Date post: | 07-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | nandinisundar |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 35
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
1/35
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 250 OF 2007
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
IN THE MATTER OF:
NANDINI SUNDAR AND ORS PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF CHATTISGARH RESPONDENTS
INDEX
No Particulars Page Nos
1 Additional Affidavit
1. Summary of Response
2.Brief Chronology of Matter
3.Analysis of the Chhattisgarh affidavit of12.2.11 regarding action plan for windingup of relief camps
4.Analysis of the Chhattisgarh affidavit of19.2.11 regarding details of relief andrehabilitation
5.Summary analysis of the 11 Chhattisgarhaffidavits since 2008
6.Current Situation of Villages inDantewada, Bijapur and of IDPs in APbased on petitioners survey in March 2011
7. Petitioners Rehabilitation Plan
2. ANNEXURE P-1 Colly
Newspaper articles on burning of 300 homes,killings and rapes in 3 villages, March 2011
3. ANNEXURE P-2
Newspaper article titled, Magisterial Probe intoPolice Brutalities, Indian Express, March 24, 2011
4. ANNEXURE P-3
Partial List of Villages Affected
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
2/35
2
5.ANNEXURE P-4
Newspaper report titled, Compulsory Voting,
Chhattisgarh Style, The Hindu, February 14, 2010
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
3/35
3
IN THE SUPREME COURT AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 250 OF 2007
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
IN THE MATTER OF:
NANDINI SUNDAR AND ORS PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH RESPONDENTS
ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT
I, Nandini Sundar, ...resident of New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath
as under:
1. I am one of the petitioners in the present petition. I am fully aware of the factsand circumstances of the case and as such am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. The above mentioned matter is pending before this Honourable Court. On18.1.2011, the Court had given three specific directions:
a. In the circumstances, we direct the State Government to file a comprehensiveaffidavit duly stating the details of the action plan for disbanding/winding of
these relief camps so that the Tribals living in these camps go back to their
respective villages.
b. In the affidavit filed by the State, it is stated that the State Government hasbeen reviewing and monitoring the relief, rehabilitation and compensation
given to the `'victims of violence''. We presume that the victims of violence
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
4/35
4
means as the victims of conflict. In the circumstances, it will be proper to
direct the State Government and the Rehabilitation Committee to
file a comprehensive affidavit providing the details of the relief and
rehabilitation provided to the victims of conflict.
c. There shall be a direction to the Union of India and the State of Chhattisgarhto ensure that the security forces vacate all the educational institutions,
school buildings and hostels within a period of four months from today.
3. In pursuance of this order, the State of Chhattisgarh filed an affidavit on 12February 2011 regarding the action plan for winding up of relief camps and
another affidavit on 19 February 2011 regarding details of relief and
rehabilitation to the victims of conflict. On 24. 2. 11, this Honourable Court
suggested verbally that the petitioners file a response to the aforesaid affidavits.
I. SUMMARY OF RESPONSE4. The overall response can be summed up in four points:4.1 The affidavit of 12.2.11 is not a comprehensive action plan for winding up the
camps, or even a plan at all. It is simply a report on the limited action taken to date
pertaining to some 70 villages where people have returned home on their own,
without any governmental help or encouragement. Given that 644 villages are
officially admitted to be affected by Salwa Judum (WP 250/2007, affidavit of May
2007, Annexure P/15, page 272, Vol.1.), and in Dantewada district alone, people
from 206 villages were put into Salwa Judum camps (CG affidavit of 27.1.09, R-6,
running page 112, internal page 15), this is a paltry figure. Even in these 70 villages,
the action taken pertains only to the normal course of government (schools, PDS
etc.) and is silent on compensation for arson, loot, rape and killings.
4.2 The affidavit of 19.2.11 is also not a comprehensive affidavit providing details of
relief and rehabilitation provided to victims of conflict. It pertains only to the need
for setting up of Salwa Judum camps and the welfare measures that have been
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
5/35
5
taken up for residents of the camps, such as anganwadi, NREGA etc. Indeed, it
contradicts the affidavit of 12.2.11 since it portrays the camps as part of the relief
and rehabilitation package or the solution, rather than as part of the problem. It is
silent on compensation and rehabilitation for victims of conflict whose homes have
been burnt and relatives killed but who are still resident in and around their villages
and those victims who have fled to Andhra Pradesh. These two categories together
now form the largest number of victims of conflict.
4.2a Contrary to the claims of the district administration, applications for
compensation are pending, a copy of which has been submitted to this Honourable
Court as well in NS & Ors. affidavit of March 2009, pg 71-106, quite apart from the
testimonies submitted to the Court in WP (Cr.) 119/2007, Vol. 1 & 2, and
testimonies to the NHRC, which are available in the NHRC annexures. This silence
reinforces the argument by counsel for the petitioner recorded in the order of
18.1.11 that the Government provided compensation and the other relief and
rehabilitation in a selective manner ignoring victims of violence at
the hands of Salwa Judum.
4.2b Despite the admission of Chief Minister Raman Singh to the Times of India
(Ramu Bhagwat, Chhattisgarh abandons Salwa Judum, 8.2.2011) that innocent
people were getting killed no attempt has been made to identify these people. The
affidavit is also silent on any procedure whereby people can apply for compensation,
especially in a situation when the violence has been perpetrated by the police
themselves, along with SPOs and Salwa Judum, and even registration of FIRs has
not been possible. Further, the complete blackout of the Supreme Courts 18.1.11
directions, imposed on the Chhattisgarh media, does not connote any seriousness
about implementing an action plan. The first requirement of any such plan is
widespread information on the Courts orders so that people can make an informed
decision about returning home and also file for compensation.
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
6/35
6
4.3 It is meaningless for the Chhattisgarh government to talk about compensating
victims of conflict even as they burn more homes, and kill and sexually assault
villagers, and amounts to contempt of Court. The burning of 300 homes and
granaries in three villages, Tadmetla, Morpalli and Timapuram, as well as the killing
of three villagers and sexual assault of three women by Koya Commandos (SPOs)
and Cobras, between March 11-15, 2011, as reported by The Hindu and Patrika
(Raipur Edition) on 23rd March 2011 is consistent with the process initiated by Salwa
Judum and indicates that Salwa Judum has not run its course, simply taken on a
different nomenclature. The SPOs remain at its core as the main perpetrators, along
with the police.
4.3a Salwa Judum, as we pointed out in our affidavit of 18.10.10, (page 36, Vol. IV),
is simultaneously identified with a group of people who were armed by the state and
a process. This process involves arson attacks, killings and rapes in those villages
who are alleged to support the Maoists and has always been carried out by a
combination of security forces, SPOs and armed civilian activists. People are afraid
to return from Andhra Pradesh and those who are still in their villages are afraid to
live a normal life because of a deep fear that they may be attacked at any moment
by SPOs and the security forces whom they refer to as the Judum.
4.3b The failure to prosecute SPOs and Salwa Judum leaders and the unbridled
power they enjoy also indicates continuing state support to Salwa Judum. As
reported by the Times of Indiaand The Hinduon March 23, 2011, journalists were
prevented by the police from visiting the area. Subsequently, the SPOs have also not
allowed relief supplies sent by the revenue administration to go in, and on 26 March
2011, they attacked Swami Agnivesh and Art of Living representatives to prevtn
them visiting the affected villages. There is a state of complete lawlessness in
Dantewada and Bijapur. Copies of the articles titled, Chhattisgarh villages torched
in police rampage, Aman Sethi, The Hindu, March 23 2011;300 homes burnt in
Bastar, Patrika, Raipur edition, 23 March 2011,Security forces running riot in
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
7/35
7
Dantewada, Supriya Sharma, Times of India, March 23, 2011, In Dantewada,
Collector & SP not on same page, Supriya Sharma, Times of India, March 24, 2011,
SPOs assault truck owner for delivering rations to burnt village, The Hindu, March
25, 2011, Agitated crowd attack Swami Agnivesh in Chhattisgarh, Indian Express,
March 26, 2011 are annexed hereto asAnnexure 1 Colly.
4.3c. The Chhattisgarh affidavit of 19.2.11 where the State Relief and Rehabilitation
team mentions that there are no applications for compensation pending with the
administration is consistent with a general pattern. In this March 2011 incident too,
the administration is using the excuse that As of now, neither the police nor the
civil administration has received any complaints regarding the incident. Nobody has
come forward to lodge complaint. We dont know who did it the police as is being
alleged or the Maoists. A copy of the newspaper article, Magisterial probe into
police brutalities, Joseph John, March 24 2011, Indian Express, is annexed hereto
asAnnexure 2. When nobody is allowed to go in, and police are the perpetrators,
it beats reason as to how villagers are expected to lodge complaints. Even when
magisterial enquiries are appointed, they take years together and the results are not
made public. Despite repeated directions from this Honourable Court to show action
taken on registration of FIRs and criminal prosecution, the state government has not
made the results of any of its enquiries available even to the Court.
4.4 Since the Chhattisgarh government is unable to come up with an action plan for
disbanding the camps or providing relief, rehabilitation and compensation, we pray
that this Honourable Court direct the implementation of the comprehensive
rehabilitation plan filed by the petitioners in March 2010, in response to the Courts
directive of 18.2.010. This plan deals with all categories of victims those in camps,
those in villages and IDPs (internally displaced persons) in Andhra Pradesh, and
provides for rehabilitation and compensation at all levels, including guarantee of
non-repetition, under the aegis of an independent monitoring committee. It is
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
8/35
8
consistent with Supreme Court judgments on reparation, as well as NHRC guidelines
and a variety of national and international policies.
II.BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF MATTER5. This is not the first time that this Honourable Court has asked the Chhattisgarh
government to show action taken on relief, rehabilitation and compensation for
all victims of conflict, regardless of perpetrator or to file FIRs. The 18.1.2011
order of this Court and the Chhattisgarh affidavits of 12.2.11 and 19.2.11 filed in
response must therefore be read as one more in the long history of missed
opportunities provided to the state government. Indeed, the state government
appears to have read the forbearance of the Court as latitude to carry out further
attacks such as the March 2011 burning of villages Tadmetla, Morpalli and
Timapur.
6. The NHRC submitted its report on August 2008. On 16 December 2008, theSupreme Court directed FIRs to be registered in all cases of killings. The
Supreme Court also directed a magisterial inquiry into all the cases where the
dead bodies are found. The Court further directed an Action Taken Report
(hereinafter referred to as ATR) on the aforesaid as well as on the
recommendations made by the NHRC, including compensation and rehabilitation
to all victims, regardless of perpetrator, to be filed by end of January 2009.
7. The Chhattisgarh Government filed its response to the NHRC report in October2008 admitting (annexure R 5) that houses had been burnt by Salwa Judum,
and two ATRs in January 2009 and in August 2009 respectively. The
Petitioners by their detailed affidavits of March 2009, August 2009 and
November 2009 highlighted the Chhattisgarh Governments 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
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
9/35
9
neighboring states back to their homes. On the contrary there were fresh killings
by Salwa Judum, SPOs and Security forces. There was fresh distress migration
to Andhra Pradesh. The ATRs only refer to facilities provided to camp residents
and to no one else. Instances were also given of the State Governments failure
to register FIRs.
8. On 18.02.2010, after hearing the parties on this ongoing situation of violencethe Court directed the Petitioners to file a Comprehensive Rehabilitation Scheme.
The Petitioner filed a detailed rehabilitation scheme in March2010. The scheme
included a suggestion that rehabilitation should be overseen by a multi-
disciplinary committee. On 6 May 2010 the Supreme Court again directed
Chhattisgarh to show status of FIRs filed, and to respond to the suggestion of a
High level monitoring Committee. The court asked the petitioners verbally to file
consent letters of people willing to serve on the committee, which they did in
their affidavit of July 2010.
9. In May 2010, July 2010, August 2010, October 2010, November 2010,and January 2011, Chhattisgarh filed 6 affidavits on action taken. The last
three (Oct 2010- January 2011) were in response to the direction by this
Honourable Court asking for the status on five points: Status of Salwa Judum, by
when schools and ashrams would be vacated by security forces, FIRs filed and
prosecution undertaken, status of relief and rehabilitation to all victims of
conflict, constitution of a high level committee.
10.By their affidavits ofMarch 2010 and July 2010, written submissions of August 2010 and affidavit of October 2010, the petitioners showed the
inadequacy of Chhattisgarh action taken. The petitioners pointed out that in all
affidavits, there is no mention of any compensation to victims of Salwa
Judum/security forces or relief and rehabilitation for people living in their own
villages or in Andhra Pradesh whose houses were burnt and relatives killed. They
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
10/35
10
only mention facilities for Salwa Judum supporters and SPOs in camps, and
compensation for victims of Naxalites. The response of the state government,
where the very existence of IDPs in AP, and the category of victims of conflict
still resident in their own villages was denied in CG affidavit May 2010 (page 20),
and the argument that any grievance as to failure or refusal to lodge FIRs should
be addressed through the route of applications under Sec 156 (3) of the CrPC
1973 ( CG affidavit of July 2010, page 8) shows the complete lack of concern by
the state government and the need for an independent monitoring committee.
11.On 18 January 2011 this Honourable Court again asked Chhattisgarh to fileaffidavits on action plan for disbanding Salwa Judum camps, and providing
rehabilitation and compensation, which the state government did on 12.2.11
and 19.2.11. This present affidavit is a response.
III.ANALYSIS OF THE CHHATTISGARH AFFIDAVIT OF 12.2.11 REGARDINGACTION PLAN FOR WINDING UP OF RELIEF CAMPS
12.The Chhattisgarh affidavit of 12.2.11 is not a comprehensive action plan at all
covering all 644 villages in Bijapur and Dantewada or even 206 villages in
Dantewada, but simply a report on the limited action taken to date, pertaining to
some 70 villages where people have returned on their own. That too, the action
taken falls within the requirements of the normal course of governance, as
against a conflict situation in which people have been killed, their houses looted
and burnt, and women raped, which requires special provision for rehabilitation.
13.The Chhattisgarh affidavit of 12.2.11 is, moreover, contradicted by the affidavitof 19.2.2011, which far from recognizing the need for the camps to be disbanded
and villagers to return home, claims that the camps are the solution in terms of
relief and rehabilitation to victims of conflict. (page 2, para 4) It cites the State
Review and Monitoring Committee for Relief and Rehabilitation as saying that
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
11/35
11
overall the conditions in the relief camps was satisfactory (page 12). This
affidavit is completely silent on relief and rehabilitation to anyone living outside
the camps.
14.No. of People in Camps, Villages and refugees in Andhra Pradesh needsindependent verification: 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 (Official memo of the
Government of Chhattisgarh, reproduced in WP 250/2007, affidavit of May 2007,
Annexure P/15, page 272, Vol.1.)
15.According to the Chhattisgarh affidavit of 27 August 2010, there are 14 campsin Bijapur with a total population of 15,261 persons (page 7) and 34,733 persons
from 7167 families in 7 camps in Dantewada (page 13), i.e. a total of 49,994.
The majority of these people are Special Police Officers, Salwa Judum activists
and their families (page 5).
16.According to the 19.2.11 Chhattisgarh affidavit, there are now only about 25,200people living in 23 camps in Dantewada and Bijapur combined (14,700 in 9 relief
camps in Dantewada; 10,500 in 14 relief camps in Bijapur). An independent
verification of this figure is required. If half the population felt confident about
returning home between August 2010 and January 2011, then situation must be
deemed to be conducive to the government providing compensation for losses
and full rehabilitation in the villages.
17.Three categories of victims: The total affected population of 644 villages (asreckoned by the 2001 census) would be about three lakhs. This is divided
between three categories of people:
a.)the camp residents (now 25,000),b.)internally displaced persons from Chhattisgarh now refugees in Andhra
Pradesh (estimated as 30-40,000 with at least 350 families having fled since
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
12/35
12
September 2009 alone, according to a joint survey by Government and NGOs
in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh),
c.) the vast majority who are still living in their Chhattisgarh villages but whosehomes have been destroyed and property looted.
However, all the affidavits of the Chhattisgarh government pertain only to
facilities in camps and are silent on the other two categories. By the state
governments own admission, and as pointed out in our written submissions
of August 2010 (page 12) all the facilities meant for villages anganwadi,
PDS etc. have been diverted to camp.
18.The government claims to have spent Rs. 33.58 crores on Salwa Judum campsfrom 2005-10 (3 May 2010 affidavit, page 11, totaled by us). However, the
current conditions in camps do not appear to justify this expenditure.
19.No. and names of villages to which camp residents have returned:Despite repeated requests, the Chhattisgarh government has never provided a
full list of villages from where people were brought to the Salwa Judum camp. A
very partial list of affected villages compiled by us, which is still in the process of
being updated is annexed hereto asAnnexure 3.
20.According to the affidavit of 12.2.2011 the following steps have been taken aftercamp residents have returned to their original villages:
Villages officially affected by Salwa Judum: 644
Villages to which services have been restored: 70
S.No. Type of government service Bijapur Dantewada
1. Schools 22 villages 65 schools in 48
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
13/35
13
villages
2. Anganwadi 6 villages (page4), 22 villages
(page 7)
73 centres in 48
villages
3. PDS 22 villages Silent4. Handpumps 22 villages Silent5. Agricultural help (seeds, help with
ploughing)
seeds to 2763
farmers, tractor
ploughing for 632
farmers
government has
extended all
possible help
6. NREGA 22 villages Silent
Note: 22 villages in Bijapur have been resettled out of an unknown number of villages
which were burnt and displaced by Salwa Judum. In Dantewada, only 48 out of 206
displaced villages have been addressed here.
A case study of village Lingagiri and Hirapur, which have been claimed by the Bijapur
administration as resettled, is provided further in this affidavit. Here, nobody has been
given compensation and no FIRs have been registered.
IV. ANALYSIS OF CHHATTISGARH AFFIDAVIT OF 19.2.11 REGARDING
DETAILS OF RELIEF AND REHABILITATION PROVIDED TO THE VICTIMS OF
CONFLICT
21.The affidavit of 19.2.11 reiterates the facilities available in camp which are partof the normal course of governance, and do not specifically address the
rehabilitation needs of a conflict situation. It is silent on the villages.
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
14/35
14
22.Killings: The affidavit of 19.2.11 mentions compensation for 718 people killedin Naxal violence between 2005-10, but compensation only for 17 killed by non-
Naxals in Dantewada. However, no details have been provided either of Naxal or
non-Naxal victims, making it impossible to cross check. In Bijapur, 197 have
been compensated as killed by Naxalite violence. As regards killings by
SPOs/Salwa Judum/security forces, the three widows from village Kotrapal,
whose husbands were killed in Matwada camp, were compensated only after a
High Court interim order of 18 August 2010, two years after the killings on 18
March 2008. Similarly, the Cherpal compensation came only after much public
protest by camp residents, and an SDM enquiry. Together, the number of victims
of Salwa Judum/Security forces/SPOs compensated comes to only 22.
23.Given that we have submitted a list of over 500 people killed by Salwa
Judum/SPOs and security forces; the NHRC investigated some 145 of these
cases, and 114 of them need further enquiry (see our August 2010 written
submissions, page 23), the compensation listed against non-Naxal violence is
negligible. People who have been attacked by the Salwa Judum, SPOs and
security forces will not feel confident about filing claims and complaints with the
police. An independent enquiry and monitoring committee is needed.
24.Damages to property: The government has only compensated for losses dueto naxalite violence and not due to Salwa Judum violence.
25.Our affidavit WP 250/2007 of 18.10.2010 encloses letters from camp residentssaying they have not yet got any compensation. The report of the state review
and monitoring committee for relief and rehabilitation notes in point iv (page 13
of Chhattisgarh 19.2.11 affidavit) regarding camp residents that there were few
people who complained that they did not get their compensation provided by the
Government for victims of violence. However, it is submitted no applications are
pending with the Collector, Dantewada and Bijapur for compensation. Is it not
the duty of the committee to enquire into these discrepancies?
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
15/35
15
26.If this is the fate of Salwa Judum camp residents, it is certain that those invillages have not been given any compensation whatsoever. A list of claims for
compensation given to the district administration has been submitted to the
Supreme Court in WP 250/2007, March 2009, pages 71-106, apart from details
of killings, rapes and property damages annexed with WP 119/2007, Vol I & II.
27. A verification exercise conducted by the petitioner, Nandini Sundar, with asample of residents of these villages from March 12-18 2011, has revealed that
no-one has got any compensation, and there has been no procedure announced
by the government to enable them to apply. No-one has surveyed the villages or
IDPs for losses. For instance, villagers from Kottacheru which has been listed
by the Chhattisgarh government in its affidavit of 12.2.11 (page 9) as having
been resettled by government, had also submitted claims to the district
administration for compensation (NS & Ors, March 2009 affidavit, pg 103-4).
However, none of them have got any compensation to date.
28.Petitioner has not got compensation: While the government chargesheetsaccuse Salwa Judum activists of burning petitioner Dudhi Jogas house and
others in Arlampalli village, Dantewada district, no compensation has been given.
Instead, as per Chhattisgarh affidavit of 5.1.2011 (R2, pg 466), closure reports
have been filed.
29.Repetition of list of FIRs: With respect to the state of FIRs, criminalprosecution and compensation, the government keeps filing the same material
under the heading of different annexures. R 2 of 5.1.2011 on status of criminal
cases and FIRs registered is the same as Annexure R-3 of 26.10.10 which is the
same as R-1 of 28.8.10 and Annexure A of 24.7.2010, and Appendix B of
3.5.2010.
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
16/35
16
30.Case Study of Lingagiri and Hirapur villages, Bijapur districtThe Bijapur administration has listed some villages where people have returned
and the administration has restarted schools, anganwadi etc., including Lingagiri
and Hirapur. It must be noted that these villages were resettled not by the local
administration but by NGOs in AP and Dantewada who brought some families
back in a tractor and helped to liase with the administration to provide seeds etc.
See for example, a report in The Hindu titled Compulsory Voting, Chhattisgarh
Style, 14 February 2010, annexed hereto as Annexure 4. However, both the
affidavits of 12.1.11 and 19.1.11 are completely silent on compensation for arson
and deaths in Lingagiri and Hirapur, despite their complaints to the NHRC, and
despite the NHRCs findings which should have led to further judicial enquiry.
The chart below is extracted from our response to the NHRC filed on 11.10.2008.
31.Petitioner Nandini Sundar met villagers from Lingagiri and Hirapur in March 2011,and they all categorically stated that they have not received any compensation
for either arson or killings.
32. Extract from NS & Ors. 11.10.2008: Response to the NHRC (Investigation
Division) Chhattisgarh Enquiry Report, pages 71-73
S. No.
& Para
of
NHRC
report
Name of
Village
Allegations Source of
allegation
NHRC
Teams
findings
NHRC
Teams
conclusion
Our Remarks on
NHRCs findings/
conclusions
29
6.62-
6.62.4
Lingagiri 150 houses
burnt,
women
beaten, SJ
harassmen
Written
petition
submitted to
NHRC team
by Lingagiri
NHRC
Team
visited PS
Basaguda,
and village
Could not
verify who
was
responsible
for burning
Prima facie burnt
by SJ; Inexplicable
why testimony of
IDPs in AP was not
accepted; and why
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
17/35
17
t for not
attending
meetings,
villagers
flee to
forests
when
police
come, now
all fled to
AP
villagers in
Cherla, AP
Lingagiri,
found all
houses
burnt and
damaged,
school
books
scattered,
and
slogans of
SJ
Murdabad
and names
of those
who died
on the
walls of
classroom
or verify
killings since
village was
abandoned,
but names of
those killed
figure in the
voting list
NHRC Team did
not feel the need
for further enquiry
into killings
preferably judicial
enquiry required.
Pujari
Ramaiah
killed
Corroborated
by 3
separate
testimonies
signed by 61
Lingagiri
villagers
submitted
Judicial enquiry
required.
.
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
18/35
18
with WP 119
Pujari
Motiram
killed
Also
corroborated
by Human
Rights Watch
report
Judicial enquiry
required.
Gantal
Kanaiaha
killed
Gantal
Sridevi
raped and
killed
30
6.63-
6.63.9
Hira
puram
SJ burnt 17
houses
Testimony
given by
Hirapuram
villagers to
NHRC team
in Cherla
NHRC
team
visited
village,
observed
burnt and
damaged
houses;
one
woman
told them
houses had
been burnt
by SJ and
Allegation
that SJ burnt
houses
substantiatd
Judicial enquiry
required.
.
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
19/35
19
Vetti Masa,
Madium
Sannu and
Avala
Madamma
killed, but
she did not
know by
whom as
she had
then fled
to AP
6 year old
Oyam Gujji
d/o Sannu
killed and
thrown into
pond by
SPOs in
2007
Corroborated
by testimony
87, 119,
which notes
9 houses
burnt, and
11 looted,
and killing of
Sannus
daughter
Female
SPO told
NHRC
team that
the three
were
sangham
members
and were
killed in an
encounter;
also
confirmed
death of
Sannus
daughter
Police
records
show that
Masa, Sannu
and
Madamma
were killed in
encounter
but because
FIR shows
bodies were
in uniform,
and SPO said
sangham
members not
in uniform,
Police version of
encounter doubted
only on version of
SPO; testimony by
IDPs in AP
discounted.
judicial enquiry
required.
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
20/35
20
encounter
killing needs
to be further
investigated.
Vetti Masa
s/o Somdu
killed in
2008
Another
villager
(camp
resident?)
said
naxalites
killed three
people (of
which
relative of
only one,
Korsa,
received
compensati
on as per
police
records);
and 2
others
were
missing
Despite lack
of police
records, 3
killings by
Naxalites
substantiate
d:
Modiyum
Samyya,
Vayam
Lakhmu,
Korsa Monga
s/o Kovaand
NHRC Team does
not explain lack of
police records for
the other two.
Needs further
investigation
preferably a judicial
enquiry
Medium
Sannu s/o
Dumma
Needs further
investigation
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
21/35
21
2008 preferably a judicial
enquiry
Savlam
Hadma
(wrongly
written as
Avala
Madamma
s/o Pulla
2008
Needs further
investigation
preferably a judicial
enquiry
V. SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF THE ELEVEN CHHATTISGARH AFFIDAVITS ONCOMPENSATION, RELIEF AND REHABILIATION FILED SINCE 2008
PURSUANT TO THE NHRC RECCOMENDATIONS AND THE SUPREME
COURTS ORDERS
32.Nowhere in the entire set of 11 affidavits filed by the state of Chhattisgarh afterthe NHRC report recommended compensation and rehabilitation for all, can one
find any detail whatsoever of compensation, relief and rehabilitation to victims of
Salwa Judum and security forces. All the affidavits only mention compensation
to victims of Naxalite violence and relief for camp residents who are presumed to
be victims of Naxalites. The 19.2.11 affidavit mentions some compensation but
the scale (22 persons compensated for deaths) is negligible compared to the
damages inflicted by Salwa Judum.
33.A summary analysis of what the affidavits contain is as under:
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
22/35
22
33.1 21 OCTOBER 2008:Annexure R 4 lists educational facilities, hand pumps, toilets, health facilities, ration
distribution and employment in relief camps only
As for independent investigation of offences committed by Salwa Judum, SPOs and
security forces, as recommended by NHRC, the following team, comprising solely of
Chhattisgarh police officers, was appointed to investigate.
1. Shri AN Upadhyay, Inspector General of Police Bastar Range, Jagdalpur2. Shri Himanshu Gupta, Dy Inspector General of Police, CID, Police HQ, Raipur3. Smt. Neha Champawat, Commandant, 7th Battalion Chhattisgarh Armed
Force, Bhilai.
33.2 27 JANUARY 2009Annexure R-6, R-7, R-8 deal only with relief to victims of Naxalite violence staying in
relief camps only
R 1 deals with FIRs in a few cases including burning of houses in Arlampalli, Ponjer,
Bhogamguda, Neelamadgu, Hirapur, Palamadgu. However, in the affidavit of
12.2.11 and 19.2.11, no mention has been made of compensation to residents of
these villages.
R-6 mentions that 1142.154 lakhs was disbursed to camp residents for deaths,
injuries, damage to property due to Naxalite violence and grant to surrendered
Sangham members, between 2005 and 2009. No mention is made of any
compensation to victims of Salwa Judum violence.
R-8 lists no. of camps as 65, and mentions a total expenditure of Rs. 3255.567 lakhs
on relief for camps between 2005 and 2009.
R-10 again deals only with facilities in camps, and not with the villages at all.
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
23/35
23
33.3. 19 AUGUST 2009
Denies specific instances of arson and looting highlighted by petitioner in Gorkha
and Chinger villages.
State Government is committed to providing compensation to whosoever is victim
of violence. ...The Government is committed to create conditions for safe return
and rehabilitation to all displaced families. (page 3)
On refugees from Chhattisgarh to AP: no particular cause (for their migration)
could be discerned. The State of Chhattisgarh would like to ensure that all the
people who had migrated to the state of AP are duly taken care of by the State of
AP because it lies in their jurisdiction. (page 4).
On Compensation: In this regard, an exercise has been done in the villages
affected by violence. In the applications received allegations relating to 344 cases in
dist. Dantewada and 141 in dist. Bijapur of damage to property or other crimes have
been reported. The allegations of heinous nature have been transferred to the
district SP and others on damage to cattle, poultry etc. are being verified by the
revenue staff. (page 4-5)
Current affidavit of 12.2.11 is silent on the fate of these applications with respect to
both heinous crimes and property damages.
Missing persons: In dist. Bijapur, the names of 40 villages are mentioned as
having missing people or people in Salwa Judum camps (page 9-10). Yet, in the
current affidavit of 25.2.11, none of these villages figure as villages which are being
rehabilitated.
33.4 3 MAY 2010
Affidavit provides a figure of Rs. 671 lakhs paid to victims of Naxalite violence
under the SRE scheme between 2005 and 2010 (page 11) and also lists
expenditure on the 23 camps for food, housing, drinking water, electricity,
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
24/35
24
employment and agricultural help) as Rs. 335,899,586, i.e. Rs. 33.58 crores.
(page 11). (The conditions in camps do not look as if Rs. 33.58 crores have been
spent on them and the amount merits independent auditing).
The Scheme attached as Annexure R 2 Central Scheme for Assistance to the
Victims of Terrorist, Communal and Naxal Violence) only pertains to victims of
Naxal violence.
Measures taken in dist. Bijapur are listed as job cards, training for skill like
mechanic etc, handpumps, toilets etc. in camp, while in Dantewada, the affidavit
mentions free food, adult literacy programs, NREGA and training in bamboo
crafts etc. in camps. These are measures in the normal scheme of governance
and not what is needed for rehabilitative justice.
The affidavit is silent on any works in villages. Not only this, it denies that there
is any category of persons living in the villages of Dantewada and Bijapur who
are affected by Salwa Judum or who have fled to AP because of Salwa Judum
(page 20).
Annexure R 3 listing works done and facilities available in camps in 2010 is a
duplicate of Annexure R 4 of October 2008.
33.5 24 JULY 2010
Annexure A lists cases being investigated by the CID. But despite noting that
houses were burnt by Salwa Judum and people killed by SPOs the current
affidavit of 12.2.11 is silent on compensation to the victims.
Annexure B is a state rehabilitation plan pertaining only to victims of Naxalites,
and has no provision whatsoever for victims of Salwa Judum or security forces.
Even in this, the compensation amounts are laughable: Rs. 50,000 for permanent
disability, Rs. 10,000for damage to house, Rs. 25,000 for damage to means of
livelihood like tractor, jeep etc.
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
25/35
25
Annexure C is a central scheme, again only for victims of Naxalites, offering
financial assistance of Rs. 3 lakhs only.
33.6 27 AUGUST 2010
The affidavit lists measures taken for camp residents in Bijapur and Dantewada
and is silent/ non-specific about facilities in villages. It mentions 14 camps in
Bijapur with a total population of 15,261 persons and 34,733 persons from 7167
families in 7 camps in Dantewada (page 13). The majority of these people are
Special Police Officers, Salwa Judum activists and their families (page 5). 15
crores have been spent in Dantewada camps in 2009-10. The state of schools,
as shown by the photos in our affidavit, clearly raises questions as to where and
how this money is being spent. In passing it is mentioned that villagers are going
back and some effort is being made to repair hand pumps in villages but no
details are specified.
Para 11, Page 22: The affidavit mentions a development core group, headed by
the Chief Secretary to monitor the implementation of the Planning Commission
flagship schemes.
Para 13, page 23: The State has set up a High Level committee to monitor relief
and rehabilitation consisting of ex-acting chairman of the state human rights
commission, Mr. LJ Singh and journalist Govind Lal Vora.
Para 14, page 23: The State has set up a State Relief and Rehabilitation
Committee, whose members are:
1. Mr. Sunil Kujur, State Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner2. Mr. Manoj Pingua, Commissioner Bastar Division3. Mrs. Reena Babasaheb Kangale Collector Dantewada4. Mr. R. Prasanna Collector Bijapur
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
26/35
26
There appears to be a confusing surfeit of committees appointed by the state,
but all of them are only concerned with relief and rehabilitation for the Salwa
Judum residents of camps, and victims of naxal violence.
R-1 of 28.8.2010 on list of cases under investigation by CID is the same as
Annexure A of 24.7.2010.
33.7 26 OCTOBER 2010
At the hearing on 31.8.10, this Honble Court asked the respondent state of
Chhattisgarh to respond on the following five points
1. Disbanding of Salwa Judum2. By when schools and ashrams would be vacated by security forces,3. Report on the FIRs registered and prosecution undertaken4. Status of rehabilitation and compensation to all victims regardless of
perpetrator,
5. Constitution of a High Level Committee to oversee rehabilitation andregistration of FIRs.
In response to point 3 on registration of FIRs, Annexure R-3 of 26.10.10 is the same
as R-1 of 28.8.10 and Annexure A of 24.7.2010, and Appendix B of 3.5.2010. i.e. no
fresh material has been filed since a year ago.
Annexure R-4 is a general survey of development works in Dantewada district for
the past five years (pages 26-29 are missing from the compilation provided by the
state counsel). Again, in so far as it mentions the need for conflict related
rehabilitation, it pertains mainly to camp residents.
Return of IDPs from Andhra Pradesh: 2 teams have been formed on team of
5 persons under the chairmanship of the Additional Collector, Dantewada was
formed on 1.3.2008 and another 4 member team was formed on 20.3.2008 under
the SDM Sukma. According to these teams, the IDPs told them they were better off
in AP and did not wish to return. On page 47 it is revealed that 19 designated camp
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
27/35
27
sites have been reserved for those IDPs in AP who come back. No wonder nobody
wished to return according to the Chhattisgarh administration.
In response to point 5, the affidavit, page 16, notes that there is no need for a
separate monitoring committee because a unified command has already been set up
under the Chief Minister consisting of an operations core group and development
core group. The development core group consists of:
The Chief Minister, DGP, Secretaries of all development departments Representative of Planning Commission, Representative of MHA Mahendra Karma, ex MLA Dantewada, Bhima Mandavi, MLA Dantewada
As mentioned before, the Chief Minister, DGP and Mr. Mahendra Karma have all
been vociferous supporters of Salwa Judum. It is not clear how this committee
relates to the two earlier committees, mentioned in 27th August 2010, or the
committee mentioned in the 21 October 2008 Chhattisgarh affidavit. In any case,
since the current affidavit of 12.2.11 is so lacking on all counts, more independent
monitoring is needed.
33.8 16 NOVEMBER 2010
The details in this affidavit pertain to normal government schemes (cycles for
girls, scholarships etc.) in Bijapur district and have little to do with the specific
needs of conflict induced displacement, and rehabilitation. Silent on
compensation for any losses to property or life.
33.9 5 JANUARY 2011
Notes that 6 out of 31 schools occupied by security forces have been vacated.
R 2 of 5.1.2011 is the same as Annexure R-3 of 26.10.10 which is the same as
R-1 of 28.8.10 and Annexure A of 24.7.2010, and Appendix B of 3.5.2010. i.e.
no fresh material has been filed since at least 2010, and the government keeps
filing the same material. The only difference is that in 5.1.2011, closure reports
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
28/35
28
have been submitted to the court without any compensation being paid to the
victim, including petitioner Dudhi Joga, whose house was burnt and looted by
Salwa Judum.
33.10 12 FEBRUARY 2011
The affidavit is not an action plan at all, but an inadequate status report of the
government schemes in place in a few villages. Silent on issue of compensation
altogether.
33.11 19 FEBRUARY 2011Like all the previous affidavits, focuses on facilities for camp residents. Silent on
rehabilitation for villages. Mentions some compensation but provides no details,
and anyway, almost of it pertains only to victims of Naxalite violence.
VI. CURRENT SITUATION OF VILLAGES IN DANTEWADA AND BIJAPURDISTRICT, CHHATTISGARH AND INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS
FROM CHHATTISGARH IN ANDHRA PRADESH, BASED ON
PETITIONERS SURVEY, MARCH 2011.
34.Petitioner Nandini Sundar undertook a spot survey of the situation in the villagesof Chhattisgarh and IDP settlements in Andhra Pradesh to assess the latest
situation, from March 12-18 2011. The following is the situation based on
affidavits provided by the victims of conflict. They have not been annexed hereto
to avoid making the petition bulky and because it is dangerous in the current
situation of lawlessness for victims to even complain. However, all affidavits will
be submitted once a procedure to give compensation is announced, and
independence of monitoring is assured. In none of these cases has there been
any survey of losses, and in no case was anyone aware that the Court had given
orders for compensation.
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
29/35
29
Situation of IDPs in Andhra Pradesh
35.The following IDP settlements in Khammam district were visited: Balimela,Surakonta, Boringguda, Venkatacheruvu, Ekanagudem
36.IDPs came from the following villages in Chhattisgarh (both Dantewada andBijapur tahsils): Kottacheru (4 people killed by Salwa Judum and 4 people killed
by Maoists; houses burnt), Uskewaya (25 houses burnt), Gompad (houses
burnt, 9 people killed), Neelamadgu (40 houses burnt, 2 people killed),
Chintagufa, Bheji thana (40 houses burnt in Muchki para, 1 person killed),
Velpocha (4 people killed, 6 houses burnt), Hirapur (9 houses burnt, Oyam
Sannus daughter killed, 3 others killed: Vetti Masa, Madiam Sannu and Savlam
Hadma who were cutting wood together), Chota Tarrem (49 houses burnt),
Sarkaguda (25 houses burnt), Korsaguda (64 houses burnt, 2 people killed),
Lingagiri (houses burnt, 4 people killed), Amapenta, Itapara, Tatemadgu,
Jagavaram, Bade Setti, Pawras, Reval, Neelawaya, Kachal, Chingavaram,
Kamlapur, Jabbagutta, Durma,Todka, Gangalur, Jojor (in all people fled because
their own or neighbouring villages were burnt)
37.Livelihood issuesAll the IDPs are surviving on coolie for the mirchi harvest for which they are paid
Rs. 60-100 per day. The elders in the family eat once a day, while they try to
ensure that children get at least two meals. Many of the IDPs have left behind
substantial holdings of 10-20 acres because their houses were burnt and
property destroyed. In many families, the old people continue to live in the
original villages in Chhattisgarh where they survive by selling gum and other
minor forest produce. A small percentage have cut fresh forest land in Andhra
Pradesh and may not go back, but a majority wish to return if the situation
stabilizes. None of them have got any compensation and nobody has enquired
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
30/35
30
about their losses, except in one or two villages around Basaguda where survey
was done.
Rights under the Forest Rights Act
38.When the villages were burnt, the PORs made by the forest department werealso burnt, so people have no means to establish their rights under the Forest
Rights Act. An additional danger is that the census is being conducted in their
absence which means their existence in their home villages will be obliterated.
They also have a problem getting any benefits in AP, since they dont have ST
status in AP.
Fear of Police and SPOs
39.In some of the mandals of Khammam district, which are closer to theChhattisgarh border, the police insist that the IDPs report to them on a weekly
basis, and get them to perform odd jobs around the police station for free, in
what amounts to begari or forced labour. This used to be the practice in other
mandals also wrt IDPs before some NGOs protested. SPOs from Chhattisgarh
also visit AP and threaten the IDPs and NGOs who are assisting them.
SITUATION IN CHHATTISGARH VILLAGES
40.The Chhattisgarh villages on which I was able to get information by visitingChhattisgarh itself are divided into three categories:
Those villages where significant numbers of people have returned from
AP/camp and are cultivating (some members of these villages are still in
AP): Maita, Pusguda, Durma, Dabbapad, Nulkatong, Velpocha, Uskewaya, Ginitong,
Palkite, Batterupara, Mololbanda, Nagaram, Kottacheru, Kuruguda, Neelamadgu,
Gyarapad, Mukudtong, Chintaguppa, Kanaipad, Kindlaipad, Korsaguda, Etrajpad
In all these villages people went back on their own, with no assistance from, and
often despite obstacles posed by the administration and police.
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
31/35
31
Those where some people are in villages, and some in Salwa Judum
camps: Kanaiguda, Etkal, Murluguda, Chintakonta
Those in camp: Phandiguda, Dondra, Injeram, Gorkha (thana in the village),
Kamrajpad, Ipaguda
Compensation and Rehabilitation
41.Even though they had all faced arson, looting and even killings by the SalwaJudum, in none of these villages had anyone been given any compensation
whatsoever, and nobody had come to enquire about their losses. In many
villages, people have come back from Andhra Pradesh and restarted cultivation
either last year or will start this year. Earlier as well, people had returned but the
vicious attacks on Gompad in which 9 people were killed, and an infant had his
fingers chopped off, again scared off people from returning. In most villages,
handpumps have not been repaired, they have to travel very long distances to
get rations if at all, the schools, anganwadi etc. have not been restored in the
villages.
Fear of Police and SPOs
42.In Batterupara of Nelmeta, one person, Madvi Ganga, aged 22-23 had beentaken away by the SPOs and Police around 3-4 am on the 10th of March 2011.
When women from the village went to enquire about him the next day, the
police denied all knowledge of him. He had two children and his wife is pregnant
with a third. In many villages, the young people have run away to AP or Orissa
because the police have been taking them to the thana and keeping them there,
accusing them of helping Maoists.
43.The only way to address the situation of people in camps, those in AP and thosein villages is to implement the petitioners rehabilitation plan.
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
32/35
32
VII. PETITIONERS REHABILITATION PLAN44.By contrast to the so-called comprehensive affidavits filed by the state of
Chhattisgarh, the petitioners rehabilitation plan filed in March 2010 in response
to the Courts directive of 18.2.2010 is indeed comprehensive. It was prepared
with the help of several senior civil servants and persons and organizations with
long experience of humanitarian work across India, including the late Mr. SR
Sankaran.
45. On 18.2.2010, this Honourable Court had directed that It is also requested bythe petitioners that compensation should be paid to the persons who lost their
houses and belongings by the acts of naxalites.( It was clarified by the Court on
19.2.2010 that the rehabilitation plan submitted would cover all those who are
victims of the conflict in this regard, including vigilante, state and Naxalite
violence). The petitioners may file a comprehensive rehabilitation plan and be
submitted to this Court within the next date of hearing. The State would also file
its objection, if any, to this Court on this aspect.
46. The Honble Court had also directed that The State shall file a report as towhat 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.
47.It follows from this that there are two main aspects to the course of rehabilitativeaction being directed by this Honourable Court, which are entirely in keeping
with international and national precedent and policy: a.) comprehensive
compensation and rehabilitation for all those who have suffered loss of life, limb,
livelihood, shelter and property, or undergone sexual violence on account of the
ongoing conflict between the Naxalites, security forces and Salwa Judum, and b.)
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
33/35
33
upholding the rule of law by means of registration, investigation and prosecution
of all human rights violations.
Summary of the Plan:
48.The Plan deals with three categories of affected persons:1. Those still living in and around their villages whose houses and property was
burnt and looted, and relatives killed by Salwa Judum and security forces
2. Internally displaced persons in AP3. Salwa Judum camp residents.
49.The Plan provides for rehabilitation and reparations at five levels: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 damagec.)Rebuilding and provision of village infrastructured.)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.
50.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 in CGand AP by teams 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 done in Ranganathan v. Union of India 1999, 6 SCC
26
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
34/35
34
c.)Wide Dissemination of Information regarding plan, procedures and rates ofcompensation
d.)Provision of village infrastructuree.)Special packages for women and childrenf.) Measures for restoration of community trust and civil and judicial
administration
Scope of the Plan:
51.In the annexures to WP 119/2007, we have provided a list of over 100 villages(49 in District Bijapur and 62 in Konta) which have suffered property losses,
arson, killing and rape. Based on the annexures filed in WP 119/2007, August
2007 affidavit, we have compiled a list of 301 of these villages (annexed hereto
as Annexure 3). We have also provided a list of people killed and women raped.
52.In addition, there are a number of cases requiring compensation, rehabilitationand criminal prosecution including those on record in the NHRC annexures of B1-
B4, I2, I4, and Annexures 6 (page 71-106), Annexure 9 (pages 127-158),
Annexure 12-14, (pages 165-202), of March 2009 affidavit of WP 250/2007.
Prayers:
53.It is therefore prayed that in view of the repeated failure of the Chhattisgarhgovernment to come up with an action plan for compensation, relief and
rehabilitation of all categories of affected persons, as well as registration of FIRs
and prosecution, the petitioners proposed rehabilitation plan, draw up under the
directions of this Honourable Court, be implemented under the aegis of an
independent high level committee which will report to this Honourable Court.
54.It is further prayed that the Court direct the State Government to stop allsupport to Salwa Judum, both in terms of the process of arson/killing/rape and
personnel, and to disband the Special Police Officers and stop the state from
8/6/2019 Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit
35/35
arming any member of the public in the districts of Bastar, Narainpur,
Dantewada and Bijapur (as prayed for in Kartam Joga and ors, 2007).
VERIFICATION
I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify, on this 26 day of March 2011, that the
contents of the above affidavit are true and correct and no part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT