Skip to main content

Human rights lawyers Jaising, Grover being "punished" because they took up 2002 Gujarat riots cases

Indira Jaising
By A Representative
Taking strong exception to Government of India decision to suspend top lawyer Indira Jaising-led NGO Lawyers’ Collective’s Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) license to obtain funds from abroad to take up human rights cases in India, two well-known advocacy groups have said it is being “punished” for taking up the case of several human rights defenders of India.
In a statement, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) noted, Indira Jaising, along with her husband, Anand Grover, have “defended” in the Supreme court the cases of Priya Pillai of Greenpeace, Teesta Setalvad, Yakub Menon and Sanjiv Bhatt, former IPS officer from Gujarat”.
It further said, “Grover has also appeared in the case protesting the discharge of BJP National President Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin encounter case. The present action against the Lawyers Collective is calculated to create a climate of fear and intimidation in an attempt to silence anyone from challenging the present BJP Government.”
Anand Grover
Taking a similar line, Amnesty International said, “The lawyers have independently handled several important human rights cases, including representing activists seeking justice for the 2002 Gujarat violence and extrajudicial executions in the state.”
Amnesty added, “The FCRA has been used by successive governments as a political tool to suppress dissent and harass groups critical of government views and actions. In September 2015, the central government cancelled the FCRA registration of Greenpeace India and suspended the FCRA registration of an NGO run by activists Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand.”
Calling it a “persecution of senior advocates”, PUCL said, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is using “the coercive provisions of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 in an arbitrary, biased and politically motivated manner.”
“The vindictiveness is evident from the fact that the order dated May 31, 2016 suspending the FCRA registration of Lawyers Collective for six months was leaked to the media even before it was formally communicated to either Jaising or Grover.
Teesta Setalvad, Sanjeev Bhatt, Priya Pillai
Earlier, in November 2015 Show Cause notices were reported to have been issued to the Lawyers Collective for “violation of FCRA”, even though no such Notice was received by the Lawyers Collective, PUCL said, adding, “Thus there is a pattern to the actions of the MHA.”
Amnesty said, the new foreign funding restrictions imposed on Lawyers Collective violate constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of expression and association”, adding, “There is no doubt that the government is being vindictive.”
“Lawyers Collective is being targeted because its office-bearers have taken on the government in a range of cases. The FCRA allegations are clearly a pretext to silence these dissenting voices,” said Aakar Patel, executive director, Amnesty International India.
Amnesty recalled that in April 2016, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association “reiterated that the ability to access foreign funding is an integral part of the right to freedom of association, and said that the FCRA restrictions were not in conformity with international law, principles and standards.”
“The FCRA provides a convenient cover for the government to go after NGOs it does not like,” said Aakar Patel, adding, “NGOs can of course be required to be transparent and accountable about their activities and sources of funding. But laws like the FCRA should not be used to obstruct organizations from receiving foreign funding for legitimate work.”

Comments

TRENDING

The Nazia Elahi Khan controversy and the normalisation of hate

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan   The registration of two FIRs in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region against BJP Minority Morcha leader and social media influencer Nazia Elahi Khan for allegedly making derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad is not merely another isolated controversy. It is a disturbing reminder of how hate speech and communal provocation have become increasingly normalised in contemporary India.

Congress leader Gohil "misinformed" about the OBC caste status of Modi, contend senior Gujarat academics

Shaktisinh Gohil By A Representative Did senior Gujarat Congress leader Shaktisinh Gohil display his poor understanding of the caste system in Gujarat when he declared that Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi does not belong to the other backward class (OBC) but to an upper caste? At least two top senior experts, known for their proficiency in sociology and history of Gujarat, have wondered “how could Gohil go so wrong” on Modi’s caste status. Gohil, who all-India Congress spokesperson, has created a ripple by “disclosing” that Modi included his caste, modh ghanchi, into the OBC list three months after he came to power through a government resolution dated January 1, 2002.

Incarceration of Prof Saibaba 'revives' the question: What is crime, who is criminal?

By Kunal Pant* In 2016, a Supreme Court Judge asked the state of Maharashtra, “Do you want to extract a pound of flesh?” The statement was directed against the state for contesting the bail plea of Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba. Saibaba was arrested in 2014, a justification for which was to prevent him from committing what the police called “anti-national activities.”