Release jailed for life human rights activist Binayak Sen

Created on Dec 30, 2010
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/never-expected-a-fair-verdict-in-binayak-case/138940-3.html
http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/138940/never-expected-a-fair-verdict-in-binayak-case.html
30 Minutes: Binayak Sen, the dissenting doctor Watch Videos
http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/93809/30-minutes-binayak-sen-the-dissenting-doctor.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videoshow/7179940.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/news/Dr-Binayak-Sen-found-guilty-of-sedition-treason/videoshow/7156191.cms
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/dr-binayak-sen-3-others-held-guilty-of-treason/138496-3.html
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/human-rights-activists-slam-binayak-sen-verdict/138596-3.html
We the petition signers / signatories are appalled by the shocking verdict. People in India have shamelessly robbed it of crores of rupees through various scams, instigated / incited violence against others on the grounds of religion, language, caste, reservation / quota, places of worship and perpetrated crimes against humanity in general and women in particular but are still roaming scot-free shamelessly. Binayak Sen has worked amongst the poor for so many years of his life but has never encouraged or justified violence. Therefore, we request for expeditious hearing of his appeal and to grant him immediate bail till the end of the appeal process.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/proof-must-back-charges-in-binayak-case-excji/138820-37-64.html
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/binayak-sens-mother-to-move-court/138822-37.html
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/willing-to-fight-for-binayak-sen-jethmalani/138763-3.html 
Additional District and Sessions Judge BP Verma held Dr Sen, Naxal ideologue Narayan Sanyal and Kolkata businessman Piyush Guha guilty under provisions of section 124 IPC (sedition), 120 B IPC (conspiracy) and Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act on December 24. Dr Sen, Sanyal and Guha have been sentenced to life.

A shocking verdict Opinion - Editorials - The Hindu Saturday, December 25, 2010
http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/25/stories/2010122566591400.htm 
The life sentence handed down to Binayak Sen by a Chhattisgarh trial court on Friday is so over the top and outrageous that it calls into question the fundamentals of the Indian justice system. The trial judge shocked the conscience of the nation by finding the eminent doctor and rights activist guilty of sedition and conspiring to wage war against the state under Sections 120(B) and 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 8(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the draconian Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, and Section 39 (2) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (as amended in 2004). The fact that the Chhattisgarh police's case against Dr. Sen consisted of pretty thin material was taken into the realm of the absurd by the public prosecutor tying himself in knots in an attempt to burnish the doctor's alleged sins. So it was that an innocuous email message sent by his wife, Ilina, to the director of the Indian Social Institute - a Delhi-based institution which happens to share an acronym with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate - got converted into "suspicious communication" with the dreaded "ISI." Another email referring to an occupant of the White House as a "chimpanzee" was introduced by the prosecutor as evidence of the kind of "code language" terrorists resort to. But tragically, it is the Chhattisgarh police that have had the last laugh in this round.

The broad charge against Dr. Sen of helping the banned Community Party of India (Maoist) wage war against the state was constructed by the police around the scaffolding of his supposed relationship with Narayan Sanyal, an alleged leader of the Maoists who was incarcerated in Raipur jail following his arrest in 2006. In his capacity as a medical doctor and head of the People's Union for Civil Liberties, Dr. Sen often met Mr. Sanyal in jail but each of these meetings, as the jail authorities subsequently testified, was closely supervised and afforded no opportunity for the conveying of messages to the Maoist leadership. So the police hit upon the strategy of linking him to the recovery from Kolkata-based businessman Piyush Guha of a letter allegedly written by Mr. Sanyal. During the trial, the defence counsel pointed to numerous holes in the police case, including the introduction of an unsigned, typewritten letter supposedly sent by the Maoists to Dr. Sen, despite the fact that the letter found no mention in the attested list of documents recovered from his residence the same day. It goes without saying that Dr. Sen has the right to appeal the conviction and the savage sentence. The higher judiciary, which did not exactly cover itself in glory by denying him bail for nearly two years, must ensure the expeditious hearing of his appeal and grant him immediate bail till the end of the appeal process.

Raj throwback - Editorial - Times of India, December 27, 2010
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Raj-throwback/articleshow/7168004.cms 
The life sentence imposed on globally acclaimed human rights activist Binayak Sen on the charge of sedition is easily the most scandalous abuse of a colonial remnant in independent India. Judging by the intensity of civil society's outrage, the verdict by a trial court from Chhattisgarh might provide impetus for a fresh review of the arbitrary manner in which this provision continues to be invoked to gag dissenting voices.

This is the latest in a series of cases in which either the prosecution or the court appears to have missed the strict condition on which Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code has survived the test of free speech guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that no sedition charge can be made unless the disaffection against the state spread by the accused was found to be a direct incitement to violence or armed rebellion. This meant that even if the prosecution's version were accepted that he had couriered letters from a jailed Maoist leader to his associates, the trial court would have had to establish that Sen's words or deeds were a direct incitement to violence or jeopardised public order. Without showing how any intent of violence could be attributed to a human rights activist with a lifetime service in rural healthcare, the trial court held him guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit sedition in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Such a cavalier approach reinforces the impression that the judiciary is allowing itself to be overrun by security arguments. Blaming the sins of the Maoists on Sen, the trial court awarded him the highest possible penalty of life sentence. Clearly, India could do without the shame of jailing a humanist for sedition while the hate-mongers responsible for the cataclysmic events of 1984 ( Delhi massacre), 1992 (Ayodhya demolition) and 2002 (Gujarat riots) strut around as patriots.

Quite apart from the question whether Sen qualifies to be called a seditionist, the December 24 verdict deserves to be overturned for overlooking serious gaps in evidence. That the three incriminating letters allegedly carried by Sen had been recovered from co-accused Piyush Guha was by no means proved beyond doubt. The recovery story hinges entirely on the testimony of a cloth merchant who admitted to have been called by the police as a seizure witness when Guha was already in their custody. The trial court also overlooked discrepancies in the prosecution's version of where Guha had been arrested. This miscarriage of justice cannot be ignored, especially due to its larger ramifications.

Justice outraged Deccan Herald - Editorial - Monday December 27 2010
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/123872/justice-outraged.html 
The evidence produced against Sen is unconvincing.
The conviction of celebrated human rights activist Binayak Sen for treason by the Raipur sessions court on Friday has raised question about the country's system of justice. Sen, along with two others, has been awarded a harsh life sentence for allegedly aiding and abetting Maoist activities. But the evidence produced against Sen is very unconvincing and there are strong reasons to believe that it was manufactured or doctored to implicate him in a false case. He has been hounded and persecuted by the police and the authorities in Chhattisgarh for long and has suffered much for his commitment to the welfare of poor tribals in the state. He was even denied the normal right of bail after he was arrested in 2006 and it was after spending nearly two years in jail that he won freedom at the intervention of the supreme court.

The prosecution charge that Sen acted as a conduit between a jailed Maoist leader and a businessman is weak because all the meetings between the two in jail were under the supervision of the authorities. The defence claim that evidence was planted to incriminate Sen seems to be correct in the light of production of letters and documents which were not recovered from his residence. The ridiculousness of the prosecution claim became clear in the court during the trial when it accused Sen of links with the Pakistani ISI on the basis of an e-mail message to an organisation with that acronym. It turned out the organisation was the Indian Social Institute (ISI) in Delhi.

There is no doubt that Sen did not get a fair trial and his conviction has tarnished the reputation of the country. He has become an international symbol of the struggle of the poor and marginalised people for their legitimate rights. The Amnesty International considers him a prisoner of conscience. A man who has been honoured with international awards for his work among the poor, and on whose behalf Nobel laureates have pleaded with the government, should not be treated the way he has been. The Chhattisgarh police and the trial judge who accepted its story uncritically have sent out a dire warning to all those who value and work for human rights. It is the disregard for the rights of the poor that has triggered the Maoist revolt. It is unfortunate that this truth is not recognised.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/human-rights-activists-slam-binayak-sen-verdict/138596-3.html 
It's the verdict which has left many across India completely shocked. Dr Binayak Sen being pronounced guilty by a Raipur Sessions Court has left human rights activists, leading jurists and writers appalled.

A travesty of justice: That is how leading human rights defenders, activists and jurists have greeted the verdict of the Raipur sessions court which held Dr Binayak Sen guity of sedition and sentenced him to life.

Soli Sorabjee, Former Attorney General, finds the judgement shocking and has questioned the validity of life imprisonment for the doctor. He says, "I think the judgement is shocking. After all Binayak Sen has a fine record. The evidence against him seems flimsy. The judge has misapplied the section. And in any case the sentence is atrocious, savage."

Amnesty International, which called Dr Binayak Sen a prisoner of 'conscience', has slammed the verdict. In a strong statement it said, "The life sentence handed down against Dr Binayak Sen by a court in the India state of Chhattisgarh violates international fair trial standards. Life in prison is an unusually harsh sentence for anyone, much less for an internationally recognized human rights defender who has never been charged with any act of violence."

Several organisations have joined hands to protest against the verdict.

"We have people in this country who have robbed the country of crores of rupees. And somebody who has worked amongst the poor for so many years of his life gets life imprisonment", said Anand Patwardhan, documentary filmmaker.

It is said that Dr Binayak Sen was shocked when the judge held him guilty for sedition.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/proof-must-back-charges-in-binayak-case-excji/138820-37-64.html 
Former CJI Justice VN Khare has said evidence has to prove sedition charge beyond a shadow of doubt. If the evidence is weak, the High Court can set aside the order, he said.

Justice Ahmadi, too, said that evidence in sedition case has to be clinching against the accused.

The first time when I saw the newspaper I was taken aback. The charge is very serious and the punishment prescribed is also very serious. Evidence has to be clinching against the accused . If proof is weak I would not expect court to sustain conviction. In deciding such cases judiciary should show great concern," he said.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/intellectuals-appeal-for-binayak-sens-release/138708-3.html 
Expressing shock over awarding of life sentence to rights activist Binayak Sen on charges of sedition, over 80 intellectuals including Noam Chomsky on Monday demanded that his appeal be heard "expeditiously" with "enlightened reason" and sought his immediate release on bail.

They claimed that Sen never resorted to violence or incited anyone else to do so. On the contrary, as a doctor and a human rights activist he stood up in defence of the rights of downtrodden, said a statement signed by Romila Thapar, Prabhat Patnaik, Ashok Mitra and Mushirul Hasan among others.

"Yet he has been handed down this sentence whose savagery is unbelievable," it said.

Sen, Naxal ideologue Narayan Sanyal and Kolkata businessman Piyush Guha were sentenced to life imprisonment last Friday for colluding with Maoists to establish a network to fight the state.

58-year-old Sen, a paediatrician by training and vice-president of People's Union of Civil Liberties, had been accused of acting as courier for Sanyal, who was in jail, by carrying his messages and letters to the underground Maoists.

The intellectuals said, "Such an action on the part of the State in the name of preserving the Constitutional order will only serve to undermine that Constitutional order itself.

"It will inevitably raise the thought in the minds of many that an order within which the activities of a person like Dr Sen can be held to be seditious is not worth defending," the statement said.

Noting that such an impression must be avoided, they said, the damage done by this "shocking" verdict must be undone and sought his immediate release till the end of the appeal.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/never-expected-a-fair-verdict-in-binayak-case/138940-3.html
http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/138940/never-expected-a-fair-verdict-in-binayak-case.html
Arundhati Roy while speaking to CNN-IBN's Rupashree Nanda about the Binayak Sen judgement said that she never expected the judgement to be fair but she was taken aback at the extent of the unfairness. This is what she had to say.

Rupashree Nanda: What was your first reaction when you heard that Binayak Sen and two others have been convicted for sedition and life sentence has been awarded to them?

Arundhati Roy: I was not expecting the judgment to be fair but I was taken aback at the extent of the unfairness. In a sense, it seemed as though the evidence produced in the court and the judgment were just not connected to each other. My reaction was that in some way it was a declaration - it wasn't a judgment it was a declaration of intent, it was a message and it was a warning to others. So that works in two ways. The warning will be taken into account of. I think perhaps people who passed this judgment were not expecting that it would unite people in outrage the way it has done.

Rupashree Nanda: Why didn't you expect a fair judgment?

Arundhati Roy: We have been following this case for some years now. The reporting of the trial was coming through. The fact that some of the evidence was fabricated, what evidence there was, was so weak - even Narayan Sanyal who seems to be the kingpin around who the whole sedition case was built up wasn't accused of sedition when Binayak was arrested. So there is an atmosphere of prejudice and I think what is really worrying is that the infrastructure of democracy, the courts, the media is being rented out to the mob. Whichever side you are on, whether you are a corporate, business man, middleclass, Hindutva or not - it is something that anybody who has any kind of affection should be worried about.

Rupashree Nanda: Do you think that the state can ever walk the tightrope between protection democratic rights and safeguarding against terror? Is that a fair expectation?

Arundhati Roy: The definition of terror is a loose one. We can argue about that. But such laws have always been there, whether it is TADA or POTA. If you look at the history, how many people have been convicted among the accused... it is 1% or 0.1 %. Because people who are really outlaws, either rebels or terrorists are not interested in the laws. So those laws are almost always used against those who are not terrorists or not outlaws in some way. And this is beyond Binayak Sen. Point is, if you are talking lets say about the Maoists who are a banned party - why are they banned ? Because they believe in violence - but today's papers talk about Hindutva elements being involved in the Samjhauta blast. Even mainstream political parties have been involved in acts of heinous violence, even amounting to genocide but they are not banned. So what you choose to ban, what you choose not to ban all these things are political decisions. Today, the situation is it is the government and the economic policies which are actively performing anti- constitutional activity. They are the ones who are going against PESA ( Panchayat Extension Scheduled Areas Act ), they are the ones whose economic policies are resulting in displacement, in 800 million people living under 20 rupees a day, in 17000 farmers committing suicide in a year...

Rupashree Nanda: But does that justify violence. A CNN IBN poll had shown that a majority of people sympathized with the Maoist cause but disagreed with their methods. And yes mainstream political parties do indulge in violence, but they do not say that in their manifestoes? There is a difference?

Arundhati Roy: Yes, I agree there is a crucial difference. One can question the methods of the Maoists of course. But I am trying to say that these laws are so loose and, so draconian that you and I and everybody are a criminal. It does not work for Maoists it works for those who are not Maoists. It criminalizes democratic activity and pushes more and more people outside the pale of the law. So it is actually counter productive in the end. If you have somebody who is indulging in violence, you have plenty of ordinary laws to deal with that. So to have laws where even the tendency to cause disaffection against the state is a crime and an offense means that all of us are criminals.

Rupashree Nanda: What would be an adequate safeguard?

Arundhati Roy: See, I think you got to understand that all this stems from a people's lack of faith in institutions of the state, from a people who are beginning to believe that they can expect no justice from any democratic institutions. So there are no quick fixes. You have to signal to the people that you are taking cognizance of their dissent and that you are prepared to change tack. Otherwise, you are going to have a situation in which you polarize things, you create a violent atmosphere, you have a police state or a military state %u2026 and that is not going to benefit anyone. Because you cannot impoverish 800 million people and expect to be secure. It won't happen.

More and more people are being charged and convicted for sedition.

You are creating a situation where your definition of what constitutes anti national and what is the definition of doing something for the greater common good are completely conflicted and corrupted. A man like Bin yak Sen who worked amongst the poorest of the poor is a criminal and those who have scammed 175,000 cores of the public exchequer with the help of the judiciary, the media and everybody else... there is a little tut-tut and everyone is going about their lives, their farm houses, their bmws . So the definition of anti %u2013 national activity is itself corrupted now. .anyone who is talking about justice is being called a Maoist. You have a whole spectrum of people's movements that are challenging policies that are leading to this kind of dispossession and this kind of displacement and this kind of terrible despair among people. So it is a word game. Who decides what is in the national good.

Rupashree Nanda: There is an FIR in Delhi against you too - do you fear that you might be charged for sedition?

Arundhati Roy: Well, right now it is just private parties. The person who filed the case is the non official campaign manager of the BJP. It is not the state that is doing it and I don't want to overreact or make myself a martyr. In the case of Binayak and hundreds of others who are in jail, the process is the punishment - their lives have been destroyed. Even if he will be released on bail, he will be impoverished by legal fees. He has been made to give up his practice doing the great work he has been doing. It is a way of silencing you, tripping you up, choking off the air supply and it is very, very worrying.

Rupashree Nanda: Have you ever seen things so bad? People are scared of who they are meeting, who they are talking to?

Arundhati Roy: Listen, in places like Kashmir and Manipur it's been like this for years - now the fact is that it is seeping into the heart of the capital, it is seeping into our lovely drawing rooms. And that is a very worrying sign- but it's been happening in Bastar for years now.

Rupashree Nanda: As a writer, how would you sum up the climate we live in today?

Arundhati Roy: My point is that these set of policies cannot be implemented and pushed through without us turning into a police or a military state. We have heard the Radian tapes, and the scandal about 2 G has been exposed. But the scandal about the privatization of the natural resources is equally great with a much greater human component. It is arbitrary. It is people jumping of their treadmill and saying that you'll take the coal, you'll take the gas, and you'll take the housing. So we are a nation in crisis. And if we are going to put a black executioner's hood over all the people who are blowing whistles and raising the alarm, they are not people who hate this country. If you go back and read what they have been saying and writing and saying, you will find that they predicted this situation a long time ago. These are people you need to listen to, not send to jail, not sentence to life, and not kill.

Conclusion: We the petition signers / signatories are appalled by the shocking verdict. People in India have shamelessly robbed it of crores of rupees through various scams, instigated / incited violence against others on the grounds of religion, language, caste, reservation / quota, places of worship and perpetrated crimes against humanity in general and women in particular but are still roaming scot-free shamelessly. Binayak Sen has worked amongst the poor for so many years of his life but has never encouraged or justified violence. Therefore, we request for expeditious hearing of his appeal and to grant him immediate bail till the end of the appeal process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition's been addressed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, President, Prime Minister (PM), Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Union Ministry of Law and National Advisory Council (NAC).