(CNS): Dr Binayak Sen, a medical practitioner and a civil liberties'
activist, has been sentenced to life imprisonment in Chhattisgarh. Amnesty
International calls him a 'prisoner of conscience' because he never
advocated violence and was a champion of human rights causes in the state
but was unduly targeted by the state. Probably his stand for human rights
exposing gross injustices meted out to tribal population by the state, and a
report had irked the government which slapped upon him violation of two
draconian laws: Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act and Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

His wife Ilina Sen, who is a Professor at the Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya
Hindi Vishwavidyalaya in Wardha, was in Lucknow as a key resource person for
a programme against domestic violence and women equality issues. "As I fight
the long and painful legal battle to extricate Binayak from the clutches of
the penal administration, I realize that this battle is as much mine as that
of any Indian citizen. Today, at many levels and in many fora, the people of
India are struggling for the establishment of accountability and
transparency in our governance structures as befitting our status as the
world's largest democracy. However, it is a sad reflection on our system
that once a false case is registered in the name of security, it is almost
impossible to turn the clock back, even if facts stare us in the face that
indicate that the case had no basis. To this, if we add dimensions of face
saving, prestige, and drubbing the nose into the ground of uncomfortable
critics, we have Chhattisgarh and Binayak Sen" said Ilina Sen.

Binayak Sen has been convicted of sedition and of violating sections of the
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Chhattisgarh Special
Public security Act and sentenced along with two others to rigorous life
imprisonment. His application for suspension of sentence and release on bail
pending appeal, has been rejected by the Chhattisgarh High court. His jail
ticket notes his provisional date of release as 2028.

"The conviction has followed an unfair prosecution and prejudiced judgment
based on confessional statement recorded, according to the judge, during
'preliminary investigation' before the first accused in the case was taken
into police custody, thereby defeating the provision of inadmissibility of
custodial confessions. In the absence of any visible crime, this first
arrest and the so called 'preliminary investigation' become the 'incident'
around which the case is woven. The charges framed are equally vague
regarding nature, time and place of the 'crime'. Extensive and expensive
police investigations (sadly beyond the orbit of the Right To Information
(RTI) Act, 2005) into Binayak's (and Ilina's) homes, places of work and
associates failed to provide any evidence other than social service in
remote rural areas, and obviously was not brought on record" said Ilina Sen.

"The case against Binayak hinged upon his 33 meetings with jailed Maoist
leader Narayan Sanyal, his supposed couriering of Sanyal's letters and their
passing on to Pijush Guha, through which letters, the death and destruction
being carried out by the Maoists was supposedly given effect. Since the
prosecution failed to produce even a single jail official or any other eye
witness testifying to any letter or message, oral or written, being passed
by Narayan Sanyal to Binayak Sen in their jail meetings, the verdict makes
much fuss about certain entries in jail registers referring to Sen being
Sanyal's relative, ignoring the defence contention that these entries were
filled in by the jail officials, and not by either the visited or visitor,
as apparent from the face of the record" said Ilina Sen.

On the contrary, all the applications Binayak Sen submitted to the jail
officials, requesting a meeting with Sanyal, were written on the letterhead
of his organization People's Union for Civil Liberties - PUCL (a Civil
Liberties and Democratic Rights organization founded by leading Sarvodaya
leader Jayprakash Narayan). These visits were duly permitted by the jail
officials and transpired in their full view and hearing. "Binayak's own
statement to the court gives a perfectly rational explanation for these
visits and the way in which his intervention was essential in facilitating
the hand surgery of Narayan Sanyal at the Raipur Medical College,, but this
was not taken into account" said Ilina Sen.

"Binayak is also supposed to have had prior acquaintance with Sanyal and
facilitated the hiring of a house by him. This is based on the testimony of
a landlord who, while testifying to this fact also alleges that Sanayal was
arrested from his house, which is contrary to the facts brought on record
during this trial. Sanyal's arrest was in Andhra Pradesh according to the
testimony of the arresting officer, and how a witness who perjures himself
in one part of his testimony becomes a reliable witness for the other part,
beats imagination" said Ilina Sen.

So what is the 'evidence' against Dr Binayak Sen? According to Ilina Sen,
the 'evidence' against Binayak Sen in court is as follows:

- Hearsay evidence from police officers about Binayak's presence in naxal
meetings, his supposed association with 'hard core naxals' who are not even
named in any case anywhere in the country

- Supposed seditious literature pertaining to resistance of US imperialism
and atrocities committed during the salwa judum seized from their house
during police search

- Correspondence addressed to the ISI (not Pakistan's ISI but to Walter
Fernandez, Director of Indian Social institute (ISI) in New Delhi)

- Correspondence with people bearing Muslim names constitutes the rest of
the evidence

Authorities claimed Dr Binayak Sen is a 'fake doctor' because no stethoscope
was found in his house. Should every doctor hang a stethoscope in his house
as well? Does a gold medal from second-ranked medical institute in the
country - Christian Medical College (CMC) Vellore, the 2004 Paul Harrison
Award, Global Health Council's Jonathan Mann Award 2008, founding Shaheed
Hospital in Chhattisgarh and serving tribal communities for close to thirty
years are not evidence enough to give him due recognition as a medical
practitioner?

"While weaving a narrative of sedition against Binayak Sen and other accused
in the case, the Sessions court verdict violates a well laid judicial
principle of the Supreme Court in matters of sedition. In Kedarnath Singh Vs
State of Bihar the Supreme Court has held that the provision of sedition in
the Indian Penal Code must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the
fundamental freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution. In this regard the Supreme Court held that the offence of
sedition, which is defined as spreading disaffection against the state,
should be considered as having been committed only if the said disaffection
is a direct incitement to violence or will lead to serious public disorder.
No speech or deed milder than this should be considered seditious. The
Sessions court verdict in the case against Binayak Sen and others fails to
establish that the words or deeds of the accused were a direct incitement to
violence or would lead to serious public disorder. This would be the case
even if it was established beyond doubt that Binayak Sen had passed on
Narayan Sanyal's letters to Pijush Guha, or Pijush Guha was likely to pass
on these letters to other members of the CPI (Maoist), or that Narayan
Sanyal was a politburo member of the CPI (Maoist)" said Ilina Sen.

"Both the trial court as well as the appellate court (while passing and
upholding the maximum sentence for sedition) have gone on record that the
situation of violence and uncontrolled Maoist bloodshed calls for non
application of any grounds for leniency in sentence. This is without any
clear establishment that Binayak Sen had any involvement in any such
bloodshed, in fact even the court does not allege this. How criminal justice
can be based on the doctrine of lateral responsibility is mind boggling.
Clearly the verdict and the sentence are both intended to make an example of
a civil society activism, and to send a message to all of us who are asking
any kind of questions. The issues in this case thus go beyond the case
itself and the fight for justice for Binayak becomes the struggle of all of
us for the Rule of Law in our polity" said Ilina Sen. (CNS)

Bobby Ramakant – CNS
(The author is a World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General's WNTD
Awardee 2008 and writes extensively on health and development through
Citizen News Service (CNS). Email: [email protected], website:
www.citizen-news.org)


http://www.modernghana.com/news/321964/1/justice-for-prisoner-of-conscience-dr-binayak-sen.html
-- 
Adv Kamayani Bali Mahabal
+919820749204
skype-lawyercumactivist
*
*
*"Nobody is giving up violence. Neither the state nor the Maoists are giving
up violence. I am interested in furthering my cause, which is the cause of
peace with justice.- DR BINAYAK SEN *
*www.binayaksen.net*
*PL SIGN ONLINE PETITION: *
http://www.petitiononline.com/sen2010/petition.html
*JOIN THE FACEBOOK EVENT: ONE MILLION FACES
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=179177728772740*
*FREE BINAYAK SEN CAMPAIGN VIDEOS*
*http://www.youtube.com/user/Kamayaninumerouno#grid/user/B4A70E211712242B*
*
*
*
*
*
*




-- 
Adv Kamayani Bali Mahabal
+919820749204
skype-lawyercumactivist
*
*
*"Nobody is giving up violence. Neither the state nor the Maoists are giving
up violence. I am interested in furthering my cause, which is the cause of
peace with justice.- DR BINAYAK SEN *
*www.binayaksen.net*
*PL SIGN ONLINE PETITION: *
http://www.petitiononline.com/sen2010/petition.html
*JOIN THE FACEBOOK EVENT: ONE MILLION FACES
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=179177728772740*
*FREE BINAYAK SEN CAMPAIGN VIDEOS*
*http://www.youtube.com/user/Kamayaninumerouno#grid/user/B4A70E211712242B*
*
*
*
*
*
*

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"humanrights movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement?hl=en.

Reply via email to