Skip to main content

J&K 'atrocities' on children: Juvenile Justice Committee relied just on DGP arguments

Counterview Desk
Well-known human rights organization Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), which actively campaigned for justice for 2002 Gujarat riot victims, and is currently involved in helping out vulnerable sections declared "foreigners", has pointed towards how there is an effort to water down atrocities on children in Kashmir following the August 5 clampdown.
Quoting from an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court by child rights activist Enakshi Ganguly in response to a report by the Juvenile Justice Committee, a CJP note says that, for all practical purposes, the committee accepts arguments forwarded by DGP, Jammu and Kashmir without questioning it.

Text of the note:

Enakshi Ganguly, a child rights activist, who moved the Supreme Court (SC) demanding protection for children and teenagers allegedly detained by security forces in wake of the abrogation of Article 370 in the region, has punched holes in the Juvenile Justice Committee’s (JJC's) report on the matter to the SC.
In September this year, SC directed the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) High Court’s Juvenile Justice Committee to conduct an inquiry into the allegations. On September 26, JJC submitted its report giving a virtual clean chit to security forces. But now, Ganguly has made a comprehensive analysis of the report and discovered that JJC has merely reproduced the submission of the Director General of the Police (DGP).
In her rebuttal of the report Ganguly says, “… the Report of the Juvenile Justice Committee that relies only on the response of the selfsame party (without having heard any other stakeholder), and without having applied its mind to it does not serve the purpose of the exercise.”
JJC in its report to SC says that, upon being communicated, the apex courts order, it convened a meeting on September 23, and “resolved to ascertain facts from the concerned state agencies as to the assertions and allegations made in the writ petition in question, based on media reports.”
In its submission before SC, JJC says that DGP has refuted media reports alleging detention of children. It quotes DGP’s submission as follows, “It is pertinent to state that no child kept or taken into illegal detention by the Police authorities as strict adherence is placed on the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.”
It would be important to know how the childlines established in Srinagar, Budgam and Anantnag are being run
The JJC report then reproduces large chunk of DGP’s report where he takes on each allegation of detention and/or violence against children as “facts having been imagined from thin air”, “generated with the intention to malign the police”, or “to create the story which may have element of sensationalism."
To this, Ganguly argues in her response affidavit saying:
“There are numerous unconnected and independent reports from fact-finding teams of concerned citizens and activists, mainstream newspaper, both domestic and international, video reports etc. which strongly allege instances of excesses against children.
"They have been coming out consistently and are. available in the· public domain. It is submitted that their summary dismissal as ‘false’, ‘motivated lies’ would be to our own detriment and to the detriment of our Constitutional morality.”

Ganguly has another key question for DGP. She asks:
“A bald assertion has been made in DGP’s Report at Page 25 to the effect that ‘ child welfare committees’ are effectively working. In Fact, a good barometer of their effective working would be reduced encounter of security personnel with children in need of care and protection, for it should ideally be the task of ewes and childlines to help and counsel children. It would be important to know how the childlines established in Srinagar, Budgam and Anantnag are being run. How may calls have they received/ responded to after August 5, 2019?”
She adds, “It is surprising and unfortunate that DGP’s report should presume to comment on the motives of the Petitioners. The unsubstantiated comments are defamatory, but more critically they seem to dismiss the culture of judicial review of executive action, and of upholding constitutional rights.”
In its submission before SC, JJC has also stated that it resolved to obtain data about “bail applications or Habeas Corpus petitions, if any, moved on behalf of juveniles or where it was claimed that the arrested person(s) or detainees were juveniles, and the process undertaken therein.”
In this regard Ganguly says:
“That two excellent sources of independent verification are also identified in the aforesaid minutes: Habeas Corpus petitions filed on behalf of minors and bail applications on behalf of minors filed before the subordinate Courts.
"However, it may be noted that since the J&K Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2013 offers a separate mechanism for trial of children in conflict with law, it is the Juvenile Justice Board, under Section13 that would grant or reject a Minor’s bail application. Thus, the Juvenile Justice Board may certainly be directed to furnish copies of bail applications, as also of the FlRs produced before them.”

She adds, “Section 14 of the Act also directs that at the point of arrest, the special juvenile police unit must immediately inform the parents/guardian of the factum of the minor’s arrest and also give notice to them to be present before the Board, before which the child would appear. Thus the Juvenile police unit must have records of all such notices issued to Parents and corresponding appearances and Orders of the Board. The Committee may direct those to be placed on record.”

Comments

TRENDING

Rushdie, Pamuk, 260 writers tell Modi: Aatish episode casts chill on public discourse

Counterview Desk
As many as 260 writers, journalists, artists, academics and activists across the world, including Salman Rushdie, British Indian novelist, Orhan Pamuk, Turkish novelist and recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize in literature, and Margaret Atwood, Canadian poet and novelist, have called upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi to review the decision to strip British Indian writer Aatish Taseer of his overseas Indian citizenship.

Visually challenged lady seeks appointment with Gujarat CM, is 'unofficially' detained

By Pankti Jog*
It was a usual noon of November 10. I got a phone call on our Right to Information (RTI) helpline No 9924085000 from Ranjanben of Khambhat, narrating her “disgraceful” experience after she had requested for an appointment with Gujarat chief minister Vijay Rupani. She wanted to meet Rupani, on tour of the Khambhat area in Central Gujarat as part of his Janvikas Jumbesh (Campaign for Development).

There may have been Buddhist stupa at Babri site during Gupta period: Archeologist

By Rajiv Shah
A top-notch archeologist, Prof Supriya Varma, who served as an observer during the excavation of the Babri Masjid site in early 2000s along with another archeologist, Jaya Menon, has controversially stated that not only was there "no temple under the Babri Masjid”, if one goes “beyond” the 12th century to 4th to 6th century, i.e. the Gupta period, “there seems to be a Buddhist stupa.”

Church in India 'seems to have lost' moral compass of unequivocal support to the poor

By Fr Cedric Prakash SJ*
In 2017, Pope Francis dedicated a special day, to be observed by the Universal Church, every year, as the ‘World Day of the Poor’. This year it will be observed on November 17 on the theme ‘The hope of the poor shall not perish for ever’; in a message for the day Pope Francis says:

Gujarat refusal to observe Maulana Azad's birthday as Education Day 'discriminatory'

By Our Representative
The Gujarat government decision not to celebrate the National Education Day on !monday has gone controversial. Civil society organizations have particularly wondered whether the state government is shying away from the occasion, especially against the backdrop of "deteriorating" level of education in Gujarat.

VHP doesn't represent all Hindus, Sunni Waqf Board all Muslims: NAPM on SC ruling

Counterview Desk
India's top civil rights network, National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), even as describing the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgement unjust, has said, it is an "assault on the secular fabric of the Constitution". In a statement signed by top social workers and activists, NAPM said, "The judgement conveys an impression to Muslims that, despite being equal citizens of the country, their rights are not equal before the law."

Violent 'Ajodhya' campaign in 1840s after British captured Kabul, destroyed Jama Masjid

Counterview Desk  Irfan Ahmad, professor at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen, Germany, and author of “Islamism and Democracy in India” (Princeton University Press, 2009), short-listed for the 2011 International Convention of Asian Scholars Book Prize for the best study in Social Sciences, in his "initial thoughts" on the Supreme Court judgment on the Babri-Jam Janmaboomi dispute has said, while order was “lawful”, it was also “awful.”