Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit

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


2/35

2

5.ANNEXURE P-4

Newspaper report titled, Compulsory Voting,

Chhattisgarh Style, The Hindu, February 14, 2010


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


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


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.


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


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


8/35

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


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


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


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


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


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.


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?


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.


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


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.

.


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.

.


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.


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


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:


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.


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,


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.)


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


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


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

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nandinisundar
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh March 2011 Affidavit

Documents