JNU student activists say blocked from course registration process

A day before the registration process for all courses wraps up at JNU, several student activists — including those from the JNU Students’ Union — have alleged that they are not being allowed to register because of “fines” levied on them. The university has allegedly blocked the registration of about 30 students, including all four JNUSU office bearers, against whom an enquiry is pending on various matters, including “disrupting an Academic Council meeting”, and “unlawful confinement” of officials at the administrative block.

Five students, including JNUSU president Mohit Pandey, who is facing seven enquiries, have refused to pay the fine. Four of them, Prashant Kumar, Dileep Yadav, Mulayam Yadav and Shakeel Anjum, have challenged their punishment in the Delhi High Court. “In one of the cases (of unlawful confinement), where the enquiry has been completed, we have been fined Rs 20,000. I have seven cases pending against me. If I start getting such fines for every one of these, I will have to pay Rs 1.4 lakh. The administration is trying to harass those who don’t follow their diktats,” alleged Pandey.

Prashant Kumar said the blocking of registration was not mentioned in the proctorial rules. “Earlier, too, there have been many cases in which students have enquiries pending against them, but their registration has never been blocked. We have gone through the proctorial rules; nowhere is this mentioned,” he said. Kumar and others have been charged with “barging” into an Academic Council meeting.

The High Court will hear the matter tomorrow, after which students will decided the next course of action. JNUSU general secretary Satarupa Chakraborty, who has paid the fine, alleged that his registration had been blocked as well.

“I had paid the fine day before yesterday, but my registration has still not been unblocked and tomorrow is the last day. They are harassing us by making us run around in circles from one person to the other,” she said. Chief Proctor Vibha Tandon did not respond to calls and texts by The Indian Express.


Five sentenced in Kandhamal riots case

Five sentenced in Kandhamal riots case

Phulbani (Odisha), February 16, 2012

Riot victims at Tikabali camp in the Kandhamal district of Orissa display their voter ID cards before casting votes during the first phase of the Lok Sabha elections.

A fast track court in Odisha’s Kandhamal district on Thursday sentenced five persons to rigorous imprisonment for two years in connection with the 2008 communal riots.

Fast track court-II judge Biranchi Narayan Mishra convicting the five persons also imposed Rs 5,000 fine on each of them and ordered additional jail term for six months in case of non-payment of penalty amount.

The court, however, acquitted two accused persons for lack of evidence.

The seven people had been arrested for their involvement in rioting and burning down of houses at Nilungia village under G Udayagiri on August 24, 2008, a day after VHP leader Laxmanananda Saraswati was killed at his Jalaspeta ashram in the district.

Missing Trivedi & family puzzle cops

Missing Trivedi & family puzzle cops

By DNA Correspondent

Parimal Trivedi is still missing and so is his family – this is what cops reported after their last attempt to arrest the vice-chancellor of GujaratUniversity before the time limit set by the Gujarat high court on Monday, went in vain. Police once again visited Trivedi’s official residence, but there was no one to greet the cops.

According to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and incharge officer of SC/ST cell, KR Bhuva, Trivedi along with his family have disappeared after locking up their house.

“We went to his house near PRL, but we found that the house is locked since Sunday and no one is there to answer us,” said Bhuva, who is given charge to probe the atrocity case filed against Trivedi by Pankaj Shrimali, a professor of GLS Arts College in 2008.

Earlier, unhappy with the police’s inability to track down and arrest the V-C, complainant Shrimali is awaiting the next hearing for high court to give a stricter order. According to Shrimali, the delay in Trivedi’s arrest might be a well organised game. “He might have been advised to hide till the next HCorder comes after February 21, when the police will file an action taken report in the court,” Shrimali alleged. He is now waiting for the court’s stand against the officials who were supposed to take action before February 21.

According to sources close to the development, Trivedi, on his part too, has consulted some government lawyers of the session’s court to find a solution to the matter. Since he cannot get an anticipatory bail in the matter,Trivedi must be arrested by police, which has, however, not yet happened.

Trivedi is facing investigation in a case in which he is accused of making abusive casteist remarks on Shrimali, allegedly in the presence of PradeepPrajapati, former senate member of the varsity. A complaint was lodged with the Gujarat University police station on May 3, 2008 under the Prevention of Atrocities Act.

After no headway was made in the case, Shrimali moved the HC two months ago by filing a petition. The HC has ordered city police to conclude the probe and submit the report on February 21.

Discontented with the tardy pace of progress Shrimali issued a statutory notice to SK Saikia, commissioner of police on February 13.

According to Shrimali, the probe has been deliberately delayed, as the former in-charge ACP of SC-ST cell has gone on sudden medical leave from February 9, without handing over the probe to another officer. In his notice, Shrimali alleged negligence of duty on part of ACP, DD Chaudhari.

In his notice, Shrimali cited section 4 of Atrocity Act, under which it is stated that any officer found guilty of not doing a probe in a proper manner can be made a co-accused in the case for indirectly helping the main accused.

After the notice, commissioner Saikia appointed ACP KR Bhuva as the in-charge of SC/ST cell, who too has finally given up saying that he couldn’t find Trivedi even after two days of search. Now, all eyes are on the high court and the stand it will take in this regard on Tuesday.



P.B D’Sa

              Dr. V.S Acharya who died recently, was a colleague of mine in the erstwhile Janata Party which was formed in the prison by the opposition leaders when the then congress prime minister clamped an emergency in India and suspended the constitution of India and denied even the right to life to the citizen of India from June 1975 to March 1977. 1977 till the Janata Party collapsed and disintegrated, I was a member of Janata Party and the Secretary of minority cell of Mangalore City. Dr. V.S. Acharya was the district president for erstwhile South Kanara (D.K and Udupi). He gave me an impression that he was a great democrat and a secular man. He was a soft spoken gentleman. I admired him for remaining in the opposition and for having spent nineteen months in jail for the sake of Democracy. He was of my age. I miss him very much not because of the impressions I have of him during our association in the Janata Party. I remember him more because of his role in attacking the Muslim and Christian Minorities in Karnataka, during his ministership especially as a Home minister in the present BJP government of Karnataka.

                He had let loose a rule of tyranny never seen before by the minority people of Karnataka during his ministership. Soon after the church attacks PUCL Karnataka requested Justice Saldanha to head a one man enquiry commission to bring out the truth, Why and how the unprecedented attacks took place, in a place (Coastal Karnataka) where great peace, communal harmony and exemplary fraternity and brotherly feeling was existing?. If RSS has to choose any person and award a National award for permanently ruining the communal harmony in Karnataka, that award should go to Dr. V.S. Acharya. Even till today I am unable to believe that a man like Acharya could be capable of so much of hatred towards the minorities.

              I agree that it is not fair and proper to comment adversely on a friend once he dies. But not to comment on a public figure who has been crooked, cunning and in one word evil, Could be wrong as history of a place, state, country or a people has to be recorded truly and fairly.

                    Dr. V.S. Acharya who died at the age of 71(my age) comes under the category of a public figure who changed the very relationship of minority communities with the majority communities and damaged personally the communal harmony that existed in Karnataka and especially in the Coastal Karnataka. History will not excuse this man and certainly I am not prepared to excuse him. I would not like to be a hypocrite like our clergy ( Christian Padries) who invited him for their 125th anniversary in Mangalore in spite of knowing fully well that he was the architect of Church attacks in Mangalore and around in 2008, along with another Doctor known as Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat.

                   I quote from Justice Saldanha’s report of church attacks of which more than 1 Lakh copies are in circulation in different languages all over the world.

               “Sometime around 5.00 PM, the SP of the area along with about 20 officers of different ranks, all in uniform, with helmets and riot-control gear arrived at the place armed with lathis. They had come in a number of jeeps and police vans. The police constables were also armed with lathis and other equipment that is normally carried by the police while dealing with a violent mob. The records also indicate that apart from the SP and other police officers, the then DC was also present. The strange part of the operation was that these vehicles came from the City Centre and since there were a relatively large number of them, the majority of them were parked on the main road adjoining the Church, while about one third of the vehicles drove through the persons assembled there and stopped on the road beyond the assembled group opposite the Moti Mahal Hotel. Why the persons assembled there were blocked-off from both ends was not apparent at that time, but as I shall presently indicate, it was part of the Police master-plan which subsequently became apparent.”

“Now comes the most significant part of the incident. The police had brought with them two blue coloured tempos which were private vehicles (not Police vehicles) were bearing yellow coloured number plates. One of these was brought to the front of the Police vehicles on each of the two sides, with all the assembled persons sandwiched between the vehicles. What is very significant is the fact that each of these tempos was carrying about 20 young men per vehicle, ALL IN PLAIN CLOTHES. Each of these persons was armed with lathis or sticks. The Videos clearly show a fellow sitting above the driver’s cabin of each Tempo carrying a TRISHUL! I have done considerable research in trying to ascertain the identity of these persons. I have written to the SP asking him for an explanation with regard to the presence of these tempos and the occupants of these vehicles. Neither this man nor his subordinates have tendered any explanation nor have remained present on any of the eleven occasions when asked to do so. The occupants of these tempos had nothing to do with the police department. The victims in this and in all the other incidents where the same modus operandi was followed have clearly identified these armed miscreants who occupied the two tempos as local Bajrang Dal activists. When I discussed this matter with the Hon’ble Dr. Acharya, Home Minister, he told me that they were CONSTABLES IN PLAIN CLOTHES! (One of his many witticisms)”

“From the day the BJP Government came to power in the State which coincided with Dr. B. V. Acharya assuming the portfolio of Home Minister, militant activity of all the saffron brigades took an ugly turn. Open war was declared on the Christians and the Muslims. The Saffron brigades took charge of all the Police Stations in the District and dictated terms to the officers and staff, most of who willingly fell in line. What was the immediate fall-out? “

a)  “The members of the saffron brigade could commit any atrocities or crimes; they had total immunity from the law enforcement authorities.”

b)  “Any member of the minority community who had been threatened, beaten up or looted who went to complain at the Police Stations was assaulted and arrested under a host of NON-BAILABLE OFFENCES and put behind bars. It soon became evident that it was extremely dangerous to go to a Police Station or call the Police even in the most serious of cases. It is not surprising therefore that the police brought their partners in crime in the two Tempos openly, brazenly and brandishing TRISHULS! (refer Page No. 62 and 63 of the Report)”

“In the ‘synopsis of finding’ on Page No. 292, Justice Saldanha says, that every one of the attacks and incidents which took place was instigated and pre planned. They were state sponsored and not only sponsored but covered up by the state. The responsibility for this devolves squarely on the home minister Dr. V.S. Acharya and the Chief Minister.

The government had announced to withdraw all the three hundred and thirty seven cases filed against Christian protestors on the next day of the church attack but so far, no cases are withdrawn nor paid the promised damages are paid. However all the cases filed against the culprits belonging to Ramsene and Bhajrang Dal have been withdrawn long back. When the home minister was asked in the assembly for withdrawing the all those cases filed against the culprits the unique answer he gave was, that “they were all political activists and not criminals”.

On page 299 he says a serious allegation was levelled particularly by the chief minister and the home minister that the minorities namely the Christians are indulging in conversions. I had devoted special attention towards examining this allegation thread-bear and found it to be downright false. It was pleaded as a justification for the violence; it is a sham allegation and afterthought. All the same it merited a deep examination and my finding is that it is factually incorrect, completely baseless and it should not have been pleaded at all.

Finally I must express with deepest disgust that the Home Minister Dr. V.S Acharya never thought it fit to visit the churches which were attacked thus proving beyond all doubts that he was behind this attack and that with his blessings the Police Department executed the operation. The part played by Bhajrang Dal and others was a very insignificant one.

                The legacy of Acharya is still being kept up by is saffronized police, who were told by Acharya that each station should file 20 false cases against Christians alleging “Conversions”. This process is still under execution.

Our reply in connection with Case no. 175/25/4/2011 – torture upon HRD

Our reply in connection with Case no. 175/25/4/2011 – torture upon HRD

source: mailed by Suresh Bhat

17th February 2012

The Chairman
National Human Rights Commission
Faridkot House
Copernicus Marg
New Delhi-110001
Ref:- Your letter dated 27.1.2012 in connection with Case no. 175/25/4/2011
Our complaint dated 17.2.2011
Sub.:- Reply against police report
Respected Sir,
We received your letter dated 27.1.2012 in connection with Case no. 175/25/4/2011 and the report of the SDPO, Durgapur attached with the letter.
We have perused the report and place our comments for your kind perusal on the report as follows:-
The SDPO, Durgapur in his report stated that “…on 21.12.2010 O/C Pandabeswar Police Station along with other officer and force being accompanied by the then CI (B), Durgapur held a raid at Kendra, Chhatadhaorah and its adjoining area to arrest the FIR named accused persons but no fruitful result could be achieved. During raid the Police personnel had been to the house of FIR named accd Subad Ali Khan …”—regarding this point we want to comment that the SDPO, Durgapur admitted that the police party was present in the house of the victim on 21.12.2010. He did not mention the name of the so called “other officer” who was present with the police party. Why he concealed the name of this “other officer”? Is he trying to save any police officer? If the police raid was valid as claimed in the report then why he did not feel it necessary to disclose the name of such “other officer”? We have definite information that the SDPO, Durgapur was himself present with the police party which raided in the house of the victim on 21.12.2010. But he did not admit the same in his report.  The SDPO, Durgapur Mr. Joy Biswas stated before the news media that they had information that someone was coming from Birbhum who was going to take shelter in the victim’s house for which they went for a search in the house of the victim. Such statement of the SDPO, Durgapur Mr. Joy Biswas was made before the news reporters and the same was published. We have attached the scan copy of the said news paper cutting with this reply. The SDPO, Durgapur has no power to this enquiry as he was himself present with the police party and we demand that the concerned police authority must be directed to disclose all the names of the police personnel who were present during the raid in the house of the victim on 21.12.2010 for proper disposal of the case.
Moreover, it is quite improbable to believe that such huge police personnel went to arrest the FIR named accused persons in four cases (as mentioned in the report) but they failed to apprehend none of them. What a remarkable efficiency shown by the police party!!! We must say that the SDPO, Durgapur presented his statement regarding the purpose of the raid, the purpose of presence of the huge police personnel in the house of the victim (only to arrest him!!!) in a dubious and cryptic manner. He did not place supporting police records in support of his statement. The Police Regulations of Bengal mandates that day to day proceeding of the police station must be recorded in the General Diary Entry (GDE) Book of police station. So here we expect that the police of Pandabeswar Police Station should have had recorded the information about the commencement and purpose of the raid by the police party on 21.12.2010 in the General Diary Entry Book, but here the SDPO, Durgapur in his report did not mention any reference of the GDE entries made on 21.12.2010 at Pandabeswar Police Station over the subject matter in issue. We demand that Pandabeswar Police Station must be directed to place its GDE records made on 21.12.2010 to testify the veracity of the statement of the SDPO, Durgapur.
The SDPO, Durgapur in his report stated that “… During raid the Police personnel had been to the house of FIR named accd Subad Ali Khan and to secure arrest him in c/w Pandabeswar PS Case no.58/2010 dt. 12.11.10 u/s 143/341/506 IPC, 25/27 Arms Act & 9(b) (II) I.E. Act…”- regarding this point we want to comment that arresting of any accused person in connection with any pending criminal case is one of the parts of investigation and the Investigation Officer of the case has power to arrest the accused person if he considers the arrest to be prominent for the purpose of the investigation. But here the report never uttered a single word whether the Investigation Officer in c/w Pandabeswar PS Case no.58/2010 was present with the raiding police party or not.
The SDPO, Durgapur in his report stated that “…During local enquiry it also revealed that the petitioner Subad Ali Khan is a desperate and dangerous and most rowdy in nature and he used to create problem in the area off and on for showing his muscle power…”—-Regarding this point we want to comment that the SDPO did not mention the date, time and place as when he made such so called “local enquiry”.  We understand that local enquiry means gathering of facts by talking with local people of the vicinity and noting down their statements. But here the SDPO, Durgapur did not mention any name of person/persons who took part in such so called “local enquiry” and from whom he gathered information on the reputation of the victim. We hereby attached one character certificate issued by the Prodhan(Head) of Kendra Gram Panchayat certifying that the victim was the elected member of Kendra Gram Panchayat and he bears a good, moral character. The SDPO, Durgapur by his statement made character assassination of the victim in an unfair and dishonest way and he by his mere statement tried to present an untrue picture of the targeted person i.e. the victim without any substance. It is a form of defamation.
The inquirer i.e. the SDPO, Durgapur is nothing but a paid partisan agent of the police administration which repeatedly subjected the victim into torture and harassment and the victim had to lodge specific complaints against the perpetrator police personnel to save his life, liberty and rights. The fact remains that the victim had lodged one complaint before the West Bengal Human Rights Commission against police harassment and in the matter of the said complaint, the Additional S.P. Durgapur vide communication dated 5.7.2004 asked the victim to meet with him in his office. One scan copy of the said communication is duly attached with this reply. The victim duly met with him (the Additional S.P. Durgapur) in his office but till date the victim did not get any outcome of his complaint. Moreover the victim was arrested on 5.2.2007 by the police of Pandabeswar Police Station and he was illegally detained by police. The wife of the victim lodged specific written complaint at ACJM Court, Durgapur in the matter.
Lastly, we being the complainant in this case were not given any opportunity to place our stand before the enquiring officer i.e.  The SDPO, Durgapur. Moreover he neither met with the victim nor with his family members to get their statement over the incident which is the subject matter in issue in this present case. Here we understand that an enquiry means a systematic investigation of a matter of public interest. But all our hope to get a systematic and neutral investigation was pinned down in this case by the biased and concocted report place by the SDPO, Durgapur.
Hence we demand that the report placed by the SDPO, Durgapur should be rejected considering the comments made by as above and direct that a neutral investigation should be made in this case by the investigation wing of the Commission.
Thanking You,
Yours truly,
Kirity Roy
Secretary, MASUM