Supreme Court of India Issued Notice to the State of Bihar & othrs.

10 October-2011,New Delhi

Admitting the petition filed by Association for Protection of Civil Rights(APCR) Supreme Court of India issued notice to the State of Bihar & othrs to present in Hon'ble court within four weeks in the matter of Forbesganj brutal police firing.

It is reminded that on 3^rd june-2011 Police opened fire killing five innocent villagers including a pregnant woman and 6 months unborn baby and 9 others were also severely injured in a passage dispute in between officers of  Auro Sundaram International and  villagers of Bhajanpur.The horrifying video clips of jumping on the injured body of one youth by home guard is on you tube.

A Two members bench of court no 11 of Supreme court Justice R.M.Lodha and Justic Jagdish Singh Khehar passed the Order. Adv Colin Gonsalves appeared as counsel for the petitioner.

Noam Chomsky, Romila Thapar, Arundhati Roy, other intellectuals protest deportation of legendary American radio broadcaster David Barsamian

  STATEMENT OF PROTEST

We write to protest the denial of entry to David Barsamian by Immigration Authorities at the New Delhi airport in the early hours of September 23, 2011, and we write to draw attention to the growing arbitrariness of the Indian Government in dealing with dissent of any kind.
David Barsamian is a veteran broadcaster, and founder and director of Alternative Radio, a weekly one-hour public affairs program offered free to all public radio stations in the US, Canada, Europe and beyond. For more than 25 years Alternative Radio has provided information, analyses and views that are frequently ignored in other media. Structured around intensive interviews conducted by David Barsamian, these programs are carried by over 125 radio stations and heard by millions of listeners.He is the author of numerous books with Edward Said, Eqbal Ahmad, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy and Tariq Ali.
David is a friend for many of us, but he is an older friend of India. He first came as a young man in 1966, and has since returned innumerable times, immersing himself in its  music, languages and poetry. He has taught himself Urdu and Hindi, learned to play the Sitar, and closely follows events in the sub-continent.
When he was deported on September 23 he had a visa which was valid for another 5 years, and although he last visited in February 2011, he had no intimation or warning that he was in violation of any of the conditions under which his visa was issued. The only thing that the Immigration Officers were able to tell him was that he was “banned” from entering the country, and that the reasons were a “secret”.
The deportation of David Barsamian unfortunately mirrors the manner in which Prof Richard Shapiro was arbitrarily stopped from entering India in November 2010. We are dismayed that this power to send people back from the airport is slowly becoming a weapon, used to discipline and silence people who draw any kind of attention to uncomfortable truths about India. A year later Prof Shapiro still has no formal response on why he was stopped, and when he can regain his right to travel to India, where he has family.
We therefore ask that the ban on David Barsamian and others like Richard Shapiro be revoked, and the Government of India not impede their return to India.
We demand that the right to travel and the right to free exchange of ideas between scholars, journalists, artists, and human rights defenders be respected and protected, and that government agents not authorize the denial of entry and eviction of visitors to India, or monitor their movement. Free exchange of ideas is one of the most basic human rights and values in free democratic societies. Freedom of travel is one of the most important avenues for furthering such exchange among peoples. Recognizing this, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified, protects freedom of expression, right to travel and scientific exchange.
Signed:

1. Abha Sur, Academic
2. Amar Kanwar, Film-maker
3. Amit Bhaduri, Academic
4. Amit Sengupta, Journalist
5. Amita Swadhin, Activist/Educator
6. Anuradha Chenoy, Academic
7. Ania Loomba, Academic
8. Angana Chatterji, Academic
9. Anthony Arnove, Publisher/Activist
10. Anivar Arvind, Activist
11. Aruna Roy, MKSS, Activist
12. Arundhati Roy, Writer
13. Arpita Banerjee, Academic
14. Ashok Choudhary, Activist
15. Ashok Prasad, Academic
16. Ashim Jain, Activist
17. Ajay Skaria, Academic
18. Basharat Peer, Writer
19. Biju Mathew, Academic
20. Colin Gonsalves, Lawyer
21. D.Gabriele, Activist/Academic
22. David Ludden, Academic
23. Deepankar Basu, Academic
24. Dibyesh Anand, Academic
25. Gyanendra Pandey, Academic
26. Harsh Dobhal, Journalist
27. Harsh Kapoor, Activist
28. Himanshu Kumar, Activist
29. Hussain Askari, Journalist
30. Indira Unninayar, Advocate
31. Jean Dreze, Scholar
32. Jinee Lokaneeta, Professor, Political Science NJ
33. Joel Geier, International Socialist Review
34. Junaid Rana, Academic
35. Kalpana Mehta, Social Activist
36. Kasturi Basu, Research scholar
37. K B Saxena, former secretary to GOI
38. Kamal Mitra Chenoy, Academic
39. Kamala Visveswaran, Academic
40. Krishna Subramanian, Academic
41. Lalitha Gopalan, Academic
42. Manisha Sethi, Academic
43. Manoranjan Mohanty, Academic
44. Mirza Waheed, Writer
45. M. V. Ramana, Academic
46. Nagesh Rao, Academic
47. Najeeb Mubarki, Journalist
48. Nitasha Kaul, Writer
49. Noam Chomsky
50. N Raghuram, Academic
51. Madhu Bhaduri, former Ambassador
52. Maliha Safri, Academic
53. Mridu Rai, Academic
54. Nurul Kabir, Engineer
55. Pankaj Mishra, Writer
56. Parvathy Prem, Graduate Student
57. Parvaiz Bukhari, Journalist
58. Philip Gasper, Academic
59. Pothik Ghosh, Radical Notes
60. Pranav Jani, Academic
61. Prashant Bhushan, Lawyer
62. Rahul Roy, Film-maker
63. Ramaa Vasudevan, Academic
64. Ramnath Bhat, Activist/Writer
65. Ravindran Sriramachhandran, Academic
66. Raza Mir, Academic
67. Rohan Dsouza, Academic
68. Romila Thapar, Academic
69. Rupal Oza, Academic, New York
70. Saadia Toor, Academic
71. Sabina England, Filmmaker & Playwright
72. Sanjay Kak, Film-maker
73. Sanjeev Mahajan, Writer
74. Satya Sivaraman, Journalist
75. Shabnam Hashmi, Activist
76. Sreekanth Reddy, IT Professional
77. Shripad Dharmadhikary, Researcher
78. Shohini Ghosh, Academic
79. Shuddhabrata Sengupta, Artist
80. Siddhartha Ghosh, Academic
81. Simona Sawhney, Academic
82. Sonny Singh, Musician
83. Subhash Mohapatra, Journalist
84. Sukumar Muralidharan, Journalist
85. Suresh Nautiyal, Journalist
86. Suvir Kaul, Academic
87. Saba Dewan, Film-maker
88. Snehal Shingavi, Academic
89. Sherry Wolf, International Socialist Review
90. Shourin Roy, Writer/ Blogger
91. Tanushree, Journalist
92. Tariq Thachil, Academic
93. Umang Kumar, Freelance Journalist
94. Vinay Bhat, Consultant, San Fraancisco
95. Vandana Shiva, Academic
96. Vijayan MJ, Activist
97. Vrinda Grover, Lawyer
98. Yogesh Chandrani, Academic
 

SC allows disclosure of evaluated answer-sheets to examinee under RTI

New Delhi, August 9, 2011: In a landmark judgement today, the Supreme Court allowed disclosure of the answer-sheets to the examinee, under Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The bench comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice RV Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr Justice AK Patnaik dismissed the petitions filed by different public authorities and affirmed the judgement of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court allowing the disclosure of answer-sheets. The case was filed by the Central Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal Council for Higher Education, University of Calcutta, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, West Bengal Central School Service Commission and Assam Public Service Commission, challenging the common order and judgement dated 05/02/2009 passed by the division bench of the Calcutta High Court.

Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) has filed an intervention application on behalf of the applicants – Mazdoor Kisaan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and Join Operation for Social Help (JOSH) on 30.04.2010. Mr Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, Advocate from HRLN argued the case successfully for MKSS and JOSH.
On 14.08.2007, one Mr Pritam Rooz had filed an application under Right to Information Act seeking for copies of his answer-sheets from the Calcutta University. The varsity informed him that as per university policy, the same cannot be disclosed. Rooz then approached the Calcutta High Court. In a detailed order dated 28.03.2008, Hon’ble Justice Mr Sanjib Banerjee allowed the petition filed by Pritam Rooz and directed the University of Calcutta to disclose the answer-sheets.

The order was challenged before the division bench of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court by the University of Calcutta. The CBSE also approached the division bench of the Calcutta High Court against another order of the single bench of thesame court allowing disclosure of the answer-sheet. While dismissing the appeals filed by these institutions, the division bench of the Calcutta High Court vide its common order and judgement dated 05.02.2009 affirmed the decision of the single bench. Against the order dated 05.02.2009, these institutions approached the Supreme Court. Subsequently, various other institutions conducting examinations like Institute of Chartered Accountants in India, Assam Public Service Commission, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal Council for Higher Education, West Bengal Central School Service Commission and Bihar Public Service Commission also joined in and opposed the disclosure of answer-sheets to the examiners.

It was contended by the Petitioners that the evaluated answer-sheets are not covered under the definition of the word “information”. Secondly, they argued that the evaluated answer-sheet is kept with the examination-conducting institutions under fiduciary capacity. It was also contended by these institutions that if the disclosure is allowed, the entire system will collapse.

However, Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed all these contentions. The bench clarified that the evaluated answer-sheet is covered under the definition of “information”. It also clarified that it is the duty of the Public Authority to allow maximum disclosure as envisaged by the RTI Act.

Dealing with the issue of “fiduciary relationship”, the apex Court has explained the same in detail and held that the examination conducting bodies cannot retain the evaluated answer-sheets under any fiduciary capacity. Hence, the Court held that the exemption under section 8(1)(e) will not apply to the disclosure of answer-sheets.

The Court also dismissed the contention that the entire system will collapse once disclosure is allowed under the RTI Act. As a matter of fact, it was argued on behalf of the MKSS and JOSH that some universities allow disclosure of answer-sheets under the RTI Act and they do not face any difficulty in the process and their system has not “collapsed”.

As this judgement has dealt with various examination conducting bodies including the Public Service Commissions, universities, CBSE and other boards, professional bodies like ICAI, the directive will apply to every examination conducted by any institution in India.

For further details contact:
Mr Saurabh Shama, JOSH: +91-9811872752 ( saurabhinvincible@gmail.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )
Ms Aheli Chowdhury, JOSH: +91-9811765959 ( aheli.chowdhury@gmail.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )
Mr Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, Adv., HRLN: +91-9868002365 ( litigation.delhi@hrln.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )

Sr. Advocate Colin Gonsalves's speech at World Sikh Organisation of Canada

Watch Senior Advocate  Colin Gonsalves speak at the World Sikh Organisation of Canada on the situation of Human Rights in India.
See the full video here

Punjab High Court orders reinstatement of disabled as clerk

Chandigarh: The Punjab & Haryana High Court, on an intervention made by the lawyers of Human Rights Law Network, has ordered reinstatement of a physically disabled person as clerk in the local civil court.

The petitioner, Ritesh, was a physically challenged person who successfully competed to get appointed as a clerk by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karnal against the post reserved for physically disabled persons.

Notwithstanding the fact that due to the nature of disability the petitioner could not write with his own hand and was provided assistance of a writer in the examination conducted for the selection of the subject posts, his services were terminated apparently due to his inability to perform the duties as a clerk.

The petitioner was  a post graduate in information technology with various additional distinguished qualifications, and was well conversant with the computer operations also.

The hon’ble high court on examining the case opined that there was  plenty of work to be done on computers in a Sessions Division like preparation of daily cause lists of all the courts, certified copies of the judgments/order etc, which could be conveniently assigned to a computer savvy person like Ritesh and ordered for his reinstatement and also for the PWD department to provide for a ramp and for the office to provide a congenial working atmosphere for the petitioner.

Read the full judgement here

Denial of rations to BPL people denial of Right to Food, Right to Life: Delhi HC

NEW DELHI: In another landmark interim order, Justice S Muralidhar of the Delhi High Court reinforced the need for increased delivery and oversight of life-saving food and maternal health entitlements to the vulnerable populations in the Nation’s Capital.  The petition, Premlata w/o Ram Sagar & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi, W.P. Civ. 7687/2010, involves six destitute pregnant and lactating women who reside in Nangloi, a western slum of Delhi, and have been denied food rations and reproductive and child health benefits since at least August 2009.  During the pendency of litigation, numerous issues were brought to the Court’s attention underlining serious problems with issuance and renewal of ration cards and delivery of health benefits under the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) and National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS). Petitioners also placed on record a copy of the Samajik Suvidha Sangam Survey commissioned by the Delhi Government showing that 55 percent of Delhi's poor and vulnerable populations remain “un-carded", i.e. without a ration card.

Numerous interim orders have directed the Delhi Government to conduct “camps” where aggrieved card holders have had their ration cards sorted and reauthorized, increase monitoring and delivery of rations to Fair Price Shops, constitute a grievance redressal hotline, and ensure functionality of vigilance committee. The Union of India has also been ordered to pay Rs 5,000 to each of the Petitioners for delay in payment of financial assistance under NMBS.

During the last hearing, when questioned as to the present procedure for issuing new BPL applications, the Government acknowledged that 'no fresh BPL cards' are being issued by the Food & Supplies Department due to a 'maximum limit of BPL cards' fixed by a decision of the Union of India and Cabinet of Government of Delhi. Taking cognizance of this action as inherently unconstitutional, the Court stated:

“10. This Court is unable to appreciate how the Capital city of Delhi, with a growing population and constant influx of a large number of migrants can abide by a ‘cap’ on BPL cards.  With growing persons in need of BPL cards, there cannot be any ‘caps’ imposed by the Central Government/Planning Commission which disables the GNCTD from proceeding to issue fresh BPL cards.  Denial of a rational card to a BPL person is virtually a denial of his or her right to food and thereby the right to life under the Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The Delhi Government and Union of India were ordered to jointly meet within four weeks time to resolve the denial of fresh BPL cards for eligible persons.  The Court further expressed concern "that apart from the Petitioners who have approached this Court there could be many others similarly placed in need of redress" and ordered a government official be appointed to address all remaining grievances within the community.  The matter is next listed for 27th July, 2011.

Premlata holds great promise in ensuring a more transparent and efficient delivery system of rations to India's poor, and reinforce the life-saving link between access to food and reproductive health and safe motherhood. A copy of the 13.05.11 order is attached.

Contact:
Sukti Dhital
Reproductive Rights Unit
Human Rights Law Network
sfdhital@gmail.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Delhi HC pulls IRDA on insurance cos denying benefits to HIV patients

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) on a PIL challenging the insurance companies’ "unreasonable and unconstitutional" mandate to deny insurance benefits to HIV positive people.

A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra issued a notice to the IRDA through the Government of India and demanded a reply to the petition that asked for a court order to the insurance regulator to direct all the companies to consider people suffering with HIV/AIDS on a par with others.

The Petition, filed by activist Dr. Rajeev Sharma, claimed that the exclusion clause was in complete violation of the fundamental right to life and liberty of the said class of people, who suffered not only illegal discrimination but also financial problems as a large number of them belonged to economically weaker sections. The insurance sector is one area where PLHAs are discriminated against. Many existing insurance policies include an exclusion clause specifically excluding insurance benefits of HIV/AIDS and related treatment. Thus, when an existing policy holder is subsequently diagnosed with HIV/AIDS during the policy period they are denied the benefits of their existing insurance policy.

HRLN Advocates Tariq Adeeb and Pankaj Sinha argued before the court that only one out of the 24 insurance companies listed with the IRDA provided insurance to the HIV positive people and that most of them also withdrew the policies in case of the existing policy holders getting afflicted subsequently.

“The discrimination is unreasonable and there was no nexus between the classification of people living with HIV/AIDS and the insurance benefits,” stated the PIL.

For further Details, Contact:
Tariq Adeeb or Pankaj Sinha (Advocate)
+91 93106 77131
+91 99102 47816