Date post: | 10-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | nandinisundar |
View: | 233 times |
Download: | 2 times |
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.