Court Says Paramilitary Approach is a Problem Not The Solution

COURT SAYS PARAMILITARY APPROACH IS A PROBLEM NOT THE SOLUTION

ALL SIDES AGREE ON NEED FOR HIGH LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE – DIFFER ON ITS COMPOSITION

PRESS RELEASE ON HEARING OF SALWA JUDUM MATTER

7th January 2011

The Salwa Judum matter was heard in Court 9 of the Supreme Court today by Justice Sudershan Reddy and Justice SS Nijjar. This time all the main
parties to the court were present – the last few times, the Solicitor
General had asked for adjournments. The petitioners were represented by
Senior Counsel, Mr. Ashok Desai (who is arguing the case pro-bono), the
Centre by the Solicitor General, Mr. Gopal Subramanium and the State of
Chhattisgarh by Mr. Harish Salve and Mr. Manish Singhvi.

SCHOOLS

On 18 February 2010 the Chhattisgarh government had said in court (and it
was recorded in the order) that all schools had been vacated. Subsequently
in November 2010 after the petitioners showed that forces were still in
occupation, the Chhattisgarh government had submitted a list of 31 schools
which were still occupied. At the last hearing on December 15, 2010, the
Court had told the Chhattisgarh government that it was ‘unacceptable’ for
the security forces to occupy schools and they must vacate. On 6.1.2011, the Chhattisgarh government filed an affidavit saying they had vacated only six out of the 31 schools. From their affidavit, it is clear that they have no intention of vacating any more. The Judges were really angry and asked why a suo moto contempt notice should not be issued against them for misleading the court.

Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Solictor General said the Centre was against the
occupation of schools by the security forces, and that the state government
had been assuring them that alternative arrangements must be made. The Court noted that if schools could be occupied because they were pucca buildings, the next day it may even be courts.

REHABILITATION

Mr. Gopal Subramanium said that a reparative approach was needed, and this was a rare opportunity for all sides to work together to craft an innovative solution. He handed over an affidavit which had been cleared by the Union Home Ministry, which reiterated the details of the Integrated Action Plan of the Planning Commission, which would entrust Rs. 55 crore over two years to a committee consisting of the SP, the Collector and DFO. This would be monitored by a committee consisting of the Member Secretary of the Planning Commission, the Secretary MoEF, Secretary MOTA etc. The Union also suggested the names of two independent experts: Mr. Prathamesh Ambastha of the Samaj Pragati Sahyog, Madhya Pradesh and Mr. Deep Joshi.

Mr. Ashok Desai pointed out that the current SP of Dantewada was reportedly behind the death threats to local journalists, and such a committee could not be expected to be independent. He provided a list of independent experts to be headed by a retired chief justice, and senior retired bureaucrats who were knowledgeable about the region.

Mr. Harish Salve suggested that the Committee set up by the state
government, headed by the Chief Minister (which has Mr. Mahendra Karma as a so-called independent member) could simply be expanded to include the independent experts suggested by the petitioners.

Mr. Desai pointed out that the Chief Minister had been a vociferous
supporter of Salwa Judum, and such a committee chaired by the Chief Minister could by no means by treated as independent and there was a serious conflict of interest.

REGISTRATION OF FIRS AND PROSECUTION

In its affidavit of 6.1.2011, Chhattisgarh had filed details of some FIRs
against which closure reports had been made. Mr. Desai pointed out that
there was no serious investigation of heinous crimes including murder and
arson and cases were being summarily closed.

The Judges asked the Chhattisgarh counsel why cases were being closed and Mr. Salve replied that it was because it was difficult for police to go into
these areas and investigate and nobody would talk freely because of fear of
police and Naxalites. He admitted that there were abuses by the security
forces, but said the situation was difficult. Mr. Desai pointed out that
this showed the complete breakdown of administration in Chhhattisgarh and
reinforced the need for an independent committee. Mr. Salve suggested that the High Court could be asked to look at the closure of cases (a sure way of putting them into cold storage since it is difficult for poor adivasis to go to high court and pursue their cases individually).

OTHER ISSUES

Mr. Desai also raised the question of disbanding Salwa Judum, and outlined
the potential terms of reference for a High Level Committee. In principle,
the Union has agreed to equal compensation for all victims, regardless of
perpetrator.

*OTHER OBSERVATIONS BY THE JUDGES*

The Honourable Judges noted that a paramilitary based approach was not the right way at all, and from their experiences in Gauhati and Punjab, was more of a problem rather than a solution.

At one point, when Manish Singhvi, counsel for Chhattisgarh tried to argue
that schools could not be vacated since it was a conflict zone, Justice
Reddy said “we are not at war with our own people†, and asked him if he knew any international law, since the term conflict zone had a specific meaning in that (both sides would then be bound by the Geneva conventions etc.). Mr. Singhvi said “I may or may not know†, at which the Judge suggested he read some international law.

SUMMARY

All parties to the case now agree on the need for a high level monitoring
committee. The differences lie in terms of its composition with the
petitioners trying to ensure that it is truly independent and impartial and
the state and central governments both trying to co-opt and weaken such a
committee. The Judges are trying to get all parties to work out a
consensus. At one point Justice Reddy asked: “Can’t you all – Mr. Desai, Mr.
Salve, Mr. Subramanium work out a solution?†However, at the core, there is the critical issue of state support for Salwa Judum and the violence it has
committed, which cannot be sidestepped.

Since it was a Friday, a day when normally miscellaneous matters are heard, the Judges wanted to post it to Tuesday for continued hearing. They also asked the Counsel for Chhattisgarh to provide a proper compilation of all their affidavits. The Chhattisgarh and Union counsels asked for time, so the hearing on the matter will now be resumed on Tuesday the 18th of January.