1

IN THE MATTER OF NANDINI SUNDAR & ORS VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (WP Civil 250/2007); and KARTAM JOGA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND UNION OF INDIA (WP Criminal 119/2007) AT THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

S. No. Index Page Nos.

1. Background 3

2. The Petitioners 3-4

3. A Short Chronology of the Matter so Far 4-6

4. Origins and Nature of Salwa Judum:

a.) State sponsorship b.) Forcible evacuation c.) Arming of private citizens d.) Appointment of Minors as SPOs

6-8

5. Nature of Human Rights Violations by the Salwa Judum

a.) Enforced Migration b.) Killings c.) Rapes d.) Arson and damage to property e.) Denial of primary services f.) Denial of their very existence g.) Summary

8-13

6. Concern over Vigilante Violence by Statutory Bodies

13-14

7. Supreme Court Order of NHRC Enquiry, 15.4.2008

a.) NHRC Findings b.) Summary Tabular Comparison of

NHRC recommendations and Action Taken by CG Government

c.) NHRC on Killings and Rapes

14-25

8. Supreme Court Orders on Registration of FIRs

25

9. Response of Chhattisgarh on FIRs

a.) Contempt of NHRC recommendations on free registration of FIRs

b.) Defence of Salwa Judum leaders and SPOs

26-33

2

c.) Asking accused for justification, contempt of trial court orders in rape

d.) Absence of magisterial enquiries e.) Shoddiness of police investigation

and FIRs f.) Summary

10. Supreme Court Orders on Rehabilitation, 18.2.2010

Summary of Rehabilitation Plan filed by petitioners pursuant to order of 18.2.2010

34

35

11. State‟s Response to Rehabilitation Plan of petitioners (lack of action on)

Rehabilitation

Compensation

Schools and Other Primary Services

Disbanding Salwa Judum

36-39

12. Reliefs Sought: Rehabilitative Justice 39

13. Annexure A: Chart of Documentary Evidence Annexed

42-51

14. Annexure B: Chart of Affidavits filed by petitioners and respondents in the matter till July 2010

52-54

3

IN THE MATTER OF NANDINI SUNDAR & ORS VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

(WP Civil 250/2007); and KARTAM JOGA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF

CHHATTISGARH AND UNION OF INDIA (WP Criminal 119/2007) AT THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

I. BACKGROUND

The two writ petitions here (WP Civil 250/2007 and WP Criminal 119/2007) are

essentially in the tribal interest against both Naxalite violence and state violence. The

State of Chhattisgarh has been beset with violence since 2005. The extremist naxal

violence has shown an increase that is directly proportional to the spread of an armed

vigilante force called „Salwa Judum‟, sponsored by the state to fight against Naxalism. It

has empirically been established by both official and non official sources, that far from

being a counter to naxal violence, Salwa Judum has, in fact, augmented the same.

Some of the worst atrocities have been committed by Salwa Judum with the full

connivance of the State. The fragile tribal population of the State has been torn apart

by the competing violence between the naxals and the Salwa Judum.

The tribals occupy valuable forest and mineral rich areas in Chhattisgarh. Private

enterprise with the support of the local administration has moved to exploit this wealth.

In order to make way for industry, ordinary people are being cleared off the land and

dubbed as naxals although most of them are simply struggling for survival and have no

notion of what that ideology is. They are caught in a situation where not only their

traditional means of livelihood are taken away but their life and liberty itself is being

seen as an impediment.

II. THE PETITIONERS

The present petitioners were moved to file the public interest petitions in the interest of

the local tribal population whose lives have been devastated by the conflict between

Naxalites and Salwa Judum. The state has raised the bogey of being Naxal supporters

4

against them, when it is clear that the only answer to extremism is justice, good

governance and attention to the needs of the local population. The petitioners hold no

brief for extremism.

The petitioners in WP (Civil) 250/2007 are Nandini Sundar, Professor & Head of the

Department of Sociology as well as Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Delhi

University & expert on Bastar/Dantewada; Ramachandra Guha, Eminent Historian,

awarded the Padma Bhushan in 2009; & EAS Sarma, former Secretary, Economic

Affairs, Government of India. Their unimpeachable credentials should be sufficient to

dispel the State of Chhattisgarh‟s hyperbolic imputations.

The petitioners in W.P. (Crl.) 119/2007 are or have been elected tribal representatives

of the people. They have also been directly affected by beating, arson, looting and

intimidation by the Salwa Judum. Kartam Joga, elected member of the Zilla Panchayat,

was badly tortured; Dudhi Joga, elected member of the Janpad panchayat, had his

house (and entire village Arlampalli) burnt down and property looted; Manish Kunjam,

former MLA (CPI), barely escaped assault by Salwa Judum, and is now under constant

threat to his life.

III. A SHORT CHRONOLOGY OF THE MATTER SO FAR

June 2005: Salwa Judum begins

May 2006: Nandini Sundar, Ramachandra Guha and EAS Sarma, conduct a fact-finding

into Salwa Judum, as part of the Independent Citizens Initiative.

2005-2007: Petitioners approach NHRC, Home Minister, Prime Minister, National

Commission for Scheduled Tribes etc. alerting them to the facts on the ground.

17 May 2007: Nandini Sundar & Ors. file WP (Civil) 250/2007 in Supreme Court; Court

issues notice on May 17 to Chhattisgarh government.

12 October 2007: Kartam Joga & Ors. file WP (Cr.) 119/2007. Court issues notice

returnable within four weeks to Chhattisgarh government and Union of India.

5

15 April 2008: Supreme Court asks NHRC to investigate allegations of killings, rapes,

conditions of camps and relief and report within four weeks.

May-June 2008: NHRC sends a team of 16 serving police personnel as investigation

team.

August 2008: NHRC files its report; both parties asked to respond on report by

October 2008.

October 2008: NS & Ors (11.20.08), Kartam Joga & ors. (10.11.08) file detailed

analysis of NHRC report showing support for their allegations. In its affidavit of 19

October 2008, Chhattisgarh admits that Salwa Judum damaged property and

acknowledges need for compensation and rehabilitation after village wise analysis

(Annexure R/5 of CG affidavit of October 2008, page 546, Vol. 2).

16 December 2008: SC orders Chhattisgarh to file Action Taken Report on NHRC

recommendations by end January 2009, and to show status of FIRs filed.

27 Jan 2009, 20 August 2009: Chhattisgarh files affidavits on action taken;

continues to justify Salwa Judum.

February 2009: Supreme Court permits both sides to examine NHRC annexures on

record with the Court. (Reference is made in this document to NHRC annexures, which

have been inspected by sitting in the registry).

21 March 2009, 7 August 2009, 5 November 2009: Nandini Sundar & Ors file

affidavits showing inadequacy of action taken, and evidence from Chhattisgarh

government and court documents which show government sponsorship of Salwa

Judum, arming of citizens, appointment of minors as SPOs, continuing killings and

damage to villages.

18 February 2010: Supreme Court orders petitioners to file rehabilitation plan, since

Chhattisgarh Government has not done anything for two years.

18 March 2010: Petitioners file rehabilitation plan in accordance with settled principles

of Supreme Court and NHRC, to be supervised by High Level Committee under

continuing mandamus of the Court.

6 May 2010: Supreme Court orders Chhattisgarh again to show status of FIRs filed,

6

and respond to suggestion of High level Committee. Asks petitioners verbally to file

consent letters of people willing to serve on the committee.

30 April 2010, 24 July 2010: Chhattisgarh files affidavits on action taken; continues

to justify Salwa Judum. Mislead Court by reproducing same data filed in October 2008

as evidence of new rehabilitation in April 2010, with a different annexure number.

Denies existence of people in villages and IDPs in Andhra Pradesh (page 20 of April

2010 affidavit by Chhattisgarh).

18 March 2010, 26 July 2010: Petitioners show inadequacy of Chhattisgarh action

taken, as well as highlight refusal of Chhattisgarh to even acknowledge the existence of

majority of affected citizens, which indicates need for an independent high level

committee to oversee rehabilitation and registration of FIRs.

IV. ORIGINS & NATURE OF SALWA JUDUM

In a supposed bid to isolate the Naxalites, the State of Chattisgarh spawned the

vigilante force Salwa Judum in 2005. This was projected as a spontaneous people‟s

movement to counter Naxalite violence. It started with meetings held in and around

Kutru village of Dantewada district under the aegis of the Jan Jagran Abhiyan. The Jan

Jagran Abhiyan was subsequently renamed the Salwa Judum.

a.) State sponsorship: These Jan Jagran/Salwa Judum rallies were attended by

government ministers and even the Chief Minister and financially and logistically

sponsored by the government (see NHRC Annexure G-1. DC monthly returns, cited on

page 25-26 of the petitioner‟s March 2009 affidavit in WP 250/2007). The Patels and

Sarpanches of several villages were threatened by higher political functionaries

with consequences of whole villages being burnt if they did not ensure the participation

of their respective villages in these meetings. Individuals were fined if they did not

attend the meetings. In the months that followed Salwa Judum activists, accompanied

by security forces, the district police, the CAF, the CRPF, and the Naga India Reserve

7

Battalion went into villages, burnt houses, looted grain, livestock and money, and even

raped women and killed individuals.

These facts have been corroborated by a number of independent fact-finding reports,

reproduced as WP 250/2007, May 2007 affidavit, Annexures P/4, P/5, P/6, P/7, pages

76-246 of Vol. I; by the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR)

(WP 250/2007, Rejoinder Affidavit of 14 February 2008, Annexure P/25, page 420, 423

of Vol. II); Human Rights Watch (WP 250/2007, October 2008 affidavit, Annexure A/2,

pages 184-367), among others. The National Human Rights Report has also

corroborated this (see detailed index of WP 250/2007 response to NHRC, 11 October

2008, page 1-2).

b.) Forcible evacuation: Villagers were forcibly evacuated into Salwa Judum

camps which the government euphemistically refers to as relief camps. They were

made to abandon their fields and prevented from returning to their homes.

In addition to corroboration by the NHRC & NCPCR, this has been corroborated by

testimonies annexed in volumes I & II as annexures to Kartam Joga and ors, WP

119/2007; and subsequent testimonies, WP 250/2007, March 2009, Annexure 3 & 4,

page 46-48; as well as documentary film evidence produced by UK Channel IV which

has been included as Annexure F-3 by the NHRC in the annexures lying with the Court.

c.) Arming of private citizens: Some of these Salwa Judum activists, including

minors, were subsequently appointed Special Police Officers (SPOs), and it is they who

now form the backbone of the Salwa Judum. This has been admitted by the Home

Minister of Chhattisgarh in an interview, reproduced as Annexure P/7, Page 66 of

September 2007 affidavit in WP 119/2007.

Further evidence of arming of private citizens is available from the photos provided in

WP 250/2007, Affidavit of March 2009, Annexure P 11, page 162-164; NHRC Report

8

which describes Salwa Judum as armed resistance (Para 7.02, page 100); A Note by

IPS Officer DM Mitra, IPS, NHRC Annexure E-2.3 in court records cited on page 32-33 of

WP 250, March 2009 affidavit, which shows overlap between Salwa Judum and SPOs,

and the FIR filed by the Chhattisgarh government which list accused in CID

investigation into burning of villages as “unknown activists of Salwa Judum and about

1-2 thousands of without uniform gunman” (Affidavit of Chhattisgarh Government

dated 30.4.2010, Annexure R/1, Appendix C, Page 35-38).

d.) The appointment of Minors as SPOs initially is corroborated by photos of

SPOs, reproduced at WP 250/2007, Annexure P/9 in May 2007 affidavit, page 252 of

Vol. I; and police memorials to SPOs Sujeet Kumar Mandavi and Manglu Ram showing

they were underage when they were recruited, reproduced at WP 250/2007, Rejoinder

affidavit of 14 February 2008, Annexure P/33 & P/34, pages 470, 471, Vol. 2 and that

the Chhattisgarh government fudged their ages as 25 and 28 respectively.

V. NATURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS BY THE SALWA JUDUM

A picture of the mass violation of fundamental constitutional rights emerges from

testimonies by residents of 110 villages given at an open rally organized by the Adivasi

Mahasabha in June 2007 in Cherla in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh. The

translations (with originals in Gondi and Hindi) have been given to the Court as

Annexures to W.P (Crl.) No. 119/2007. They have been annexed as volume I and II to

that writ petition.

In WP 119/2007, affidavit of 15 September 2007, the activities of the Salwa Judum

were set out graphically with full details, particularly names and dates, including the

names of villages affected [pages 42-52], enforced migration [page 59], killing of

537 people [page 24-40], arson to property [pages 42-52], outraging of women

[pages 26, 41], and above all, enforced internment of the villagers in camps. There

were as many as 47,238 persons interned in about 20 camps (page D).

9

(The lists of people killed, raped, houses burnt etc. have been annexed again in WP

250/2007, March 2009 affidavit, Annexures P/12-P/14, pages 165-202 for Hon‟ble

Court‟s convenience).

The substance of these testimonies has also been corroborated by independent reports,

including by statutory bodies like the National Commission for the Protection of Child

Rights, the National Human Rights Commission, several fact-findings by independent

and international organizations like Human Rights Watch, and several news reports in

both national and international media (see Annexure A to this note which provides a full

chart of the documentary evidence)

a.) Enforced Migration: In the first two years of Salwa Judum (2005-2007), the

number of people forcibly moved to Salwa Judum camp were 47,238 people from 644

affected villages. There were 20 such camps. This data has been taken from an official

memo of the Government of Chhattisgarh, reproduced in WP 250/2007, affidavit of May

2007, Annexure P/15, page 272, Vol.1.

An equal number of people migrated to Andhra Pradesh, where they live in terrible

malnutritition and uncertainty (see NGO representation and Report by Commissioner to

the Supreme Court on Food security WP 250/2007, March 2009 affidavit, Annexure 5,

pages 52-70); AP High Court 2007 order staying the burning of IDP huts, WP 250/2007,

rejoinder affidavit of 14 February 2008, Annexure P/38, page 491, Vol.2). The NHRC

collected a number of testimonies from IDPs in Andhra Pradesh which are on record

with the court (Annexures B-4 of testimonies taken at Cherla, in AP, list at least 37

murders by Salwa Judum/SPOs/security forces).

A large number fled into the forests near their homes where they lived in daily fear of

attack by the Salwa Judum. (NCPCR reproduced in WP 250/2007, Rejoinder Affidavit of

14 February 2008, Vol. 2, pages 420, 421; NHRC report 6.55 page 66, 6.65.1 page 77,

6.69.1 page 82)

10

By 2010, the majority of people who are left in camps are Special Police Officers and

their families who now form the core of Salwa Judum, along with the Salwa Judum

ringleaders (NHRC Report, para 6.15 para 34-35). However, there are still some people

who are kept in Salwa Judum camps against their will (NHRC report para 61.5, page 35,

para 1.51, page 18).

b.) Killings: Between 2005-7, according to initial collection of figures, some 33

children, 45 women, 416 men and 43 unnamed persons were killed by the Salwa

Judum, sometimes in gruesome ways, including killing of children by drowning or

smashing their heads against rocks. In all, reported deaths during this period amounted

to 537 persons, and this is a small fraction of the likely killings, most of which have

gone unreported. The bodies were simply left in the villages. Subsequently, most

killings have been recorded as encounters but none of them have been independently

investigated.

The petitioners realize that this initial figure could not be hundred percent accurate

given that data collection took place under conditions when everyone was fleeing for

their lives. In some cases, people who were seriously injured were initially assumed

dead. In subsequent affidavits, the petitioners have made efforts to revise the list in the

light of further investigation. However, there is a limit to individual effort, and all along

the petitioners have called for a full independent enquiry to establish the nature and

scale of violations.

The NHRC investigated a fraction of these killings, and has indicated the need for

further enquiry in at least 114 out of 145 cases it investigated.

c.) Rapes: A number of testimonies of rape have been annexed in WP 119/2007 (a

list provided in Annexure P/3 of Kartam Joga and ors, September 2007 affidavit, page

11

41) , and also reported by the National Commision for the Protection of Child Rights,

and a fact-finding team of Women Professionals, annexed as P/9 in the March 2009

affidavit of WP 250/2007, pages 127-156. Several rape testimonies were also submitted

to the National Human Rights Commission in 2008; testimony of Madkam Hidme

annexed as Annexure A 3 in WP 250/2007 affidavit of November 2009, pages 617-618,

Vol. 2.

d.) Arson and damage to property by Salwa Judum: Between June 2005 and

2007 at least 2,825 houses were burnt in the undivided district of South Bastar

(Dantewada). In Bijapur, 1,733 houses were burnt and property looted from these and

many thousands of other houses. At least 1,092 houses were burnt in Konta tahsil of

Dantewada district, and the property of many thousands more has been looted. Killing

and arson are inevitably accompanied by looting, damage to grain and other property.

Since most of the disposable income in this area is invested in livestock, the Salwa

Judum‟s practice of stealing and eating cattle, pigs, fowl and other animals constitutes a

severe attack on people‟s assets. Burning of paddy is a common feature found across

villages which have been attacked by the Salwa Judum.

e.) Denial of primary services: The government has suspended all schools, rations,

handpumps, health services and employment works in the villages suspected of being

under Naxalite influence. All teachers, health workers, anganwadi workers and others,

who were working in the villages prior to Salwa Judum, with little or no hindrance from

Naxalites, have been transferred to Salwa Judum camps. Education has come to a

standstill since CRPF occupy schools and Maoists blast these schools to prevent them.

Effectively rather than stopping Naxalism, by withdrawing services and civil

administration, the government has ceded large parts of its territory to the Naxalites.

NHRC has noted that rations are available only in camps, (see para 1.50 of the report,

page 18). This is also substantiated by NHRC annexure C (Information collected about

12

temporary relief camps) in the court records, which notes, for example, that in

Maraigudem camp, “government have diverted the ration quota of the affected villages

to those camps.” The population of Maraigudem camp according to the NHRC

investigation is 2000 persons, while the population of the 15 villages from which the

camp residents have come is much higher. According to the 2001 census in 9 of these

villages alone, there is a population of 6569. This means that rations meant for some 7-

10,000 people are being restricted to 2000 people in camp. The report of the National

Commission for the Protection of Child Rights also states that “A big problem is that

schools and Anganwadi teachers have been shifted from the villages to the camps

leading to a concentration of service-providers in camps and no services available to

those who are still living in villages.” (WP 250/2007, Rejoinder Affidavit of 14 February

2008, Vol. 2, page 423). This means that those who are resident in the villages are not

getting any basic services whatsoever leave alone being rehabilitated in any way.

f.) Denial of their very existence: The latest ATRs submitted by the Chhattisgarh

government are completely silent on any rehabilitation plans for this vast majority of

internally displaced persons as well as IDPs in Andhra Pradesh. Indeed in its affidavit of

30 April 2010, page 20 the Chhattisgarh government has this to say:

1. Those hiding in the jungles around their villages... NHRC report has already

refuted such allegations and there is not point keeping such a category. (In fact,

NHRC report confirms people fleeing to jungles in paras 6.55, 6.65.1, 6.69.1 etc).

2. Those who have fled to Andhra Pradesh because of attacks by security forces

and Salwa Judum. Such allegations have been proved baseless and the reason

behind such migration is purely economic. (NHRC recommends providing for

their safe return, see also NHRC para 6.65, page 77. By acknowledging at page 4

of CG July 2010 affidavit that the NHRC held a public hearing in Khammam,

which only makes sense if there were victims of Salwa Judum in AP, the

Chhattisgarh government is contradicting itself).

13

Summary: Together, the State‟s security forces and the Salwa Judum have attacked at

least 644 villages, killed several hundred people, and forcibly displaced over a lakh of

tribals into Salwa Judum camps and the neighbouring state of Andhra Pradesh or into

the forest, where they are suffering from destitution and severe malnutrition. For the

tribals, their daily life is in severe crises, with Naxalites killing tribals suspected of being

government informers, apart from killing policemen/CRPF and blowing up government

property; and Salwa Judum and security forces attacking villages while on combing

operations. People are scared to go to the fields and cultivate or collect fuelwood in the

forests for fear of being mistaken as Naxalites and killed.

VI. CONCERN OVER VIGILANTE VIOLENCE BY STATUTORY BODIES

The disastrous consequences of the state sponsored vigilantism began to be noticed in

2007. Several statutory bodies and public personalities expressed dismay over this as

would be evidenced by the following reports.

A. National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), 2007:

“Many people shared accounts of family members being killed and women raped by

the Salwa Judum” (page 420 in Annexure P-25 in Rejoinder affidavit of 14 February

2008, W.P. 250/2007, pages 417-446 of Vol. 2)

B. National Commission for Women Report 2007: “Investigation into violence

against women required. The state had identified itself with Salwa Judum.”

(Annexure P-7 in May 2007 affidavit of W.P. 250/2007, pages 239-246 of Vol. 1 )

C. Planning Commission Expert Committee on Development Challenges to

end Extremism of 2008: “Encouragement of vigilante groups such as Salwa

Judum and herding of hapless tribals in make-shift camps with dismal living

conditions, removed from their habitat and deprived of livelihood as a strategy to

counter the influence of the radical left is not desirable. It delegitimizes politics,

dehumanizes people, degenerates those engaged in their „security‟, and above all

represents abdication of the State itself. It should be undone immediately.”

14

(Annexure P-43 of Affidavit of 19 October 2008 of W.P. (C )250/2007, pages 49 &

84)

D. Seventh Report of the Administrative Reforms Commission, chaired by Mr.

Veerappa Moily, February 2008: “The situation in this region has not been

helped by the raising of local resistance groups called Salwa Judum.” (Annexure P-

27 in the Rejoinder Affidavit of 24 March 2008, W.P. (Crl.) 119/2007, page 234)

E. Report by the Committee on State Agrarian Relations and Unfinished Task

of Land Reforms, 2009: Salwa Judum is “The Biggest Grab of Tribal Lands after

Columbus”. (not annexed).

F. Condemnation by elected representatives: In a signed article published in the

Indian Express on June 30, 2006, former Chief Minister of Chattisgarh Ajit Jogi

spoke out against Salwa Judum (Annexure P/24 of Rejoinder Affidavit of Feburary

2008, WP 250/2007, page 410, Vol. 2). As Union Minister of State for Commerce &

Industry, Jairam Ramesh is reported in The Hindu of September 9, 2007 as having

spoken out against Salwa Judum (Annexure P/22 of Rejoinder Affidavit of Feburary

2008, WP 250/2007, page 406-7, Vol. 2).

VII. SUPREME COURT’S ORDER OF INQUIRY BY NHRC, 15 April 2008

The petitioners asked for an independent enquiry into the crimes by the Salwa Judum,

SPOs, security forces and Naxalites in Dantewada, compensation and prosecution for all

victims on par, an end to state support for Salwa Judum, and return and rehabilitation

of all displaced villagers.

The State of Chattisgarh resisted any independent inquiry saying, “There is no failure

on part of state of Chhattisgarh and therefore independent investigation is uncalled for

and unwarranted.” (Para 15 of Sur-rejoinder Affidavit of Chhattisgarh Government,

dated 10 April 2008, page 519, Vol. 2). The Chhattisgarh government has all along

denied any violation by the Salwa Judum, claiming that it was a “peaceful movement”,

and “any peaceful movement which resists the violent methods definitely gets support

15

of States” (Chhatisgarh Government Rejoinder Affidavit of 22 January 2008 at pg 308,

Vol. 2) that “the villagers are never forced to join the camps” (Sur-rejoinder Affidavit of

CG govt of 10 April 2008, para 4.c of parawise reply, page 514, Vol. 2). “It is also

denied that any minors are being appointed as SPOs.” (Chhatisgarh Government

Rejoinder Affidavit of 22 January 2008, para 5 e of parawise reply, page 311, Vol.2).

On 15.04.2008 the Supreme Court assigned to the NHRC the task of forming “an

appropriate fact finding Committee with such members, as it deems fit and make

available its report to this Court within eight weeks”. The appropriate “fact finding

committee” that the NHRC deemed fit to enquire into the conditions of the affected

tribals consisted entirely of 16 serving police personnel.

a.) NHRC Findings: In August 2008 , the NHRC Report found the following (page

nos are with reference to analysis in 11 October 2008 affidavit by Nandini Sundar &

Ors, WP 250, in response to the NHRC report):

a. Burning of Villages by Salwa Judum (p. 10)

b. Complicity of State police and administration in arson and looting of property (p.

11)

c. Political leadership and government sponsorship of Salwa Judum rallies (p. 11-

12)

d. Salwa Judum and security forces have forced villagers into camps (p. 12-13)

e. Inhibition of freedom of movement (p.13-14)

f. Extra-judicial killings by SPOs (p.13-14)

g. Blurred boundary between Salwa Judum and SPOs (p. 15-16)

h. SPOs are civilians who are armed and bent on revenge (p.16-17)

i. Minors were recruited initially (p. 17)

j. Forced disappearances (P. 18)

k. Suspect encounters, non-recording of deaths and arson (p. 19)

l. Disruption of education (p. 19-20)

16

The NHRC report also contained evidence regarding:

a. Punishment and Intimidation of suspected Naxalites (p. 20-21)

b. Withdrawal of services to villages not with Salwa Judum (p.21-22)

c. Continuing violations by Salwa Judum and security forces (p. 22)

d. Conditions in camps (p. 22-23)

e. Illegal checking of vehicles (p.25-26)

The Chhattisgarh Government filed two Action Taken Reports (ATR‟s) in January 2009

and in August 2009 respectively in response to the Court’s direction of

16.12.2008 to show action on the recommendations of the NHRC. The Petitioners by

their detailed affidavits of March 2009, August 2009 and November 2009

highlighted the Chattisgarh Government‟s failure on all counts. The Petitioners also

pointed out that no conditions were created for safe return of persons in camps to the

villages and persons who had fled to neighboring states back to their homes. On the

contrary there were fresh killings by Salwa Judum, SPO‟s and Security forces. There

was fresh distress migration to Andhra Pradesh. The ATR‟s only refer to facilities

provided to camp residents and to no one else. Instances were also given of the State

Government‟s failure to register FIR‟s. There was no compliance with the

recommendations of any of the independent organizations that entered into the issue

like the NCPCR.

Subsequent affidavits filed by the Chhattisgarh government in April 2010 and July

2010 in response to the SC directions of 18.2.2010 and 6.5.2010 also show failure

to meet the directions of the Court and the recommendations of the NHRC. A detailed

analysis has been provided in the petitioners affidavit of March 2010 and July 2010.

A tabular chart assessing the Action Taken Reports on the NHRC Recommendations is

given below:

17

b.) Summary Tabular Comparison of NHRC recommendations and Action

Taken by Chhattisgarh (Nandini Sundar & Ors. affidavit filed in November 2009,

page 606-612, Vol. 2)

Reco No. Recommendations in Chapter 9

NHRC, pages 108-111

ATR by CG Govt.

(Affidavits of October

2008, January 2009 (Vol.

2) and August 2009 (sep.

book)

1. Adequate security cover should be

provided to camps, and conditions

created for their safe return

Nil conditions created for

safe return; fresh distress

migration to AP due to

fresh killing by SJ, SPOs,

and security forces

Conditions should be created for the safe

return of displaced families in Andhra

Pradesh and elsewhere

Nil – no effort was ever

made by government, and

one Gandhian NGO which

tried to resettle villagers

was harassed.

Annexure R-4, pg 42-48,

(Aug 2009) by respondent

state CG showing details

of migration obfuscates

the issue, and tries to

deny migration is caused

by SJ.

All displaced families should be

rehabilitated according to national and

No rehabilitation plan

18

international norms drawn up.

Annexure R/10, pg. 567-

581 of state ATR (Jan

2009) deals only with

facilities to camp residents,

who are SPO families or

Salwa Judum supporters.

R/10 is silent on majority

of displaced families: 1.)

refugees in AP, 2.) those

living in jungles near

destroyed villages, 3.)

those who have returned

home from camps, but

lack means to restart

cultivation, build homes

etc. There are no facilities

in villages affected by SJ.

2. There should be free registration of FIRs

on receipt of complaints regarding

cognizable offences

Case of Madkam Hidme,

pg. 604 of petitioners

affidavit of Nov. 2009 in

WP 250/2007, is

illustrative of police

attitude. FIRs in Annexure

R/1, pg. 553-558, of CG

ATR (Jan 2009) cover

only a fraction of cases

indicated in the NHRC

19

report & no further enquiry

has taken place on these;

complaints by public are

not being registered.

The investigation in all cases should be

completed expeditiously

Magisterial enquiries are

pending since 2006; none

of the cases listed for

magisterial enquiry pertain

to our specific allegations,

hence irrelevant

Any cases registered against security

forces/police should be investigated by

CB/CID

Nil

Police station records should be properly

maintained

Nil

3. Those who have lost their

houses/belongings should be given

compensation irrespective of perpetrators

Nil compensation to

victims of Salwa

Judum/SPO/Security

forces.

No compensation and

rehabilitation plan drawn

up

R/7, pg. 563, CG aff. of

Jan 2009 only summarises

compensation to victims of

Naxalite violence.

20

4. Cases against SPOs should be enquired

into

R/3, pg. 559 of Jan 2009

CG ATR only mentions one

case relating to murder by

SPOs; does not pertain to

NHRC findings or our

allegations; see detailed

comments in our March 14

2009 affidavit

5. A village wise list of missing persons and

the circumstances in which they have

disappeared should be prepared; efforts

should be made to gather credible

evidence regarding their existing status

Nil.

R/4, pg. 560 of CG Jan

2009 is not a village wise

list, or even a list of

missing persons.

6. Security forces should be moved out of

school and ashram buildings

R/5, pg. 561, Jan 2009 is

only a partial list, does not

cover the schools listed in

NHRC annexure E1.5; and

anyway, moving is

incomplete.

7. There should be a proper transfer policy

for police personnel

Nil

8. Police/security forces should be

sensitized about human rights

R/9, pg. 565, Jan 2009

lists some guidelines; but

does not appear borne out

in practice as shown by

Singaram false encounter,

Jan. 2009, Gorkha looting

21

by SPOs, Feb. 2009;

burning of grain in Chinger

March 2009, killing &

arson in Vechapal in June

2009, etc.

9. There should be uniform policy regarding

ration distribution in camps; medical

facilities etc at camps should be

improved

R/10, pg. 567, Jan 2009

details regarding

employment, electricity,

schools and medical

facilities pertains only to

camps in Dantewada

district; silent on Bijapur

district; majority of camps

don‟t have toilets

ATR silent on these

facilities for villages in

areas affected by SJ–

which currently have no

PDS, schools, medical

facilities etc.

10. Mechanisms must be devised to end

malpractices in distribution of rations to

camps

Nil

11. A security centric approach not enough,

multi-pronged strategy required.

Only security centric

perspective is being

adopted, without regard

to the effect on civilians

22

c.) NHRC on Killings and Rape

The findings by NHRC Team called for rigorous enquiry into killing and rape. The NHRC

report notes regarding sangham members: “these villagers were specifically targeted

when Salwa Judum was on the rise. The enquiry team has come across instances

where some of these villagers were even killed (no criminal cases were, however, either

reported or registered). Though the State has taken action against SPOs in some cases

for violations like murder and attempt to murder, but these cases do not pertain to the

violence let loose on innocent villagers during operations against Naxalites.” (NHRC

report, para 5.04, page 30-31).

As a matter of fact the NHRC investigation was merely illustrative, and only an

independent commission under continuing mandamus by the Honourable Court can go

into them all.

Table of Cases investigated by NHRC in response to charges in WP 250/2007 and

119/2007 (reproduced from Nandini Sundar & Ors. affidavit of March 2009, page 11)

No. of

Killings

Alleged by

petitioners

No. of

killings

investigated

by NHRC

No. of villages

burnt/property

damaged in

petitioners list

No. of

villages

investigated

by NHRC

where

arson/looting

alleged

No. of

rapes

alleged

No. of

rapes

investigated

by NHRC

537 145 103 16 99 5*

* These girls were not even listed among the original 99, but a new case which came

before the NHRC, showing that our original list itself was not exhaustive.

23

The following is a tabular analysis of NHRC finding on allegations of killings (145 cases

taken up for investigation) (reproduced from Nandini Sundar & Ors. affidavit of March

2009, page 11)

Substant

iated

Need for

further

enquiry

Could not be

substantiated,

i.e need

further

investigation

NHRC

silent –

no

findings

Not

substanti

ated

Found to be

killed by

Naxalites,

not SJ/SPO

Naxalite

and not

civilians

Total

3 23 55 33 13 10 8 145

Total of cases which support petitioners or call for further enquiry: 114 or 78.6%

Total of cases which are not substantiated: 31 or 21.4%

Total: 145

The list of those which could not be substantiated includes all villages which

were burnt and hence deserted and no one was found to talk to; hence the

crime is not denied.

In all those cases where NHRC was silent, the crime is not denied, hence need

for further investigation

The following is a tabular summary of the cases indicated by NHRC for further enquiry

and the number of cases where any action has been taken by the Chhattisgarh

government till August 2010.

24

Comparison of NHRC indications for further enquiry and CG affidavits of

January 2009, 30 April 2010, 24 July 2010

NHRC - No.

of cases

indicated for

further

enquiry

CG ATR of Jan

2009 – No of

cases where

registration of

FIRs/magisterial

enquiry ordered

CG Annexure R/1

of 30.4.2010,

page 23-25, with

appendix A-C

(pages 26-52)

NHRC - No.

of villages

where arson

was

substantiated

CG ATR -

No. of

villages

where FIR

registered

for arson

(Anx.A, page

11-15 of CG

July 2010:

same as Jan

2009)

114 22 5 magisterial

enquiries

completed; report

not enclosed; 2

ongoing

(Appendix B)

Even in

cognizable cases

where SPOs have

been

chargesheeted

with Sec 302 IPC

& 25,27 Arms

Act, they have

not been

16

6

25

arrested. (Page

40, No.5)

CID investigation,

Appendix C: Only

7 cases are

relevant

(4,5,7,8,10,12,13)

Rest are of 2009-

10; or not among

cases we listed

VIII. SUPREME COURT ORDERS ON REGISTRATION OF FIRS

16.12.2008: By its order dated 16.12.2008, the Supreme Court had also directed the

Chattisgarh Government to register FIRs in these terms: “Wherever killings had taken

place or any such thing happened and if FIR had not been registered the same shall be

registered and in case dead-body of any person is found a magisterial enquiry will also

follow. The State shall file the Action Taken Report by the end of January, 2009.”

18.2.2010: The State shall file a report as to what steps have been taken to see that

FIRs are registered in cases where no FIRs have been registered, as pointed out in the

report of NHRC and what further steps have been taken to prosecute the accused who

have been already charge-sheeted by the police.

6.5.2010: As regards the implementation of the NHRC report, the State Government is

directed to file a detailed report as to what steps have so far been taken regarding the

registration of various criminal cases and the progress made in the various criminal

cases which are already pending in various courts.”

26

IX. Response of Chhattisgarh on FIRs

a.) Contempt of NHRC recommendation on free registration of FIRs on

receipt of cognizable offences (Chapter 9, page 108): A number of cognizable

offences reported by NOK are on record in the NHRC annexures of B1-B4, I2, I4, as

well as in Volumes I & II of WP 119/2007 and Annexure 12-14, pages 165-202,

Annexures 6 (page 71-106), Annexure 9 (127-158) of March 2009 affidavit of WP

250/2007. There has been no investigation into these cases. The number of cognizable

offences exceeds even these. For example, in the public hearing held by NHRC at

Cherla, testimonies submitted by the relatives of the victims include 60 cases of killing,

(though, inexplicably, those taken on record in NHRC Annexure B-4 pertain only to 37

deaths).

b.) Defence of SPOs and Salwa Judum leaders: The NHRC investigation

revealed that SPOs have been involved in “certain incidents of atrocities against the

tribals” (para 1.54 of the NHRC report, page 19), in some instances, the security forces

and SPOs seemed to be prima-facie responsible for extra judicial killings (para 6.24 of

the NHRC report, page 37). A large number of testimonies annexed in Vol. I & II. Of

WP 119/2007, Sept. 2007 affidavit name specific SPOs for specific offences, including

rape and murder, but there is no effort to investigate them.

In NHRC Annexure E-2.6 in the court records, the Chhattisgarh government has replied

to a query from DIG NHRC, reporting that 2 cases have been registered against security

forces/police in Bijapur and Dantewada districts respectively, from 2005 till date (2008).

In Dantewada 3 cases were registered against Salwa Judum activists and none in

Bijapur. Out of 10 complaints received from the public against Salwa Judum activists in

2006-7 all were found to be false, and in 2008, in the 4 cases investigated out of 44

complaints, all were found to be false. The standard practice appears to be that every

case against Salwa Judum activists or SPOs will be found false. In the few cases where

there is a public outcry, cases will be registered, but the accused will be „unknown‟. The

villagers who complain will then have cases filed against them, accusing them of being

27

Naxalites or Naxalite supporters. This is hardly in keeping with the Court‟s direction or

NHRC‟s recommendation to register FIRs on receipt of complaints.

c.) SP asks accused for justification; contempt of arrest warrant issued by

trial court: The Chhattisgarh government‟s disregard for the Court‟s directive to file

FIRs, and in particular, its defence of Salwa Judum leaders and SPOs who have

committed crimes, is amply evident from Annexure P 1, page 14-15, August 2009

affidavit submitted by the respondent state. In his letter dated 17.6.2009, concerning

the rape of Madkam Hidme, the SP Dantewada says that the police enquired about her,

and „Nobody knows as to where she has gone away‟. However, just a day before, on

16.6.09, Madkam Hidme deposed about her rape before the Judicial Magistrate, first

Class, in Konta, with the full knowledge of the police. Since the SP had refused to

register an FIR on her complaint filed on 3.3.09, she was forced to go before the

Magistrate to register her case. Further the police have dismissed her charges on

the basis of enquiries with Salwa Judum leaders Boddu Raja, Soyam Mooka,

and Dinesh who are the very people accused by Madkam Hidme. If the accused

are to be treated as the authority on whether a charge is true or false, no criminal

would ever be convicted. A translated copy of the deposition by Madkam Hidme before

the Judicial Magistrate in Konta on 16.6.09 is attached as Annexure A – 3, pages 617-

618, in our affidavit dated November 2009.

On 30.10.2009, the Trial court issued a standing arrest warrant for Soyam Mooka and

other accused in this case (Annexed as P/4, pages 71-74, NS & Ors. march 2010

affidavit). On 10.12.2009, the police declared they were absconding. However, on

6.1.2010, Soyam Mooka was reported in Nai Duniya newspaper and photographed as

actively leading a Salwa Judum demonstration (under the new name of Ma Danteshwari

Swabhimaan Manch) against Medha Patkar, Sandeep Pandey and other Gandhians who

had come for a padyatra to raise awareness about the Supreme Court‟s orders with

regards to filing of FIRs and rehabilitation. Nai Duniya reports “Despite being counseled

by the police, the tribals led by Chhavindra Karma, Chaitram Atami, Sukhdev Tati,

Soyam Mukka, became uncontrollable.” A copy of this article and photo of Soyam

28

Mooka leading the demonstration has been enclosed as Annexure P/4 colly, on pages

75-76 of NS & Ors. affidavit of March 2010.

The Government of Chhattisgarh is in contempt of both the Supreme Court and trial

court. Apart from Madkam Hidme, there are 5 other rape cases in which the trial court

had ordered a standing warrant against the accused, and they are all roaming free with

police help. Only an independent committee entrusted with overseeing the registration

of cases and prosecution will work under such circumstances.

d.) Absence of Magisterial enquiries: The Supreme Court had directed that

magisterial enquiries be conducted, but as per the affidavits filed by the Chhattisgarh

government, magisterial enquiries are pending since 2006, and in any case, they do not

pertain to the specific allegations we have made.

e.) Shoddiness of Police Investigation and FIRs: Police records are so shoddy

that in the police verification list submitted to NHRC in 2008 (NHRC annexure E-1.1),

despite filing an FIR against Vetti Bhima of Arlampalli village in 2007, whose NOK have

reported him as killed by Salwa Judum, the police have described him as “person by

this name does not reside in the village”. Even with regard to victims of Naxalite

violence, there are at least 35 instances where the police verification report submitted

to NHRC (NHRC annexure E-1.1) lists people as killed by Naxalites but no FIR has been

registered, and in all but one case, no compensation appears to have been paid. Many

of these cases appear even more suspicious as some of these individuals are listed as

“Naxalites killed by Naxalites”.

A comparative table of our allegations (list of names submitted in WP 119/2007), the

police verification list (NHRC annexure E-1.1), and NHRC findings in the case of one

village alone, Kotrapal, will make clear the need for a thoroughly independent enquiry

into all killings in the area. The fact that compensation is paid only to victims of Naxalite

violence but not to victims of state or vigilante violence inevitably affects the truth, a

fact which the Chhattisgarh government has finally acknowledged at page 3, para 6.v,

of its 24.7.10 affidavit. The following table also shows the infirmities in the NHRC

29

investigation when the version of Salwa Judum camp residents and SPOs is privileged,

and that of refugees in AP, including NOK, discounted.

Village Kotrapal

Name Villagers

testimonie

s to

NHRC/SC

at public

hearing on

10.6.08

CG Police

finding

(E-1.1,

NHRC

annexure

s)

NHRC

findings

(Main

report,

paras

6.44-

6.44.19,

pages 54-

58)

Our Remarks

1. Uike Sannu Testimony of

Kotrapal

villagers

given to

NHRC on

10.6.08 says

he was killed

by CRPF

after being

found by SJ

and brought

to the

village;

FIR 15/05

Naxalite

killed in

police

encounter

Collectors

list records

him as

sangham

member

killed on

11.8.05

Camp

residents

say he

was killed

by

naxalites;

compensati

on taken

by NOK

Was he a Sangham

member, a Naxalite

or killed by the

Naxalites?

Straight

contradiction

between police

verification & FIR

and NHRC

findings, which

shows killing was

suspicious and

compensation is

being used to

influence

30

testimonies

2. Vanjam

Mangu

Testimony of

Kotrapal

villagers

given to

NHRC on

10.6.08 says

he was killed

by CRPF

after being

found by SJ

and brought

to the village

FIR 15/05

Naxalite

killed in

police

encounter

Police

records

and camp

residents

allege he

was killed

by

Naxalites;

comp.

taken by

NOK

Was he a Naxalite

or killed by the

Naxalites?

3. Ichchami

Ludru

Originally an

SPO; then

killed by

SPOs

according to

10.6.08

testimony to

NHRC

Naxalite,

whereabou

ts not

known

Camp

residents

told NHRC

Team he

was a

sangham

member,

now

missing

Was he an SPO or a

Naxalite?

4. Tati Sukku 10.6.08

testimony to

NHRC says

he was

taken across

river on SJ

Person by

this name

does not

reside in

the village

Camp

residents

told NHRC

he was

missing

According to police

no such person

exists in the village,

even though

villagers testify that

31

procession,

never came

back

NHRC:

allegation

could not

be

substantiat

d

he is missing

5. Vetti Paiku 10.6.08

testimony to

NHRC says

he was shot

by Naga IRB,

could not

run away

from house

in time

Person by

this name

does not

reside in

the village

Camp

residents &

one

relative

told NHRC

he was

killed

during

exchange

of fire

between

security

forces and

Naxalites

on day

when SJ

had come

in large

numbers,

along with

Lekam

Budhram

According to police

no such person

exists in the village,

even though

villagers testify that

he was shot.

NHRC has come to

a different

conclusion in this

case from that of

Lekam Budhram,

who is said to have

died in same

incident

32

NHRC:

allegation

could not

be

substantiat

d

6. Madvi

Anda

10.6.08

testimony:

old man,

could not

walk

properly,

killed in

house by

Naga police

Person by

this name

does not

reside in

the village

Villagers

said he

was killed

by Naga

police; not

borne out

by police

records;

further

enquiry

needed

Magisterial enquiry

ordered in ATR R-1,

but place of

incident shown as

Bhogamguda PS

8 Lekam

Budhram

3 different

fact-findings

(PUDR, p.

20, HRF, p.

48. ACHR, p.

10) and

Hitvada

13.8.05 all

say he was

killed by

Naga IRB;

FIR 20/05

Naxalite

killed in

police

encounter

NHRC

team

interacted

with

villagers in

camp and

village;

Villagers

gave

contradicto

ry version

3 different

contradictory

versions – was he a

sangham member,

a naxalite, killed as

an innocent

bystander in cross

fire, killed in a

police encounter, or

killed by the Naga

IRB in cold blood?

33

corroborated

by testimony

from

Kotrapal

villagers

given to

NHRC on

10.6.08

Collectors

list records

him as

sangham

member

killed on

11.8.05

NHRC: he

was killed

during

cross fire

between

police and

naxalites

f.) Summary: The various orders of the Supreme Court have not been followed by

the State of Chattisgarh. FIR‟s have not been lodged to prosecute the large scale

killings that have taken place despite the clear orders dated 16.12.2008 and again on

18.02.2010. On the other hand, the State of Chattisgarh is now taking the position that

any grievance as to failure or refusal to lodge FIR‟s should be addressed through the

route of applications under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. (CG affidavit of July 2010,

page 8).

The NHRC report (Annexures B-1-B-4,12,14) details several complaints of cognizable

offences. NHRC has indicated 114 cases for further inquiry. The petitioners have also

given details of killing, rape and arson. As against this the State of Chattisgarh has in its

two responses indicated:

1. Eight cases given to the CID for inquiry (details not given)

34

2. No details regarding the Case Of Makdam Hidme in which case of rape the trial

court had issued non-bailable warrants. Despite repeatedly bringing it to the

notice of this Court in the course of the present proceedings, the State has done

nothing to apprehend him and bring him to justice. The State has not apprised

this Court of the situation, either.

3. Magisterial inquiries pending since 2006 have not concluded and no further

magisterial inquiries have been ordered by the State despite the clear orders of

this Court. The Chattisgarh Government‟s affidavits are silent on this count.

X. SUPREME COURT ORDERS ON REHABILITATION

18.02.2010, Petitioner asked to file Rehabilitation Scheme

On 18.02.2010, having regard to all the preceding events, the Supreme Court directed

the Petitioner‟s to file a Comprehensive Rehabilitation Plan. The Petitioner filed a

detailed rehabilitation plan in March 2010. (The Rehabilitation Plan is at Annexure P/1,

pages 7-43 in NS & Ors. affidavit of March 2010). The scheme included a suggestion

that rehabilitation should be overseen by a multi-disciplinary committee.

The Rehabilitation Plan filed by the petitioners was prepared in consultation with a

number of former civil servants, members of the National Commission for the Protection

of Child Rights, similar agencies who are involved in humanitarian relief, and people on

the ground. It follows all accepted international principles and is based on the Supreme

Court‟s definition of rehabilitation as involving reparation, as well as NHRC policy on

Relief and Rehabilitation of persons displaced by conflict.

The relevant portions of the Supreme Court judgments, the National Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Policy 2007, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)

Recommendations on Rehabilitation and Resettlement, 2008, the UN General Assembly

Resolution on the „Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and

Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and

35

Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law‟, 2006, and the UN Guiding

Principles on Internally Displaced Persons, 1998, and the Scheme for Rehabilitation of

Rape Victims 2005, drawn up by the National Commission for Women, on the directions

of the Supreme Court, are annexed as Annexures 1- 6 to the Rehabilitation Plan.

Summary of the Plan: The Plan provides for rehabilitation and reparations at five

levels: Plan

a.) Individual compensation for injury, death, sexual violence, regardless of

perpetrator and without prejudice to criminal prosecution, for all victims.

b.) Household compensation for property loss and damage

c.) Rebuilding and provision of village infrastructure

d.) Restoration of adivasi society which has suffered damage due to breakdown of

trust and fratricidal violence

e.) Restoration of district administrative, police and judicial machinery.

The mechanisms by which this will take place include:

a.) Appointment of a High Level Monitoring Committee to oversee design and

implementation of reparations (including rule of law, and rehabilitation)

b.) Survey and identification of affected persons, households and villages by team of

local college youth under the aegis of a reputed academic agency, and sittings

by retired district judges to hear testimonies from affected persons as was dojne

in Ranganathan v. Union of India 1999, 6 SCC 26

c.) Wide Dissemination of Information regarding plan, procedures and rates of

compensation

d.) Provision of village infrastructure

e.) Special packages for women and children

f.) Measures for restoration of community trust and civil and judicial administration

36

XI. STATE’S RESPONSE DATED 30-4-2010 TO REHABILITATION PLAN OF

PETITIONERS

The State of Chattisgarh filed a response to the same in April 2010. It was in this

response that it took the position that any grievance regarding the failure to record

FIR‟s or prosecute cases should be ventilated by way of individual applications under

Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C, 1973, and that no Committee was required to oversee the lodging

of FIRs.

On the one hand, the State Government opposed the setting up of a Committee to

oversee rehabilitation and prosecution of criminal offences that have occurred in the

wake of all round violence in the state on the ground that the law and order machinery

was functioning well (page 21 of CG April 2010 affidavit). On the other hand, the State

took the plea that given the total breakdown of the administrative machinery in the

State it was not possible for any independent Committee to function.

The State also took the position that any such Committee if formed should contain

representatives of the Chhattisgarh Government (page 21 of CG April 2010 affidavit).

The Petitioner‟s categorically welcome this suggestion. It has been their case from the

beginning that any such Committee should definitely include members of the

Chhattisgarh Government, and such a provision was explicitly made in the suggested

composition of the committee at no. 7 on page 16 of the March 2010 affidavit by NS &

Ors.

SC ORDER DATED 6 MAY 2010

On 06 May 2010, this Court directed the State of Chattisgarh to specifically respond to

the suggestion that an independent Committee be tasked with overseeing the

rehabilitation and lawful prosecution of the various mass crimes that are being

committed in the State.

37

STATE’s AFFIDAVIT OF 24-7-2010

By its affidavit of 24 July, 2010 the State of Chattisgarh, has again reiterated its position

as expressed in its response of 30 April, 2010.

ANALYSIS OF STATE’s RESPONSES OF 30-4-2010 and 24-7-2010

Given below is an analysis of the response of the Chattisgarh Government as appears

from its affidavits dated 30.4. 2010 & 24.7.2010

Rehabilitation

In Para 14 & 15, page 7, of the CG response dated 24.7.10, the State denies the need

for such a Monitoring Committee on the ground that it has already constituted a

committee to monitor relief for victims of Naxal violence who are living in camps.

However, there is no comprehensible detail of any such plan of rehabilitation. The

victims of vigilante and state violence seem to be totally outside the ken of the State‟s

scheme. Furthermore, by the State‟s own admission, this would apply only to a

miniscule minority of the affected population. The Petitioners‟ consistent case has been

that the tribals are being ruined in the crossfire of Naxal and vigilante violence. The

total affected population is seven lakhs (the tribal population of Dantewada and Bijapur

as reckoned by the 2001 census). Even the “officially” affected villages are 644, which

would account for about three lakhs. The declared focus of the Chhattisgarh

“committee” relates to only 13,237 families, (See pages 13, 16 of the response dated

30-4-2010) which means a total of 50,000 people or less.

Even with respect of the 50,000 people in camps there are no details of employment,

health and livelihood facilities currently. Some data of 2008 (R/4 of 19.10.2008, page

538, Vol. 2) has been reproduced verbatim in Annexure R -3, page 65-72, of 30.4.2010

affidavit of CG government. Even if true, this would not address the magnitude of the

problem.

The State of Chhattisgarh has completely ignored Internally Displaced Persons. The

NHRC report recognizes the problem of Internally Displaced Persons now living a hellish

38

existence in AP and has called for their safe return and rehabilitation. Other reports

have referred to this.

Besides, even in Chattisgarh all those other than the 13,237 families referred to by the

State are living in their own villages but their houses have been burnt down and their

subsistence agriculture has been destroyed in the violence. There are no primary

services of health and education available to them. The State has not attended to

them, either.

Compensation

The Central Government Schemes annexed by Chhattisgarh (Annexure B & C, page 17-

38 of July 2010 affidavit) pertain only to victims of Naxalite violence. They have no

provision for victims of state or vigilante violence.

Restoration of Schools, PDS, and other primary services

The Chattisgarh Government has only made a bald assertion that in most cases

alternative arrangements have been made for schooling (Para 12, page 19 of CG

affidavit dated 30.4.2010) On the contrary, an article in The Hindu as recent as

31.03.2010 shows a number of schools as still occupied by security forces and children‟s

education suffering as a result (annexed as Annexure A in affidavit filed on 31st March

2010).

The Dantewada District Administration earlier admitted that prior to Salwa Judum,

schools were functioning in the villages; and that teachers were then shifted to camps

and village schools closed (Affidavit of 14.2.2008 in NS & Ors. WP 250/2007, Annexure

P/41, page 498 of Vol. 2).

Medicin Sans Frontiers is operating in both camps and villages without hindrance, and

there is no reason why government health workers cannot also visit the villages.

39

Disbanding of Salwa Judum

There is no categorical statement regarding the disbanding of Salwa Judum. On the

contrary, the State Government continues to support it at all public platforms. Indeed,

textbooks have been published in Chhattisgarh extolling vigilantism (News report

Annexed as Annexure P/2, pages 44-45, in March 2009 affidavit of WP 250/2007)

Salwa Judum has taken on new names in Dantewada, and is being replicated across the

country under the names of Shanti Sena, Sendra, Harmad Vahini. The trend towards

arming private citizens in the name of fighting naxalism or terrorism is very dangerous.

Summary

To sum up, there is nothing in the response of the State of Chattisgarh to show any

aspect of rehabilitative justice. No attempt has been made to reestablish agriculture,

employment, health or education. No monetary compensation has been given to any of

the tribal victims of state and Salwa Judum violence. Even the compensation paid to

victims of Naxal violence is so paltry that it would hardly help the people to restart their

lives. This is why a multi-disciplinary Monitoring Body which can oversee all aspects of

rehabilitative justice is eminently in the interest of justice.

XII. RELIEFS SOUGHT:REHABILITATIVE JUSTICE

The State of Chattisgarh seems to believe that police methods and meeting violence

with more violence would suffice as a response to the immense human problem

confronting Chattisgarh. Its initial short-sighted policy of vigilante violence has resulted

in total devastation. The situation is a classic case of internal conflict which will admit of

only a holistic solution. Several such instances, elsewhere in the world, have been,

meaningfully dealt with only by adhering strictly to internationally recognized

humanitarian principles of rehabilitation. Therefore, the stance of the Chattisgarh

Government that the area in question is unsafe to enter for any outsider cannot be

countenanced. It is pertinent to note that Medicine Sans Frontiers (MSF) a well known

40

international body of health care experts has been working in Chattisgarh without any

hindrance from the people. This shows clearly that the local people will welcome all

such humanitarian intervention. Public spirited individuals such as Justice A.P Shah

(Retd.) and Justice H. Suresh (Retd.), former civil servants of acknowledged integrity

and administrative skills like K.B. Saxena (former Secretary, Welfare), S.C. Behar

(Former Chief Secretary, Madhya Pradesh) and Harsh Mander (former Collector of

Bastar) are willing to be part of a team to oversee rehabilitation. Since the area is

covered by the Vth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the duty of the Union is all the

more onerous. It is only through this manner of concerted humanitarian intervention

that any successful conclusion to the situation will be attained and reforging of the links

of the people of the State of Chattisgarh with the rest of India will be possible. There is

no doubt at all that normalcy will return if and only if this intervention is made to

protect the lives, liberty and dignity of the people of Chattisgarh. Such a committee can

only be effective with the active assistance, cooperation and participation of the Central

Government and the State of Chattisgarh. Therefore, the committee should include

serving officers of both these governments. It should also include representatives from

agencies which are qualified in women and child welfare, education, health, housing

and other aspects of governance. Reference may be had to internal P. 15 of the

Petitioners suggestion for the composition of a such a multi disciplinary committee.

Keeping the aforesaid in mind the petitioners have filed their response to the stand of

the Chattisgarh government on the Rehabilitation Scheme and have also filed letters of

consent from the above persons among others to be part of a committee to oversee

rehabilitation and restoration of the rule of law in Chattisgarh in their affidavit of July

2007.

It is on these terms that the petitioners seek to make the following prayers for relief:

1. Immediate disbanding of Salwa Judum and a direction to the State to forebear from

any support to any vigilante group and to cease and desist from arming civilians.

41

2. Direct immediate and concrete steps of rehabilitation under the supervision of a

committee appointed by this Hon‟ble Court.

3. Appropriate Directions ensuring that all those who have engaged in human rights

violations will be brought to justice under the supervision of the same committee.