or would join any other work. The IO expressed his readiness to help Lara in either way. According to Lara, the IO made his last call from the mobile number +91-94352 95037 at 6.27pm on 18 January 2011.

Lara suspects that the police is under the influence of Sarkar and Nath, for which they are using their position in the company. Lara alleges that the case would never be investigated and even today the police have failed to properly record her statement or to question other witnesses to the incident. Lara also fears that she will receive no further protection from her assailants, should they try to hurt her further or threaten her.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send letters to the authorities named below expressing your concern in this case and urge them to ensure legal redress to the victim.

The AHRC is also sending a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, calling for an intervention in this case.

To support this appeal, please click here:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear __________,

INDIA: The molestation and attempted to rape of a working woman must be investigated

Name of victim: Ms. Lara (name changed), former employee of Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Ltd., Bhaga Branch in Assam state
Name of alleged perpetrators:
1. Mr. Sandip Sarkar, Assistant Regional Manager, Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Ltd., Silchar, Assam state
2. Mr. Rajeeb Nath, Officer, Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Ltd., Silchar, Assam state
Date of incident: 02 December 2010
Place of incident: Regional office of Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Ltd. at Silchar, Assam

I am writing to express my concern about the case of sexual molestation and attempted rape reported to me, wherein it is alleged that the investigating officer is not showing any interest to investigate the case properly. I am informed that the accused in the case sexually molested and assaulted the victim in the case, Lara, on 2 November 2010 at the regional office of the company where she once worked.

The victim in the case, Lara, worked as an office assistant and a computer operator at Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Ltd. at Bhaga Branch of Assam state. The company is a subsidiary of Rose Valley Group of Companies with Registered Head Office at RGM-25/3010, Raghunathpur, VIP Road, Kolkata – 700059, West Bengal.

I am informed that the main suspect in the case is Mr. Sandip Sarkar, an Assistant Regional Manager of the company stationed at the regional office in Silchar, Assam state. I am informed that Lara is accusing Sarkar that he had made several unsuccessful attempts to lure Lara into an illegal sexual relationship with him. For this, it is alleged that Sarkar misused his position at the office as an officer superior to Lara. I am informed that Sarkar transferred Lara to an office closer to the regional office where Sarkar is working. Lara also alleged that Sarkar had an accomplice in the crime, which is Mr. Rajeeb Nath, who is also a senior staff member of the same company. Lara alleges that on 18 November 2009 at about 9pm Sarkar contacted Lara over her mobile telephone and demanded sexual favours. I am informed that Lara refused outright and requested Sarkar not to use such language with her in the future.

I am informed that Lara’s transfer from Aizawl branch, Mizoram state to Bhaga was a deleberate action by Sarkar. I am informed that Sarkar then repeatedly called Lara over her telephone and demanded her to sleep with Sarkar. It is alleged that Sarkar even asked another female colleague, Ms. Dolly (name changed), to convince Lara that she should pay heed to Sarkar’s demands for sexual favours. I am informed that later Sarkar started receiving help from Nath to contact Lara and threaten her that should she continue to refuse Sarkar’s request she would have a tough time at the job.

I am informed that both Lara and Dolly complained to the Senior Marketing Officer, Mr. Mrinal Kanti Dutta, about the harassment against which there was an inquiry. However, the officer refused to act against Sarkar and Nath. Instead, the officer after the inquiry requested Lara and Dolly to forgive Sarkar for the sake of the company’s name and goodwill.

I am informed that Sarkar thereafter refused to pay salary increments to Lara. Dejected and abused, Lara resigned from the job on 2 November 2010. On the same day, Lara went to the regional office at Silchar for the final settlement of her salary and other dues including the Employees Provident Fund. It is reported that it is when Lara was summoned to Sarkar’s room on that day that Sarkar and Nath tried to rape Lara inside the office room. I am informed that other staffs members present in the office are witnesses to the event, at least to the extent that they had gathered around the room in which Lara was molested when they heard her cries for help. It is also reported that Sarkar, while he fled from the room snatched Lara’s chain worth Rs. 15,000.00.

I am informed that the complaint filed by Lara immediately after the incident at the Vairangte Police Station in Kolasib district, Mizoram was forwarded to Silchar Sadar Police Station on 3 December 2010. It was reported that on 4 December 2010 the OC of Silchar Sadar Police Station registered a case number 2254 under Sections 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman) and 427 (mischief causing damage) read with section 34 (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against Sarkar and Nath.

However, instead of investigating the case, the OC is trying to persuade Lara to settle the matter. I am informed that Lara is now certain that her case would not be investigated and that Sarkar and Nath are using their influence and money to prevent the police from taking any action in the case. It is also reported that Lara is afraid that Sarkar or Nath will hurt Lara and that the police will provide no protection to her should something like that happen.

I am also informed that in a case decided by the Supreme Court of India, there are strict laws to be complied by the employers as well as the government to ensure safety of women from sexual harassment in places of work. Quite obviously Lara’s case is a direct contradiction of the Supreme Court’s directives in the Vishaka case.

I therefore request you to intervene in this case to ensure the following:

1. The police must immediately record the statement of the victim;
2. Should there be any request from the victim for protection against further threat, the police must provide the same to the victim;
3. The statements of other witnesses in the incident are to be recorded by the police without any further delay;
4. The suspicious conduct of the police officer who is in charge of the investigation of the case must be investigated by a superior officer and if the inquiry finds that the officer is at fault, he must be punished;
5. A female officer must investigate the case

Yours sincerely,

—————-
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Tarun Gogoi
Chief Minister of Assam
Assam Secretariat, Dispur
Guwahati-6, Assam
INDIA
Fax: +91 361 2262069

2. Chief Secretary
Assam Secretariat, Dispur
Guwahati-6, Assam
INDIA
Fax: +91 361 2260900
Email: psccy_it@assam.nic.in

3. Mr. G M Srivastava
Director General of Police
Assam, Ulubari
Guwahati-7, Assam
INDIA

4. Mr. PU Lalthanhawla
Chief Minister of Mizoram
A/14, Zarkawt, Aizawl, Mizoram
INDIA
Fax: +91 389 2322245

5. Mr. R. Lalzirliana
Home Minister of Mizoram
Armed Veng “N”, Aizawl
Mizoram
INDIA

6. Mrs. Krishna Tirath
Minister of State
Ministry of Women and Child Development
Shastri Bhavan, Jeevandeep Building
New Delhi
INDIA
Fax: +91 11 24654849, 24654667, 24616466

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

Send an appeal

Posted on 2011-01-25

A working woman harassed, molested and forced to quit her job and then denied justice

January 18, 2011


Download the complete report

A working woman was harassed sexually in work place by her senior colleagues in Assam, India. The victim, a computer operator of a private company, was subjected to a prolonged harassment, molestation and attempted rape. No actions were taken on her complaint by the higher officials of the company. The accused used their positions to make sure that she submitted herself to them and never complained against them. The situation became unbearable and she was compelled to quit the job. The company, however, did not pay her dues. A criminal case was registered by the police but no visible actions were taken. There is strong apprehension that justice would be denied and she would be subjected to further harassment by police.

Identification of the alleged victim(s):

Name: Ms. Esther Vanlalruati

Address: Village: Hospital Veng,

Police Station: Darlawn

District: Aizwal

Sate: Mizoram, India

Identification of the alleged perpetrators of the violation;

Name: 1. Mr. Sandip Sarkar

Assistant Regional Manager

2. Mr. Rajeeb Nath

Address: Regional Office

Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Limited

Shyama Prasad Road,

Shillongpatti, Silchar

Assam, India

A Subsidiary of Rose Valley Group of Companies with Registered  and Head Office at RGM-25/3010, Raghunathpur, VIP Road, Kolkata – 700059, West Bengal, India

Name: 3. Mr. Puiya

Designation: Sub Inspector of Police

Address: Silchar Sadar Police Station

Cachar, Assam, India

Date and place of incident:

Date: From 18 November 2009 at 09:00 pm still continuing

Place: Aizwal in Mizoram, Bhaga and Silchar in Assam, India

A detailed description of the circumstances of the incident in which the alleged violation occurred:

According to information received by Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC), Ms. Esther Vanlalruati of village Hospital Veng under police station Darlawn in the district of Aizwal in Mizoram state, had been working as office assistant and computer operator in a company named Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Ltd, a subsidiary of Rose Valley Group of Companies with Registered and Head Office at RGM-25/3010, Raghunathpur, VIP Road, Kolkata – 700059, West Bengal, since December 2007. At first she was working at Aizwal Branch (which situates in Mizoram state of North East India). At that time, the Assistant Regional Manager Mr. Sandip Sarkar from regional office at Shyama Prasad Road, Shillongpatti, Silchar in Assam used to call Ms. Vanlalruati over the telephone often and would use sexually coloured language. In the like manner, he called her on 18 November 2009 at 09:00 pm and this time he directly demanded her sexual favours. But she refused outright and requested him never to use such language with her in future.

Mr. Sandip Sarkar, however, procured transfer of Ms. Vanlalruati to Bhaga Branch which is nearer to the regional office at Silchar (about 45 kms). Mr. Sarkar increased the frequency of his call to her and continued using unsolicited and sexually coloured languages including direct demand for sexual favours. Moreover, he started calling her friend and colleague Ms. Hellen Lalramnuami and would request her to influence Ms Vanlalruati into sexual submission to him.  It was impossible for them to avoid his call because he was their boss.

Another day Mr. Sarkar asked them to come at Silchar Branch at 4 pm with intention to make them stay for the night. When they told him that they would not be able to return because plying of buses from Silchar to Bhaga would stop after around 4pm, he offered them to stay at a hotel at Silchar. However, they refused.

Both Ms. Vanlalruati and Ms Lalramnuami complained to the Senior Marketing Member Mr. Mrinal Kanti Dutta about the harassment to which they were subjected by Mr. Sarkar. Mr. Dutta enquired into the matter. Instead of taking actions against the accused, Mr. Dutta and vigilance officer of the company requested the victims to forgive Mr. Sarkar for the sake of the company’s name and fame.

In order to teach a lesson to the victims and pressure them into submission, Mr. Sarkar kept Ms. Vanlalruati’s increment of salary pending by misusing his position. Then another official Mr. Rajeeb Nath also became an accomplice of Mr. Sarkar. Mr. Nath contacted Ms. Vanlalruati and told her that all her increment would be released and she would also be posted at her home town Aizwal provided that she submitted herself to the demand of Mr. Sarkar. But she refused. Since then both Mr. Sarkar and Mr. Nath continued harassing the ladies regularly over the telephone.

The situation gradually became unbearable to Ms. Vanlalruati and she decided to quit the job. She submitted her resignation letter on 02 November, 2010 to Mr. Jyoti Prasad Mohan, the regional manager to be effective from on 30 November, 2010. On 2 December, 2010 she went to the regional office at Silchar for final settlement of her salary and other dues including Employees Provident Fund, Human Resource Assistance etc.

When she reached the regional office at Silchar at around 12 noon, she found the Regional Manager out of station. The main accused Mr. Sandip Sarkar was in charge of the office. Mr. Sarkar intentionally kept her waiting outside his cabin until 2:30 pm. When she entered the cabin and took her seat, he called Mr. Rajeeb Nath over the phone and the latter immediately entered the cabin. Both of them then asked her to stay in a hotel and have sex with them. If she obliged all her problems would be resolved, they told her. Ms. Vanlalruati sternly rejected this proposal and got up from the chair. Suddenly both of them jumped on her and assaulted her physically. They tried to overpower her and rape her then and there. She gathered strength and started shouting. Other office bearers assembled at the noise. Nevertheless, both the accused somehow managed to escape. Ms. Vanlalruati claimed that Mr. Sandip Sarkar was pulling her shirt and while he escaped he took her gold chain worth Rupees 15000/- (fifteen thousand) along with the upper part of her shirt.

Ms. Esther Vanlalruati filed a complaint at Vairengte Police Station (PS) in Kolasib district, Mizoram. The officer in charge (OC) forwarded it to the Silchar Sadar Police Station on 3 December, 2010 and the OC of this PS registered it as Case No. 2254 under sections 342, 354, 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dated 4 December 2010 against Mr. Sandip Sarkar and Mr. Rajib Nath. Sub Inspector of police Mr. Puia was made the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case. The victim claimed that the IO did not show any interest in investigating the case after only recording the statement of the victim. According to her, he also started annoying them. He made several calls to her from various mobile numbers, but did not want to talk about the case or investigation. He continued to ask her whether she wanted to rejoin the company or she would join any other work. He expressed his readiness to help her in either way. He last made a call from mobile number +919435295037 to Ms. Vanlalruati’s mobile number +9197774782396 at 6.27pm on 18 January 2011. This overzealousness of the officer made the victim suspicious of his motive, who is only interested in getting justice.

Murder of Leela Begum and Subsequent Harassment of Her Mother

January 18, 2011

Murder of Leela Begum and Subsequent Displacement of Her Mother and Children with the Abetment of Police

A widow named Leela Begum of Pangram Part-IV under the jurisdiction of Udharbond police station, Assam was strangled to death on 8 Nov, 2007. Kabirun Nesa, the mother of the deceased, was warned of grave consequences that she will be killed if she files complaint with the police.

However on 14th Nov, 2007 Kabirun Nesa lodged a complaint with the chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar regarding the incident. The Court of CJM forwarded the complaint to Udharbond police station for registration of an FIR and investigation.

But the police did not respond. More over, Kabirun Nesa was driven away from the house of the deceased where she was staying and looking after the two minor children of the deceased. All of them now left the house to save their lives and was wandering here and there in the city of Silchar.

Members of Barak Human Rights Protection Committee met them and took them to the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, Cachar separately on 20 November, 2007. Both the officials were urged by the organization to provide the victim with safety and security and to rehabilitate them in their house as they were rendered shelter-less. The officials were also requested to arrest the accused of the said murder case expedite the investigation of the case. But till date no action has been taken towards enforcing the victim’s right to justice, truth, reparation and shelter. At the request of the organization a benevolent person of Madhurband, Silchar gave them temporary shelter.

Urgent Appeal: Extortion and Harassment of Victims of Domestic Violence by Police in Assam

June 3, 2010

URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Get Pdf version of the document

Urgent Appeal No. BHRPC/UA/21/210                    Dated: 02 June 2010

Dear Friends,

Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC) forwards this Urgent Appeal issued by Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) regarding an incident of extortion of money by police from a victim of domestic violence and harassment of social activists in Assam  and requests all to take appropriate actions.

Yours Sincerely

Waliullah Ahmed Laskar

15, Panjabari Road, Six Mile,

Guwahati-781037, Assam

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-075-2010

2 June 2010

——————————————————

INDIA: Police extort money from a victim of domestic violence in Assam

ISSUES: Violence against women; domestic violence; corruption; police inaction

——————————————————

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that police officers in Silchar Police Station, Assam allegedly harassed and threatened a victim of domestic violence in order to extort money from her, and neglected the investigation of her case. The victim’s father-in-law is a senior member of the District Bar Association and she has been unable to find legal support. Gender-based violence remains a major issue in India. The corruption, lack of professional conduct and lack of gender training among police officers adds another difficulty to the already almost insurmountable obstacles that victims face when pursuing redress.

CASE NARRATIVE:

According to the information we have received from the Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC), a human right organisation based in Assam, Ms. Sharmista Das was subjected to severe physical assault by her husband Mr. Rananjay Da and her in-laws.

Shamista’s husband left her and their two daughters on 3 September 2009; she and her mother have heard that he married another woman and went to live with her in Shillong, Meghalaya state. We are told that after her husband left, Sharmista’s in-laws continued to demand more dowry money and to ill-treat her. On 15 September they reportedly expelled her from her home, forcing her to abandon her belongings and wedding gifts, including jewellery, clothing, utensils and furniture. Sharmista and her two daughters then took shelter at her mother’s house.

On 3 November she registered a First Information Report (FIR) at the Silchar police station (Case No. 2126/2009) under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which criminalises the subjection of a woman to cruelty by her husband or his relatives. The officer in charge of the police station, Mr. S. K. Chauhan, reportedly demanded that the victim’s mother, Sima Dutta give him Rs. 5,000.00 (USD 100) before agreeing to investigate the case. He then arrested three of the accused: Sharmista’s father-in-law Mr.Rupendra Mohan Das alias Ratul Das, her mother-in-law Mrs. Mitra Das, and her sister-in-law’s husband Mr. Joydeep Roy Choudhury. However he failed to arrest Sharmista’ husband, the main accused. A female constable allegedly asked for Rs. 900 as remuneration for guarding Mitra Das for the night.

On 4 November the police produced the three accused before a local magistrate who remanded them to judicial custody. On 9 November they were released on bail following the filing of a charge sheet. According to the Indian law, once a charge sheet is filed in court, the prosecution proceedings against the accused begin in the judicial system. Nevertheless there has been a significant delay in initiating this step in the case. Such delay is common with the judicial system in India and often it takes two to three years for even the initial stages of a trial to begin in criminal cases, due to overwhelming case loads. At the time of writing this appeal, the court has not yet framed charges against the four accused and the trial has not begun.

On the same day the police also filed a charge sheet in which they accused Mr. Rananjay Das of being an absconder and avoiding the process of law. Yet the complainant has seen no evidence of a legitimate investigation, or attempt to find him.

Mrs. Dutta further reported that OC Chauhan demanded Rs. 1,200 (USD 25) as a bribe from her on 12 November, which she felt obligated to pay.

Given the lack of progress in this first case, on March 10, 2010, Sharmista filed another FIR in the same police station to recover the things she had had to leave at her home when she was expelled (Case No. 509/10 under Sections 379 and 406, IPC). She also filed an application to the District Magistrate for a search warrant of Rupendra Mohan Das’ and Joydeep Roy Choudhury’s houses (Case No. 155 M/2010, under section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973).

Sub-Inspector Narayan Tamuli is the Investigating Officer (IO) who was entrusted with the execution of the search warrant. When Sharmista and Mrs. Mithu Sen, a social activist, visited the police station on 17 March 2010 to enquire about the progress of the case, they report that OC Chauhan and SI Tamuli intimidated them into paying respectively Rs. 3,000 (USD 64) and Rs. 20,000 (USD 424) as bribes.

According to the victim, when she accompanied the SI to visit the house of her husband’s father Mr. Rupendra Mohan Das, the inspector did not attempt to recover the items listed in the search warrant, although she pointed them to him during the search. Instead the officer reportedly took a few items into his possession. Moreover we have been told that the police officer did not visit the other address mentioned in the search warrant.

On 20 March Sharmista returned to the police station accompanied by two social activists, Mithu Sen and Aleya Islam Laskar, to inquire about the progress of the investigation. According to their testimony, SI Tamuli demanded a further Rs. 50,000 (USD 1,060) from them and threatened them with dire consequences if they didn’t. They report being forcibly kept in detention for over two hours and were eventually released due to the intervention of persons contacted by the social activists.

According to the victim and the activists, Mr. Rupendra Mohan Das, Sharmista’s father-in-law, is an advocate and an influential senior member of the District Bar Association, Silchar, with strong connections with the local politicians. They believe this to be the reason that no advocate of the District Bar is willing to represent Sharmista in a trial against her in-laws. Members of BHRPC have also spoken with some advocates who, requesting anonymity, said that they are under severe pressure not to accept the brief against Das or any member of his family.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The demanding of bribes from complainants by police officers, sometimes by force or by threat, is frequently documented in India. Nevertheless, only a small percentage of such allegations are investigated, and when they are it is relatively rare for few sanctions to be effectively taken against perpetrators.

Also, according to the BHRPC, Officer Narayan Tamuli himself has been accused, along with two other police officers, of having tortured to death Motahir Ali (of Bhatgram Village under Katigorah Police Station) in Cachar, Assam on 21 September 2007. A departmental enquiry was conducted into the incident and the accused were placed under suspension, but then reinstated. This is despite a magisterial enquiry that concluded that: ‘the police of Kalain Out Post was pro-active on the brutalities inflicted on Motahir Ali simply for the reason that the deceased family could not afford payment of gratification beyond the reach of the poorest family.’

A case was also registered in the Assam Human Rights Commission regarding this incident, yet the accused have not been prosecuted, nor the victim’s family paid any kind of compensation or reparation.
That a police officer with such strong accusations against him was able to remain in full service reveals much about the extent of the impunity in the area. Please see our previous statement for a more detailed analysis of this gap between the extent of corruption in the police system and the limited number of cases effectively investigated.

As this case clearly shows, police officers continue to be encouraged by the lack of any negative consequence if caught violating the rights of civilians. It leaves those without money or influential connections extremely vulnerable, with their access to the justice system blocked.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Although criminalized by the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, the persistent practice of dowry payment remains emblematic of women’s inferior status in India, and is often a cause of extreme forms of gender-based violence. When this sum of money (given by the bride’s family to the groom’s family at the time of the wedding) is considered insufficient, the bride is often mentally and physically harassed by her in-laws. Too often this harassment can extend to the attempted burning murder of the woman. Indian Government statistics show that 8172 cases of so-called ‘dowry deaths’ were reported in 2008 among 81,344 cases of ‘cruelty by husband and relatives’.

It is extremely difficult for the victims of those prosecutions to find support in society, and to find access to effective remedies. The patriarchal structure and the dominating values of Indian society continue to protect and encourage gender-based violence and dowry harassment, and the functioning of the criminal justice system usually reflects the values and customs of a country. According to government statistics, in 2008 the conviction rate in the cases of dowry deaths was only 33% and 22% in the cases of ‘cruelty by husband and relatives’.

The social stigma against women who try to escape such persecutions also impacts on their ability to find redress in India’s corrupted criminal justice system, which tends to work only in favour of its most powerful social elements. The AHRC has reported numerous cases of dowry deaths in which the police simply refused to file the case, or later neglected the investigation because the husband belonged to a rich and influential family, or used the case to extract bribes from the victims and/or the accused. Please see our appeals: Failure of police investigation into alleged dowry death of a womanA failing criminal justice system betrays the poor in India, especially the women and Alleged police inaction into dowry death of a woman for examples of such cases.

To support this appeal please click here: 

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please join us in expressing your concern, and in asking for the thorough investigation of this case of corruption and domestic violence.

Please be informed that the AHRC will write a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences.

——————————————————

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear __________,

Dear ,

INDIA: Police extort money from a victim of domestic violence in Assam

Name of victim: Sharmista Das, resident of Narsing Road, Shibam Apartment Ground, Ambicapatty, Silchar, Cachar, Assam
Names of the perpetrators of domestic violence:
1. Mr. Rananjay Das alias Rupam Das, resident of Sri Sumit Endow, Moulavi Road, Ambicapatty; the victim’s husband
2. Sri Rupendra Mohan Das alias Ratul Das, the victim’s father-in-law
3. Mitra Das, the victim’s mother-in-law
4. Joydeep Roy Choudhury, the husband of the victim’s sister-in-law
Names of the police officers involved:
1. Mr. S K Chauhan, Officer-in Charge (OC)
2. Mr. Narayan Tamuli, Sub Inspector (SI) of Police
3. A female constable, name unknown.
All staff of of Silchar Sadar Police Station

Date of incident: Between 3 November, 2009 and 2 March 2010
Place of incident: Silchar Sadar Police Station, Cachar District, Assam

I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the case of Sharmista Das, a victim of domestic violence who was harassed by police officers who failed to investigate her case properly.

According to the information I have received from the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Sharmista Das and Mr. Rananjay Das got married in 2003. Considering the dowry she brought for her wedding as insufficient, the victim’s husband and his family started to physically and mentally abuse the young woman. The victim reports having frequently been subjected to ‘severe physical assault’. The victim’s husband left her and her two daughters on September 3, 2009.I am further informed that on September 15, 2009 Sharmista’s in-laws reportedly drove her away from her home, forcing her to abandon most of her possessions and wedding gifts, including jewellery, clothing, utensils, furniture, furnishings etc. Sharmista then took shelter at her mother’s house with her two daughters.

I am told that on November 3, 2009, she registered a First Information Report at the Silchar police station (Case No. 2126/2009 under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 yet police officers not only showed unwillingness to investigate the case properly, but extracted money illegally from the victim. First, the Officer in Charge of the police station, Mr. S K Chauhan, forced the victim’s mother, Sima Dutta, to give him Rs. 5000.00 before accepting to investigate the case and asked for additional Rs 1,200 on 12 November, which I am told she gave out of fear. I am moreover informed that a lady constable asked for Rs 900 to keep one of the accused for a night in detention.

Following the filing of the FIR, the police arrested three of the suspects: Sharmista’ father-in-law, her mother-in-law and the husband of her sister-in-law but they failed to arrest the main accused, her husband. According to Sharmista, the police did not carry the investigation properly actually neither did they try to arrest her husband. Nevertheless, in an attempt to justify their inaction, the police told the court that they could not arrest Mr. Rananjay Das and that he was avoiding the process of law.

Despite the filing of a charge sheet against the four accused on November 9, no prosecutions have taken place against them yet. According to the victim and local social activists, the victim’s father-in-law is an influential member of the District Bar Association, and the local lawyers have been under pressure not to represent Sharmista in a case against her in-laws.

I am aware that on March 10, 2010, Sharmista tried to recover the belongings she had to leave at her matrimonial house by filing another FIR in the same police station (Case No. 509/10). She also applied for a search warrant of Rupendra Mohan Das’ and Joydeep Roy Choudhury’s houses at the District Court magistrate on the same day. (Case No. 155 M/2010)

I am appalled to learn that the police officer who was made the investigating officer of the case, and entrusted with the execution of the search warrant, Sub-Inspector Narayan Tamuli, has been accused of having tortured to death a young man, Motahir Ali, in order to extract bribes from him. Although different inquiries were launched in the case and found him guilty, no sanctions were taken against this officer.

When Sharmista and Mrs. Mithu Sen, a social activist, visited the police station on 17 March 2010 to enquire about the progress of the case, they report that OIC Chauhan and SI Tamuli intimidated them into paying respectively Rs. 3,000 (USD 64) and Rs. 20,000 (USD 424) as bribes.

Furthermore, when Sharmista accompanied Narayan Tamuli to visit the house of her father-in-law, the inspector did not recover the items listed in the search warrant but reportedly took several miscellaneous items in his possession instead. It is further alleged that he did not visit the other address mentioned in the search warrant.

And worryingly, when, on March 20, Sharmista returned to the police station, accompanied by two social activists Mithu Sen and Aleya Islam Laskar, S. I. Tamuli reportedly forcibly kept them in detention for over two hours and threatened them, in order to get them to give him Rs. 50,000 as a bribe.
I consider Sharmista’s case to be a clear illustration of the damage done when a police officer is allowed to keep his position of power, despite strong accusations of corruption being taken against him or her.

It further highlights the advantage experienced by the wealthy and influential in distorted, corrupted policing system. Women victims of gender-based violence are often the most vulnerable, since they must defend their case while facing extreme social and systematic stigma; in most cases they do so in isolation and without resources.

Given the seriousness of the situation, I therefore urge the government of India to promptly ask for an impartial investigation – conducted by a police officer who do not belong to the same police station – into these allegations of corruption and intimidation, during which the officers involved should be removed from duty. If enough evidence is gathered, Mr. S K Chauhan and Mr. Narayan Tamuli must be prosecuted. In the meantime other police officers must be appointed to conduct the investigations into the cases filed by Sharmista, and execute the search warrants.

I also urge the authorities to provide Sharmista with the services of a lawyer of her choice, and to probe the allegations of pressure exerted by Ratul Das on the local lawyers. Adequate measures must be taken to guarantee the protection of Sharmista, her mother, other witnesses and her lawyers. The victim is entitled to compensation for the prejudices undergone; please ensure that these are swiftly processed.

I look forward to your intervention in this case,

Yours sincerely,
—————-

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Tarun Gogoi
Chief Minister of Assam
Assam Secretariat, Dispur
Guwahati-6, Assam
INDIA
Fax: +91 361 2262069

2. Ms. Krishna Tirath
Minister of State
Ministry of Women and Child Development
6th Floor, ‘A’ Wing
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001
INDIA
Fax: +91 11 23381495
Email: secy.wcd@nic.in

3. Chief Secretary
Assam Secretariat, Dispur
Guwahati-6, Assam
INDIA
Fax: +91 361 2260900
Email: psccy_it@assam.nic.in

4. Director General of Police
Assam, Ulubari
Guwahati-7, Assam
INDIA

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

URL of the Appeal: http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2010/3466/

URL of the automatic system to send the appeal: http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/support.php?ua=UAC-075-2010

Brief Summery of the BHRPC Report on Sharmista Case

May 25, 2010

Brief Summery of

The BHRPC Fact-finding Report

on Incidents of Extortion and Harassment of a Victim of Domestic Violence by Police in Silchar

BHRPC Ref. No. …………….                                                                            Date………………….

Report in Portabel Document Format (pdf)

Assam police in India extorted a victim of domestic violence and harassed her mother and other two social activists for bribes. Instead of investigating the complaints filed by the victim police in the Silchar Sadar Police Station (PS) in the district of Cachar, Assam, threatened and harassed them while shielding the accused.

Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC) received information that the Officer-in Charge (OC) of the Silchar Police Station Mr. S K Chauhan and Sub Inspector (SI) of police Mr. Narayan Tamuli forced Sharmista Das, daughter of Late Rishikesh Dutta, resident of Narsing Road, Shibam Apartment Ground, Ambicapatty, Silchar, Cachar, Assam, and her mother Sima Dutta to pay them Indian rupees 30,100.00 (thirty thousand and one hundred) and attempted to get another Rs. 50,000.00 (fifty thousand) by virtual detention and threat of dire consequences between 3 November, 2009 and 2 March, 2010.

Sharmista Das was married to Mr. Rananjay Das alias Rupam Das, S/o Sri Rupendra Mohan Das alias Ratul Das, resident of Sri Sumit Endow, Moulavi Road, Ambicapatty, under Silchar police station in Cachar, on 22 January, 2003 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. According to her, her husband and in-laws were not satisfied with her as she did not brought ‘enough’ dowry to her matrimonial house. They started demanding huge amount of money from her which she was unable to meet. Consequently they started abusing and ill-treating her. They even frequently subjected her to severe physical assault, she alleged. In the meantime she was blessed with two daughters. Ultimately her husband left her alone with the kids on 3 September, 2009. Since then there was no communication from his side. But Sharmista and her mother claimed that they had information that he married another girl and he was staying with her in Shillong, Meghalaya.

She stated that after her husband had disappeared the in-laws started demanding dowry and ill treating her afresh. At last they drove her away from her matrimonial house on 15 November, 2009 forcibly robbing her of all jewellery and other necessary items. She took shelter at her mother’s house with her two daughters.

She eventually on 3 November, 2009 filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws hoping for justice for wrongs done to her. On the basis of the complaint a First Information Report (FIR) was registered in the Silchar police station vide Silchar PS Case No. 2126/2009 dated 3 November, 2009 under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Instead of investigating the case, Mr. S K Chauhan, the OC of the PS, started demanding bribes. At first Mrs. Sima Dutta was forced to pay him Rs. 5000.00 (five thousand) that day otherwise the OC refused to investigate the case. The OC then arrested all the accused except the prime accused Mr. Rananjay Das. Mrs. Dutta had to pay another sum of Rs. 900.00 (nine hundred) to a lady constable. They revealed that the constable demanded the payment as remuneration for guarding the lady accused Mitra Das for the night. Showing the main accused Mr. Rananjay Das as an absconder the police filed charge sheet in the court on 9 November, 2009. Sharmista claimed that the police did not investigated the case properly and did not exercised due diligence and wilfully neglected the arrest of accused No. 1. The OC also took another sum of Rs. 1,200.00 from Mrs Dutta on 12 November, 2009 which she paid for fear of attracting wrath of the OC, she claimed.

Sharmista stated that when she was driven away from her matrimonial house she left there hundreds of items that she received as her wedding gifts. These were the items of jewellery, apparels, utensils, furniture, furnishings etc. She filed a complaint on 10 March, 2010 to recover these things. The case was registered as Silchar PS Case No. 509/10 under sections 379 and 406, IPC. She also filed another application in the court district magistrate for a search warrant under section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) vide Case No. 155 M/2010. SI Narayan Tamuli was made the Investigating Officer (IO) of the police case and he was also entrusted with the execution of the search warrant. Sharmista and Mrs Mithu Sen, a social activist, visited the police station on 17 March, 2010 to enquire about the investigation of the case and the execution of the search warrant. They paid Rs. 3000.00 (three thousand) and Rs. 20,000.00 (twenty thousand) to Mr. S K Chauhan and Nrayan Tamuli respectively under threat.

Sharmista alleged that S. I. Narayan Tamuli visited the house of Shri Rupendra Mohan Das at Moulavi Road, Ambicapatty, Silchar accompanied by her to execute the search warrant. He did not recover the items listed in the search warrant which she had shown there. Instead, he bullied her and took a few insignificant items as the accused were pleased to allow him. He never visited the other address mentioned in the search warrant.

So, she along with Mithu Sen and Aleya Islam Laskar, another social activist, visited the police station at 12 noon on 20 March, 2010 to know about the progress of the investigation relating to her complaints, S. I. Narayan Tamuli demanded Rs. 50,000.00 (fifty thousand) from them. They stated that Mr. S. K. Chauhan abused and threatened them with dire consequences and forcibly kept them in detention for over two hours in order to force them to pay the amount demanded by Mr. Tamuli. They could come out from the police station because the activists had connections.

Corruption of this magnitude and brutality with impunity is easily understandable for a person who knows that Mr. Narayan Tamuli himself is accused No. 1 in a case of murder for bribes. It is Katigorah P S Case No. 484/07 under sections 302 and 34 of the IPC where SI Narayan Tamuli, ASI Promod Nath and Constable Ramzan Hussain Choudhury were charged with causing death by torture of Motahir Ali of village Bhatgram under Katigorah police station in Cachar, Assam on 21 September, 2007. A departmental enquiry was conducted into the incident by R C Tayal, IPS, Inspector General of Police on 22 September, 2007. The accused were placed under suspension on 11 March, 2008 vide D. O. No. 703 dated 21 March, 2008 and then reinstated. A magisterial enquiry was also conducted vide No. MISC. CASE.1/2007/28 dated 9 April, 2008. This enquiry unequivocally concluded that ‘the police of Kalain Out Post was pro-active on the brutalities inflicted on Late Motahir Ali simply for the reason that the deceased family could not afford payment of gratification beyond the reach of the poorest family.’ A case was also registered in the Assam Human Rights Commission regarding this incident vide AHRC Case No. 6404/2007. But till date neither the accused were prosecuted nor the family of the deceased was adequate compensation or any other type of reparation. That much paper work was made possible by the support of the people to the efforts of BHRPC.

In the present case, it is also notable that Mr. Rupendra Mohan Das, the father-in-law of Sharmista is an advocate and a very influential senior member of the District Bar Association, Silchar, Assam. He is also well connected with the big politicians of Barak valley, the southern part of Assam. Sharmista, her mother and the two social activists stated that no advocate of the District Bar is willing to represent Sharmista. Members of BHRPC also talked with some advocates who, requesting anonymity, told that they are under severe pressure not to take brief against Rupendra Mohan das or any member of his family. They did not want to risk their life and career.

Neharul Ahmed Mazumder

Secretary General

BHRPC