PUCL releases 'objectionable' paras on human rights groups in NIA judgement on Kasganj communal violence
The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has released the English summary translation of what it considers as objectionable paras (185 to 188) against human rights groups, written in the NIA judgement in the Kasganj (UP) communal violence of 2018 case:
***
The judgement in the Kasganj Communal Violence of 2018 which came on 4th January, 2025 had four paragraphs towards the end, which had extremely shocking comments against six human rights groups, namely, Citizens for Justice and Peace, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, N. Delhi, United Against Hate, Rihaee Manch, Justice and Accountability Alliance, New York, Indian Muslim American Council, South Asia Solidarity, UK. We have attempted to translate the paras.
Paragraph 185: (Partly summarised and partly word to word.)
After stating that the role of the court was to think correctly so that punishment against the accused for the 26th January, 2018 violence in Kasganj, which killed one person could be pronounced, he further states that this judgement would not address how processions of Hindus faced stone pelting or about communal violence generally or how the court can play the role of social reform. He goes on to say that the courts alone cannot address the problem of communalism. And adds that the legislature, the executive, the dharam gurus and all individuals in society need to come together to change the situation. All people will have to realise that just their God is not supreme, and people will have to learn to respect the religious beliefs of all those who belong to different religions.
”…….All acts must not be looked from a communal lens. In this matter the defence counsel, learned advocate Shri Zia-ul Jilani stated that the reports written by various NGOs like Alliance for Justice and Accountability (New York), Citizens for Justice and Peace (Mumbai), Indian American Muslim council, Washington DC, People's Union for Civil Liberties (New Delhi), Rihaee Manch (Lucknow), South Asia Solidarity group, London and United Against Hate (New Delhi), called “Independent Enquiry : The truth of Kasganj, Sham Police Probe : Protects Hindus, Frames Muslims”, in which he accepted that the above report is silent on the teams visiting the site of violence.
Paragraph 186: (word to word translated)
The Prosecutors have expressed concern that in NIA courts across the country, when accused in cases under the UAPA or other anti-national/terrorist activities are brought for trial, NGOs—primarily advocating Muslim interests—promptly provide legal aid. This contradicts constitutional principles, as it boosts the morale of undesirable elements. For example, data from the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind’s legal cell claims that it facilitated 400 acquittals by March 2019, highlighting the influence of such organizations. These arguments of the Public Prosecutor Mr. Dikshit were also supported by the learned Public Prosecutor, for the NIA and ATS.
Paragraph 187 (word to word translation)
This court also took cognisance of the arguments made by Mr. Jilani and Public Prosecutor Lalit Kishore Diskhit. The court is of the opinion that these reports exert undue pressure on the judiciary and the communal sentiment with stealth creep into the realm of ideas. The court is in agreement with the statements of the Public Prosecutors that often it has been observed by special NIA courts that in different States like, Jammu Kashmir, West Bengal, Kerala, Assam, Punjab etc that when the accused are arrested and brought for terrorist activities, or implicated in Fake Currency related crimes, Waging war against state, Crimes related to stealing of National Security and Defence related secrets (classified) and those concerning seditious activities, lawyers from NGOs are there, from before, who file their power of attorney and advocate their case.
Paragraph188. (partly summarised and partly translated word to word)
States that the right to free legal aid of an accused has been stated in several judgements. While it is accepted that it is the right of an accused to get free legal aid, but conversely, it is not the right of an NGO to provide free legal aid to the accused who are involved in heinous crimes. It is the duty of the state to provide free legal aid to people who have are unable to advocate their case. For this purpose the Legal services authority act is in place under whom the State legal services authority and district legal services operate and a defence counsel is made available to the accused. Under section 304 of the CrPC a list of lawyers as amicus curie is prepared which has a panel of very good senior lawyers. “If an accused is acquitted due to the learned advocates provided by a communal NGO, then his commitment will be for the NGO and against the state. When the accused is provided by a lawyer from the state then his commitment and trust gets built towards the judiciary and the Constitution. The accused’s view of the judiciary and the state is different when acquittal follows Lawyers provided by the NGOs and those provided by the State Legal Services authority. NGOS providing legal aid and lawyers is resulting in promoting a point of view which is very narrow and dangerous. In this context the judiciary ( Bar and Bench) and all eminent persons associated with it and all stake holders must think about this. It is important to think about the point that the communal contestation which happened in UP in the district of Kasganj, several NGOs located in India, (like) citizens for justice and Peace, Mumbai, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, (New Delhi), Rihaee Manch, (Lucknow), United Against Hate (New Delhi), along with NGOs located abroad, like in America and the Great Britian, like the Alliance for Justice and Accountability, New York, Indian American council, Washington, DC), South Asia Solidarity Group (London), What could be their interests? Where is their funding coming from, and what are their collective objectives? To investigate this, prevent their unwarranted interference in the judicial process, and to take necessary action to stop them, a copy of this decision should also be sent to the Chairman of the Bar Council of India and the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India”.
Comments