22.08.2007 - Source: BBC News

Former cabinet minister Shibu Soren, jailed for life for murdering his aide, is acquitted on appeal ("Ex-minister acquitted of murder") [ID 21039]

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Fair Public Trial & Trial Procedures ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19210]

"The law provides for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected this provision in practice; however, serious problems remained. In Jammu and Kashmir, members of the judiciary were subject to threats and intimidation by insurgents and terrorists. The judicial system is headed by a Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over constitutional issues, and includes the court of appeals and lower courts. Lower courts hear criminal and civil cases and send appeals to the court of appeals. The president appoints judges, who may serve until the age of 62 on state high courts and 65 on the Supreme Court. The criminal procedure code provides that trials be conducted publicly, except in proceedings involving official secrets, trials in which statements prejudicial to the safety of the state might be made, or under provisions of special security legislation. Sentences must be announced publicly, and defendants have the right to choose counsel independent of the government. There are effective channels for appeal at most levels of the judicial system, and the state provides free legal counsel to indigent defendants. Defendants were allowed access to relevant government-held evidence in most civil and criminal cases; however, the government had the right to withhold information and did so in cases it considered sensitive. In 2003 the Delhi High Court issued new witness protection guidelines to reduce the number of witnesses who recanted their testimony under threat from defendants. NGOs reported that the guidelines were not effective, and many demanded a central law on witness protection. Under these guidelines, witnesses could apply to the Member-Secretary of the Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for protection. Such recommendations are sent to the Legal cell of the Delhi police, who in turn informs the concerned districts. However, only six recommendations were forwarded to the Delhi police by the DLSA in one year due to lack of police resources. High-profile guilty verdicts involving powerful elites accused of murder, such as Manu Sharma or Santosh Singh, were reached based largely on the testimony of witnesses."

Document(s): Open document

13.12.2006 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Arbitrary arrest, illegal detention and torture ("SAARC Human Rights Report 2006") [ID 18216]

"Cases of arbitrary arrest, illegal detention and torture of detainees were consistently reported from across the country. The complaints included arbitrary detention and torture by application of electric shock to a tea vendor, Sami Akhtar at Mayur Vihar Phase-II in Delhi on the night of 17 February 2005;[61] torture of Rajpal Singh by Delhi police at Bhati Mines police post of Mehruli on 19 September 2005;[62] beating of one Dinesh by Line Par Police Station House Officer Virender Singh in Bahadurgarh town in Jhajjar district of Haryana on 15 October 2005;[63] and beating of Showkat Ahmad Shalla at Nawa Kadal in Jammu and Kashmir on 27 June 2005.[64] In several cases, torture of the victims was confirmed by medical reports. Medical test conducted by the Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital in Delhi reportedly confirmed the presence of burn marks and physical injuries on Raju and Titoo of Palam Colony, who were tortured after being picked up by the police from Dabri in southwest Delhi on 30 August 2005.[65] The armed forces were also responsible for torture, including of Mohammad Lateef Mir by the security forces of Bonora camp in Pulwama district of Jammu and Kashmir on the intervening night of 23 and 24 January 2005;[66] Hemin Khongsai and Manginlun Thangsing by the 14th Assam Rifles at Kangpokpi area in Manipur in February 2005;[67] Jitul Saikia and Nripen Saikia at Biyakorua village under Merapani police station in Golaghat district of Assam in May 2005;[68] Alok Basumatary, president of Jharbari unit of All Boro Students' Union by the army personnel of Jharbari in Kokrajhar, Assam on 4 May 2005;[69] and torture of 50-year-old mentally challenged Okram Kunjabihari of Nambol Kha-jiri Mamang Leikai in Manipur by the personnel of the 22 Maratha Light Infantry on 21 May 2005.[70] The armed forces desployed in armed conflict situations rarely admitted arrests of innocent persons and suspects. On 7 March 2005, Tongbram Ibungomcha Singh of Thanga along with four others was picked up by four Assam Rifles personnel without issuing arrest memo from Phumlou area of Bishnupur district in Manipur. Following the Manipur State Human Rights Commission's intervention, the Officer- in-Charge of Lamshang police station, after investigation, confirmed that Tongbram Ibungomcha Singh was under the custody of the Assam Rifles till 24 March 2005 while other four were released on different dates.[71]"

Document(s): Open document

06.12.2006 - Source: Amnesty International

Execution of Mohammad Afzal stayed following the filing of a mercy petition by his wife; Afzal also filed separate mercy petition, on the grounds that he did not receive a fair trial ("Further Information on Urgent Action 260/06 (ASA 20/027/2006, 29 September 2006) [ASA 20/033/2006]") [ID 18105]

Document(s): Open document

03.04.2006 - Source: BBC News

Former policeman sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for raping teenager in Bombay ("Ex-officer jailed for Mumbai rape") [#48124],  [ID 6410]

Document(s): Open document

12.03.2006 - Source: BBC News

2 men, who were wrongly detained over recent bomb attacks on the holy city of Varanasi, freed by police ("Varanasi bomb 'suspects' freed") [#46350],  [ID 6411]

Document(s): Open document

14.02.2006 - Source: Guardian

70-year-old man freed on bail after 38 years in jail without charges; he never faced trial for allegedly murdering his sister-in-law because his records were lost ("Lost inmate freed after 38 years without charge") [#43975],  [ID 6412]

Document(s): Open document

18.11.2005 - Source: BBC News

Punjab: 6 policemen convicted of abducting and killing leading human rights activist in 1995 ("'Police guilty' in Punjab killing") [#39462],  [ID 6413]

Document(s): Open document

25.10.2005 - Source: BBC News

108 people acquitted over killing of 2 Muslims during religious violence in Gujarat in 2002 ("India court acquits 108 over riot") [#38324],  [ID 6414]

Document(s): Open document

16.08.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

21 years after violence against Sikhs in Delhi in 1984, victims of riots face further delays to justice; similar pattern of delays to justice and impunity for perpetrators exists for other large scale incidents of human rights violations in the country ("Victims of anti-Sikh riots face further delays") [#35453],  [ID 6415]

Document(s): Open document

08.2005 - Source: Freedom House

Annual survey of political rights and civil liberties 2004 ("Freedom in the World 2005") [#41316],  [ID 6416]

"[...]The judiciary is independent of the executive. Judges have exercised unprecedented activism in response to public interest litigation over official corruption, environmental issues, and other matters. However, in recent years, courts have initiated several contempt-of-court cases against activists and journalists, raising questions about their misuse of the law to intimidate those who expose the behavior of corrupt judges or who question their verdicts. Corruption in the judiciary is reportedly rife, and access to justice by the socially and economically marginalized sections of society remains limited. The court system is severely backlogged and understaffed, which results in the detention of a large number of persons who are awaiting trial. In April 2003, the government-appointed Malimath Committee recommended an overhaul of the Indian criminal justice system. However, rights groups expressed concern that its proposals would weaken the rights of the accused and of women while increasing the power of judges and the police.[...]"

Document(s): Open document

24.03.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

There are concerns over the continuing failure of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to bring to justice those responsible for the death of human rights lawyer, Jalil Andrabi, 9 years ago ("Nine years after Jalil Andrabi's death perpetrators still free") [#30590],  [ID 6417]

Document(s): Open document

27.01.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Report focused on failures of the Gujarat state to prevent grave human rights abuses perpetrated against women (violence against women, justice, state responsibility for abuses by private actors, areas of state failings) ("Justice, the victim - Gujarat state fails to protect women from violence (Summary Report)") [#28565],  [ID 6418]

Document(s): Open document

13.01.2005 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Annual report on human rights situation in 2004 ("World report 2005") [#28211],  [ID 6419]

"[...]The Indian Supreme Court has already ordered two Gujarat cases to be retried in another state. The criminal justice system in Gujarat, the Supreme Court concluded, had been “abused, misused and mutilated by subterfuge.” Human rights activists and lawyers have petitioned for fresh investigations and trials in a number of cases where it was felt that the local courts, prosecutors and police were hostile to Muslim complainants. Despite these positive developments, rights activists in Gujarat continue to be harassed on the basis of what police claim are their “anti-national activities.” Witnesses, however, remain vulnerable to threats. [...]"

Document(s): Open document

17.11.2004 - Source: South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre

Report on the need of protection to defence witnesses who are likely to be intimidated at the hands of the State ("Justice At Risk: The Need for a Witness Protection Programme in India (HRF/108/04)") [#27787],  [ID 6420]

Document(s): Open document
Open document

12.10.2004 - Source: South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Ordinance contains notable improvements to the POTA, but also include verbatim provisions from the POTA that were repeatedly misused and adds provisions which further erode the rights of the accused ("The Reincarnation of POTA - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Ordinance is POTA’s Second Coming [HRF/106/04]") [#26387],  [ID 6421]

"[...]
Under POTA suspects could be detained for up to 180 days without charge. The Ordinance has done away with this provision to bring the period of allowable detention in line with Section 167(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates that all arrested persons have to be produced within 24 hours. Suspects are now also entitled to apply for bail, in accordance with the Code. This was only permissible under POTA after one year.

The provisions under POTA had been the cause of egregious misuse by way of interrogations that amounted to torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Further, any confessions made under interrogation would be admissible as evidence in court. This combined to inadvertently (or otherwise) condone the use of torture, now a well-documented consequence of the use of POTA. Despite the reticence of the newly elected United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government to signal a sincere commitment to abolishing torture in India by ratifying the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), the repeal of the admissibility of confessions, in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act, is welcomed. The obligation to furnish any information to “any officer” under POTA has also been revoked.

The reversal of the burden of proof to rest on the prosecution is equally significant. POTA had so reduced the credibility of India’s criminal justice system that the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence was inverted, so that ‘adverse inference’ could be drawn against the accused in the rendering of financial assistance or the refusal to provide samples, despite there being legitimate reasons for doing so. In reversing the burden of proof back to the prosecution, the Ordinance appears to restore a semblance of legitimacy to Indian criminal justice. However, the Ordinance has not yet fully restored the presumption of innocence. It provides that preclusion from prosecution on account of “membership” is only possible if the accused is able to prove “that the organisation was not declared as a terrorist organisation when he became a member or began to profess to be a member”.

The independence of the judiciary has also been restored with the disposal of POTA’s Special Courts. Under POTA, the referral of the Special Court’s jurisdiction to the central government was permitted, as well as the entitlement to conduct proceedings in any place of the Court’s choosing. The reversion to established criminal procedure strengthens the prospects of due process and fair trial.

Finally, the Ordinance has added clarifications to the wording of certain provisions. This includes the requirement that “intent to further the activity of a terrorist organisation” in the arrangement or addressing of meetings, or “intent to aid any terrorist” in the possession of unauthorised firearms, must be established. This mens rea component, omitted from all corresponding sections of POTA, is a prerequisite principle of criminal law. However, this necessary criminal intent has not been applied consistently throughout the Ordinance, as shall be shown below.
[...]"

Document(s): Open document
Open document

10.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

Detention ("Country Report - October 2004") [#28325],  [ID 6422]

"[...]6.241 According to the US Department of State report 2003 (USSD), “Human rights groups maintained that in Jammu and Kashmir and in the northeastern states, several hundred persons were held by the military and paramilitary forces in long-term unacknowledged detention in interrogation centres and transit camps that nominally were intended only for short-term confinement. Human rights groups feared that many of these unacknowledged prisoners are subject to torture and extra-judicial killing.” [2c](p7)

6.242 According to the USSD 2003, “The Government maintained that screening committees administered by the state governments provided information about detainees to their families. However, other sources indicate that families are able to confirm the detention of their relatives only by bribing prison guards. In November 2002 the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir responded to this problem by installing a screening system to review old detention cases and released numerous detainees…In June [2003] 92 persons were released under the state’s 1978 Public Safety Act.” [2c](p7) The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office in its 2003 annual report on human rights, welcomed the commitment of the State government in its review of cases of detainees held for long periods without trial and the release of those held on non-specific or less serious charges. [7b] (p.136) However, Amnesty International (AI) in an open letter to the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir (dated 2 December 2003), did not consider that the State government had done enough to address the problem of detainees and noted that the screening committee had released only a few political prisoners because the committee had failed to meet consistently throughout the year (2003). AI also expressed concerns about the make up of the committee, after it was announced that the committee would include an officer of the Union Ministry for Home Affairs, thereby changing the nature of the screening whereby the central government was able to determine which candidates were released. [3l] (p.2)

6.243 As noted in the USSD 2003, “A program of prison visits by the ICRC was designed in part to help assure communications between detainees and their families. According to the Home Ministry’s annual report, the ICRC visited 53 detention centers and over 7 thousand detainees during the year, including all acknowledged detention centers in Jammu and Kashmir, and Kashmiris held elsewhere in the country... During the year [2003] the ICRC stated that it continued to encounter difficulties in maintaining systematic access to people detained in Jammu and Kashmir.”[2c](p12) 6.244 Amnesty International (AI) in an open letter to the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, dated 2 December 2003, expressed concern about the “scores” of people who continued to be held under Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) (2002) powers. AI welcomed the fact that POTA powers had not been used to arrest Kashmiris during 2003, but pointed out that the detainees were being arbitrarily detained in violation of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. AI also considered that the state government had failed to live up to an election commitment to release a large number of detainees being held outside Jammu and Kashmir. AI noted that detention outside of Jammu and Kashmir was in violation of the amendments to the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA) which provides that Kashmiris cannot be detained outside the state. In addition, those detained under Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, (TADA) which was enforced in the state in 1987, continue to be behind bars even though the law lapsed in Jammu and Kashmir in 1995. TADA continues to be applied retrospectively in the state. [3l] (p.1-2) [...]"

Document(s): Open document

09.07.2004 - Source: BBC News

Maharashtra: A Bombay court has sentenced 11 people, including a Pakistani national, to life in jail for carrying out a series of bomb blasts six years ago ("Life sentence for Bombay bombers") [#23906],  [ID 6423]

Document(s): Open document

26.05.2004 - Source: Amnesty International

Annual Report 2004 (covering 2003) ("Annual Report 2004") [#22668],  [ID 6424]

"Discrimination

Socially and economically marginalized groups, such as dalits, adivasis, women and religious minorities, including Muslims, continued to face discrimination at the hands of the police, the criminal justice system and non-state actors.

In April a government-appointed committee under the direction of Justice Malimath published its recommendations for reforms of the criminal justice system in India. There were concerns that the Committee’s recommendations threatened to weaken protection of women’s rights in law. For example the Committee recommended that in cases where the offence of cruelty is committed against a woman by her husband or his relatives, it should be possible to settle the case out of court and bail should be available to the accused. The Committee’s reasoning for this proposal was that it would facilitate forgivenessof the husband and the return of the woman to the matrimonial home.

The Malimath Committee was silent on issues related to protecting the rights of the poor, dalits, ethnic and religious minorities and other disadvantaged communities who face daily abuse and violence. The criminalization of poverty coupled with the complete inability of the poor to negotiate the criminal justice system and retain competent legal counsel, remained a major human rights problem as such individuals were at risk of mistreatment without redress."

Document(s): Open document
Open document

24.05.2004 - Source: US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants

Annual report on conditions affecting refugees and asylum seekers in 2003 ("World Refugee Survey 2004") [#22816],  [ID 6425]

"In 2003, sporadic violence and looting continued in Gujarat. Dominant castes and non-Muslims seized Muslim land following the 2002 riots.

The federal and state governments provided inadequate protection, assistance, and compensation to the displaced, most Muslims. Individuals released on bail from charges arising from the 2002 riots pressured displaced people to withdraw cases against them, threatening to use force to prevent them from returning to their homes."

Document(s): Open document

04.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

UK Home Office: Legal Aid ("Country Report - April 2004") [#22427],  [ID 6426]

"5.15 According to a United Nations report dated 17 June 1996, Free legal services are available for those on low income. Legal aid is available for fees incurred in legal proceedings, representations by a legal practitioner, obtaining certified copies of legal documents, and preparation of appeal papers. [6a](p17-18)"

Document(s): Open document

04.03.2004 - Source: UN Human Rights Council (formerly UN Commission on Human Rights)

Report containing summaries of urgent appeals and communications concerning the independence of the judiciary, administration of justice and impunity ("Civil and political rights including the question of: Independence of the judiciary, administration of justice, impunity; report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy, submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 2003/43; Addendum: Situations in specific countries or territories [E/CN.4/2004/60/Add.1]") [#20570],  [ID 6427]

Document(s): Open document

25.02.2004 - Source: US Department of State

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003 ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003") [#19765],  [ID 6428]

"The Constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention; however, in areas where there are separatist insurgencies, the Government did not observe these prohibitions. [...]

The Constitution provides that detainees have the right to be informed of the grounds for their arrest, to be represented by legal counsel, and, unless held under a preventive detention law, to be arraigned within 24 hours of arrest, at which time the accused must either be remanded for further investigation or released. However, thousands of criminal suspects remained in detention without charge. Detention conditions remained poor.

The Constitution provides that arrested persons have the right to be released on bail. The police must file charges within 60 to 90 days of arrest; if they fail to do so, court approval of a bail application becomes mandatory. In most cases, bail was set between $11.00 ($500 Rs) and $4,000 ($200,000 Rs). [...]

The court system was extremely overloaded, resulting in the detention of thousands of persons awaiting trial for periods longer than they would receive if convicted. Prisoners were held for months or even years before obtaining a trial date. As of July 2002, there reportedly was a backlog of over 13 million cases in the lower courts, while high courts had a backlog of 3.5 million cases. The Supreme Court had 23,000 pending cases. The NHRC reported that 75 percent of the country's total inmates were unconvicted prisoners awaiting completion of trial.

Several detainees complained to government officials that they were detained without charge, some for many months, while police investigated their connection with Naxalites. In August, the NHRC reported that it had issued notice to the Orissa and Andhra Pradesh Government to order an investigation into the large numbers of innocent people arrested by local police on suspicion of being Naxalites.

In 2000, the Government announced that it would fund the creation of 1,734 additional courts during 2000-2005. At year's end, 1,205 of these courts had been set up.

There were no political detainees reported during the year. [...]

The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary, and the Government generally respected this provision in practice; however, serious problems remained. The judiciary was backlogged and understaffed in most parts of the country, and in Jammu and Kashmir, the judiciary has long been subject to threats and intimidation by guerillas and by security forces to obey court orders. [...]

The judicial system was extremely overburdened. In general, the judiciary enforced the right to a fair trail; however, there was a large backlog of cases, and as a result, some courts barely functioned. The Criminal Procedure Code provides that trials be conducted publicly in most cases, but it allows exceptions in proceedings involving official secrets, trials in which statements prejudicial to the safety of the State might be made, or under provisions of special security legislation. Sentences must be announced publicly. Defendants have the right to choose counsel independent of the Government. There were effective channels for appeal at most levels of the judicial system, and the State provides free legal counsel to indigent defendants. [...]

In Jammu and Kashmir, the judicial system barely functioned due to threats by militants against judges, witnesses, and their family members; because of judicial tolerance of the Government's heavy-handed antimilitant actions; and because of the frequent refusal by security forces to obey court orders. Jammu and Kashmir were reluctant to hear cases involving terrorist crimes and failed to act expeditiously on habeas corpus cases, if they acted at all. There were a few convictions of alleged terrorists in the Jammu High Court during the year; many more accused militants had been in pretrial detention for years. The number of militants in pretrial detention is in the hundreds; however, the exact number is unknown. During the year, the Government announced plans to release 274 such detainees, as a result of court orders. By year's end, only 24 militants had been released under instructions of the government-appointed Review Committee.

Criminal gangs in all four southern states were known to attack rivals and deny free access to justice. In some cases, accused persons were attacked while being escorted by police to the courts.

To remedy the severe overcrowding in the judicial system, the Government asked the government-appointed Malimath Committee to identify possible improvement. In April, AI reported that the recommendations of the Malimath Committee "represent an extremely narrow interpretation of the problems which ail the system and a set of solutions which ignore fundamental human rights safeguards." Further, AI believes "the reports recommendations will increase the risk of torture for those in police detention, severely weakening safeguards for fair trial and reduce legal protections for women."

The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Independence of the Judiciary was not invited to visit the country during the year.

There were no reports of political prisoners.

[...]In the northeastern states, the Government was unable to provide complete statistics for the number of persons held under special security laws, but acknowledged that 43 persons were in detention under the National Security Act as of 1998. Although the Government allowed the Terrorist and Disruptive Practices (Prevention) Act (TADA) to lapse in 1995, one human rights organization credibly reported in 2002 that more than 1,000 persons remained in detention awaiting prosecution under the law, and cases opened under TADA continued through the judicial system. Several thousand others are held in short-term (1-day to 6 months' duration) confinement in transit and interrogation centers. [...] Human rights groups maintained that in Jammu and Kashmir and in the northeastern states, several hundred persons were held by the military and paramilitary forces in long term unacknowledged detention in interrogation centers and transit camps that nominally were intended only for short term confinement. Human rights groups feared that many of these unacknowledged prisoners were subjected to torture and extrajudicial killing (see Sections 1.a. and 1.c.).
[...]The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) claimed to be pursuing actively charges against dozens of police officials implicated in the "mass cremations" in which police in Amritsar, Patti, and Tarn Taran district secretly disposed of approximately 2,000 bodies of suspected militants. The militants were believed to have been abducted, extrajudicially executed, and cremated without the knowledge or consent of their families.[...]"

Document(s): Open document

25.02.2004 - Source: US Department of State

USDOS: Arbitray Arrest ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003") [#19765],  [ID 6429]

"The Constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention; however, in areas where there are separatist insurgencies, the Government did not observe these prohibitions.[...]
The Constitution provides that detainees have the right to be informed of the grounds for their arrest, to be represented by legal counsel, and, unless held under a preventive detention law, to be arraigned within 24 hours of arrest, at which time the accused must either be remanded for further investigation or released. However, thousands of criminal suspects remained in detention without charge. Detention conditions remained poor. [...]
The Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), enacted in March 2002, replaced the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) in 2001. POTA allows for the detention without charge for 3 months, and 3 more months if allowed by a special judge, deems not disclosing information to the authorities about terrorist activities an offense, and provides extensive new powers to ban organizations and seize their assets. The act is similar to TADA in its provisions for detentions, summary trials, and the use of testimony obtained under duress. In addition, POTA provides for special courts to try offenses, places the burden of proof at the bail stage on the accused, allows confessions made to a police officer admissible as evidence, extends the period of remand from 15 to 60 days, and sets mandatory sentences for terrorism-related offenses. [...]
In December, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the POTA and held that journalists and lawyers have no right to withhold information regarding a crime under the pretext of professional ethics. The court also ruled that under POTA mere "moral support" for a terrorist organization did not constitute an offence under the Act. Despite this ruling, POTA was used to arrest members of various organizations and opposition political parties on charges of publicly expressing support for the banned LTTE terrorist group.[...]
In March, the Government issued a directive to form a POTA review committee to examine the use of the law in various states and prepare a report of findings and recommendations. In October, the government gave statutory powers to the POTA Review Committee for redress of complaints by individuals. The POTA Review Committee reviewed cases, and its findings were binding on the government and interrogating police officers. The Committee had not issued a final report by year's end. [...]
The court system was extremely overloaded, resulting in the detention of thousands of persons awaiting trial for periods longer than they would receive if convicted. Prisoners were held for months or even years before obtaining a trial date. As of July 2002, there reportedly was a backlog of over 13 million cases in the lower courts, while high courts had a backlog of 3.5 million cases. The Supreme Court had 23,000 pending cases. The NHRC reported that 75 percent of the country's total inmates were unconvicted prisoners awaiting completion of trial.

Several detainees complained to government officials that they were detained without charge, some for many months, while police investigated their connection with Naxalites. In August, the NHRC reported that it had issued notice to the Orissa and Andhra Pradesh Government to order an investigation into the large numbers of innocent people arrested by local police on suspicion of being Naxalites.
[...]"

Document(s): Open document

19.01.2004 - Source: BBC News

India's Supreme Court has halted death sentences against two people convicted of the 2001 attack on the parliament ("Indian court suspends executions") [#18820],  [ID 6430]

Document(s): Open document

25.11.2003 - Source: BBC News

Gujarat: 12 Hindus have been given life prison sentences for killing Muslims in religious riots last year ("Life in prison for Gujarat guilty") [#17875],  [ID 6431]

Document(s): Open document

10.11.2003 - Source: BBC News

India's Supreme Court has halted an order to arrest six journalists, five of whom work for one of the country's most respected newspapers The Hindu ("Court win for Indian journalists") [#17496],  [ID 6432]

Document(s): Open document

06.11.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Report presenting well-founded reports of the use of arbitrary and illegal detention by Crime Branch police in Ahmedabad in the past year ("India: Abuse of the law in Gujarat: Muslims detained illegally in Ahmedabad") [#17350],  [ID 6433]

"[...] Another important responsibility of judges is to ensure that statements extracted under torture or ill-treatment are not invoked as evidence in court proceedings, in line with international standards. Under section 32(4) of POTA, a person from whom a confession has been recorded under sub-section (1), shall be produced before the Court of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate along with the original statement of confession, written or recorded on mechanical or electronic device within forty-eight hours. Sub-section (5) further states that "… if there is any complaint of torture, such person shall be directed to be produced for medical examination before a Medical Officer not lower in rank than an Assistant Civil Surgeon and thereafter, he shall be sent to judicial custody."

International human rights standards are clear that no-one should be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt (Article 14(g) of the ICCPR). Article 15 of the Convention against Torture states that


"Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made."

In addition, the Special Rapporteur on Torture has recommended that

"where allegations of torture or other forms of ill-treatment are raised by a defendant during trial, the burden of proof should shift to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained by unlawful means, including torture or similar ill-treatment".(21) [...]"

Document(s): Open document
Open document

19.09.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Report commenting on the report of the Malimath Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System ("Report of the Malimath Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System: Some observations") [#16255],  [ID 6434]

"The Criminalisation of Poverty, the Poor and Legal Aid
The criminalisation of poverty coupled with the complete inability of the poor to negotiate the criminal justice system is a major human rights crisis. For instance, the laws relating to beggary and vagrancy and the bias against the poor render at least 200 million people across India, a large number of them being homeless or destitute, vulnerable to threats, harassment and outright criminalisation.(17)

Once the poor enter the criminal justice system the severe crisis in India's legal aid system ensures that they stay in there despite the right to legal aid enshrined in Article 39A of the Constitution. Even though the judiciary has read the right to legal aid as forming part of the fundamental right to life and used Article 39A to define its scope and content,(18) the access to quality legal aid has by and large remained a pipe dream for the poor and marginalised who enter the criminal justice system in large numbers.

Legal aid is a severely underdeveloped component of the Indian legal system and in dire need of reform. There is no system of legal counselling in police stations or prisons and the rules do not give the accused the choice of a lawyer or provide for a change of lawyer if the accused is not satisfied.(19) The fees provided for by most states are extremely low and never attract competent lawyers to offer their services.(20)

It also needs to be stressed that legal aid is an issue of extreme importance not just to the poor but also for other groups who are vulnerable such as undertrials, those in preventive detention, sex workers and the mentally ill, just to name a few."

Document(s): Open document
Open document

05.09.2003 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Gujarat: 3 activists harassed and intimidated for their efforts to protect witnesses to last year's massacres ("India: Protect Gujarat Activists Now") [#15807],  [ID 6435]

Document(s): Open document

09.07.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Gujarat: 21 people accused of the murder of 14 people at the Best Bakery in Baroda on 1 March 2002 acquitted for lack of evidence/ key witnesses threatened and harassed into withdrawing their testimony by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) politicians and other interested parties ("India: Best Bakery case - concerns for justice") [#14213],  [ID 6436]

Document(s): Open document

27.02.2003 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Gujarat: Impunity: one year after the beginning of communal violence that claimed over 2,000 lives, there have been no convictions of those responsible ("India: Carnage in Gujarat Unpunished: Communal Violence Continues") [#11057],  [ID 6437]

Document(s): Open document

19.12.2002 - Source: Amnesty International

3 people, accused of the attack on the Parliament in December 2001, sentenced to death ("India: The cause of justice is not served by judicial murder") [#10051],  [ID 6438]

Document(s): Open document

2002 - Source: Harvard Human Rights Journal

Report on the disappearance of Sikhs in Punjab on hand of the police ("A Judicial Blackout: Judicial Impunity for Disappearances in Punjab, India") [#21835],  [ID 6439]

Document(s): Open document