December 19 police action in Mangaluru, 'Gross violation of human rights': People's tribunal
Former SC Judge headed tribunal demands Judicial Commission of Inquiry in the case
Mangaluru: A three-member people’s tribunal constituted by ‘Listening Post’ and headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice (Retd.) V. Gopala Gowda has released its observation on the December 19 violence and police action in the city. The tribunal also comprised of B T Venkatesh, former Public Prosecutor, Karnataka High Court, and senior Journalist Sugata Srinivasaraju.
The tribunal was organised on January 6th and 7th and was tasked with conducting public hearings to hear from all the persons affected by the police firing on December 19 and to report on the observations made by it. The tribunal was organised by Indian Social Forum, Bangalore, Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) and "Samvidhanadha Haadiyalli" under the banner of Listening Post.
In a three page long summary report, the tribunal after hearing from victims, journalists present on the scene and witnesses of the incident, the tribunal has made several key observations. It has observed that the imposition of prohibitory orders under section 144 by the Police Commissioner was unwarranted and that there was no such situation in the city that demanded the imposition.
“Upon statements made before the Tribunal, it is observed that imposition of prohibitory orders under section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure were unwarranted. There was no such situation in Mangalore that required imposition of orders under section 144 of the CrPC. It is pertinent to note that none of the ingredients that warrant an imposition of prohibitory orders under section 144 of the CrPC were present” the tribunal in its report stated.
It also stated that the communication of the prohibitory orders under section 144 was not effectively conveyed to the residents. “While the Commissioner of Police of Mangalore, Dr. P.S. Harsha, imposed prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the CrPC on the evening of 18th December 2019, the order was not effectively communicated to the residents of the area. After the imposition of the prohibitory orders under section 144 CrPC, permission that was earlier granted was subsequently revoked/cancelled but the same was not effectively communicated” it added.
“As a result of a complete breakdown of communication, civilians who had no connection with the protest were subjected to indiscriminate lathicharge and Police firing. The testimonies of the victims presented before the Tribunal display a complete abdication of responsibility by Police personnel present at the site of violence” the report added.
Coming down on the police, the tribunal observed that the police failed to comply with the Karnataka Police Manual and failed to uphold rights of the citizens.
“One of the main responsibilities of Police officials, as stipulated in Chapter 1 (Code of Conduct of the Karnataka State Police Force) is to uphold the rights of citizens in accordance with the Constitution of India. As a result, the Police officials must “respect the limitations of their power and functions”.” It observed.
It also observed that the police authorities who were tasked with maintaining law and order on December 19 used slurs and deplorable language in order to provoke the protesters.
The tribunal also nailed the hammer on Police department’s failure to furnish the CCTV footage to support their allegations against civilians asserting that the protesters attacjed the Kini Rifle Shop and tried to barge into Bunder Police Station as mentioned in some the FIRs.
“Victims have suffered immense financial hardship as a result of the atrocities committed on 19th December, 2019. Given the allegations of communalism against the Police authorities in question and the palpably disproportionate use of force by Police personnel, it is clear that the State and the officials in question are jointly and severally liable for such transgressions” it stated.
Taking note of the force against Journalists it added “It is clear from statements by journalists present at the scene of the violence that force was deliberately administered against journalists even after they identified themselves to the Police officials. This represents a mala fide use of the coercive power of the state to intimidate the press”.
It also opined that the police action to barge into Highland Hospital was not discernable why the cops entered the hospital premises and proceeded to use tear gas. “From the footage available, it is not discernable why the Police authorities entered the hospital premises and proceeded to use tear gas. No reasons have been suggested by Police authorities to justify such an excessive use of force” it stated.
Adding that the whole incident that killed two people in the city was gross violation of human rights norms the tribunal called for thorough investigation of the extra-judicial killings while citing Supreme Court in one of the similar cases.
“Article 2 of The Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials states that law enforcement officials must respect human rights norms and uphold human dignity at all times. Such words ring hollow in the context of the events of 19th December and the manner in which extreme force was used against civilians. Proportionality is an important aspect of the use of force in the context of policing unlawful assemblies. In regards to the maintenance of the rule of law, it is imperative that extra-judicial killings are thoroughly investigated. The Supreme Court in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra & Ors has laid down important guidelines to ensure independent investigation of such killings” it added.
Conclusion:
“From the statements it is observed that greater harm was caused to civilians and innocent persons who had nothing to do with the protests, if any. Their livelihood has been severely affected. More specifically, two lives have been lost. The children of Jaleel are rendered without care of a very loving and caring father. In Nausheen, the mother lost a son. A son who was simple and a worker eking out a livelihood by small work. The families of victims have been badly affected. They need to be protected and adequately compensated.
“It is observed from the statements made before the People’s Tribunal that the entire incident requires to be probed by constituting a Judicial Commission of Inquiry that would give greater opportunity and give confidence to the public and to the Police and would help in arriving at the truth of the incident” the tribunal concluded.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Stray dogs case: We will play video, ask you what is humanity, SC tells petitioner
New Delhi (PTI): Responding to a petitioner in the stray dogs case who objected to some rules framed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) saying "inhuman" treatment was being meted out to them, the Supreme Court on Thursday said a video will be played in the next hearing, "asking you what is humanity".
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is appearing in the stray dogs case, told a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that a three-judge special bench which was scheduled to assemble on Thursday to hear the matter was cancelled.
"It will come on January 7," Justice Nath said.
Sibal said, "The problem is that the MCD, in the meantime, has framed some rules which are completely contrary.color:red;"
He urged the bench to hear the matter on Friday, saying authorities don't even have dog shelters. "It is very very inhuman what is being done," Sibal said.
Justice Mehta, in an apparent reference to the stray dog menace, said "On the next date, we will play a video for your benefit and we will ask you what is humanity," .
Sibal responded that they will also play a video to show what was happening.
"The problem is your lordships has passed an order and we respect that. But the point is, there are statutory rules," he said.
When the bench said it would consider the matter on January 7, Sibal said the authorities will implement the rules in December itself.
"They will be implementing it and they will be removing the dogs. They don't have shelters," he said.
Justice Nath said, "It is alright Mr Sibal. Let them do it, we will consider."
The bench said it would hear the matter on January 7.
On November 7, taking note of the "alarming rise" in dog bite incidents within institutional areas like educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the apex court directed the forthwith relocation of stray canines to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination.
A three-judge special bench had also said the stray dogs so picked up shall not be released back in the place they were picked up from.
The bench had directed the authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from state highways, national highways and expressways.
It had said recurrence of dog bite incidents within institutional areas, including sports complexes, reflected not only administrative apathy but also a "systemic failure" to secure these premises from preventable hazards.
The top court had passed a slew of directions in the suo motu case over the stray dog menace.
It is hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28 over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
