NATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN
NEW DELHI
Orders Proceedings of the Commission
1 April 2002
Coram
Chairperson
Mrs. S.V.M.J., Member
Shri
V.D., Member
The Commission considered the Report of its team
headed by the Chairperson relating to the visit to Gujarat from 19-22
March 2002 and directed that it be kept in a sealed cover for confidentiality
at present, with the Secretary General.
The Commission then drew up the proceedings containing some preliminary
comments and urgent recommendations which need to be recorded without
delay in national interest and addressed to by the Government of Gujarat
and the Government of India. A copy of the proceedings together with a
copy of the above Report (marked confidential) be sent by the Secretary
General to the Chief Secretary, Gujarat and the Home Secretary, Ministry
of Home Affairs, Government of India requesting them for the response/
comments of the State Government and Government of India within two weeks
to enable further consideration of this matter by the Commission without
any avoidable delay.
In view of the reported visit of the Hon’ble Prime Minister to
Gujarat on 4 April 2002, and to facilitate his task, the Chairperson is
requested to send a copy of this proceedings and of the Report (marked
confidential) to the Hon’ble Prime Minister.
In the meantime, all the material received so far and hereafter
pertaining to this matter be compiled to enable further consideration
of the matter in the light of the entire material and the further response
received from the State Government and the Government of India.
Chairperson
(
Justice Sujata V. Manohar )
( Virendra Dayal )
Member Member
NATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN
NEW
DELHI
Name of the complainant
:
Suo motu
Case No.
:
1150/6/2001-2002
Date
:
1 April 2002
CORAM
Justice Shri J.S. Verma, Chairperson
Justice Smt. Sujata V. Manohar, Member
Shri Virendra Dayal, Member
PROCEEDINGS
1.
These Proceedings on
the situation in Gujarat are being recorded in continuation of earlier
Proceedings of the Commission dated 1 and 6 March 2002. They also follow upon a visit of
the Chairperson of the Commission to Gujarat between 19-22 March 2002,
during which mission he was accompanied by the Secretary-General of the
Commission, Shri P.C. Sen, the Special Rapporteur of the Commission, Shri
Chaman Lal, and his Private Secretary, Shri Y.S. Murthy. During the course of that mission,
the team visited Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Godhra and held intensive discussions,
inter alia, with the Chief Minister, Chief Secretary and senior officers
of the State, eminent citizens, including retired Chief Justices and Judges
of High Courts, former civil servants, leaders of political parties, representatives
of NGOs and the business community, numerous private citizens and, most
importantly, those who were the victims of the recent acts of violence.
2.
In his meeting with
the Chief Secretary and senior officers of the State Government, the Chairperson
explained the purpose and timing of his visit. He indicated that he had not visited
the State earlier in order not to divert the attention of the State authorities
from the tasks in which they were engaged. However, the visit could not be
further delayed as normalcy had not been restored in the State despite
the passage of three weeks since the tragic events in Godhra. It was the concern of the Commission
to see an end to the violence that was occurring and a restoration of
normalcy. The Chairperson
added that it was the role of the Commission to serve as a facilitator
to improve the quality of governance, as a proper respect for human rights
depended on such governance. This duty had been performed by
the Commission in earlier instances too, notably after the Orissa cyclone
and the Gujarat earthquake. As
then, it was now the responsibility of the Commission to ensure that the
violation of human rights ceased, that further violations were prevented
and that those who were victims were expeditiously rehabilitated and their
dignity restored.
3.
The Commission would
like to emphasize that the present Proceedings contain the Preliminary
Comments of the Commission on the situation in Gujarat. Likewise, the Recommendations
that it contains are of an immediate character and constitute the minimum
that needs to be said at this stage.
4.
This is because the
report of the team that visited Gujarat is being sent under separate cover,
confidentially, both to the Central and State Governments, and it would
be appropriate to wait for their response to it before commenting in greater
length on the situation or setting out comprehensive recommendations.
5.
Further, while the team
was able to meet with a considerable range of persons concerned with the
situation in Gujarat who were desirous of meeting with it, the numbers
of such persons was vast and it was not possible for the team, within
the constraints of the time available and the circumstances prevailing
on the ground, to meet individually with all of those who sought to interact
with it. The team therefore
encouraged those who wished to meet with it to do so, if possible, in
groups and also to submit their views and concerns in writing. Numerous and voluminous written
representations have thus been received by the Commission, both from groups
and from individuals, during the visit of the team to Gujarat and subsequently.
These have been and are being carefully examined.
They have been of great value to the Commission in the recording
of the Preliminary Comments and Recommendations contained in these Proceedings
and their further analysis and study will contribute immensely to subsequent
Proceedings of the Commission.
6.
On 28 March 2002, the
Commission also received a response from the Government of Gujarat to
a notice that it had sent on 1 March 2000; it was entitled “Report on
the incidents in Gujarat after the burning of the Sabarmati Express Train
on 27th February 2002,” and came with three Annexures A, B and C, providing
details respectively on the “Law and Order Measures” taken by the State
Government; the “Rescue, Relief and Rehabilitation Measures;” and a “Response
to Press Clippings” that had been sent by the Commission to the State
Government for comment. The
Report of the State Government, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Report,’
has been carefully examined and taken into account in drafting the present
Proceedings.
7.
The Commission would
like to emphasize that these Proceedings must therefore be seen as part
of a continuing process to examine and address the human rights situation
prevailing in Gujarat beginning with the Godhra tragedy and continuing
with the violence that ensued subsequently. In this respect, the Proceedings
in this case bear some similarity to the manner in which the Commission
kept the situation under review, monitoring and commenting on it as the
need arose, following both the super-cyclone in Orissa in 1999 and the
earthquake in Gujarat in 2001.
8.
There is, however, a
fundamental difference as well.
The earlier instances arose from catastrophic natural disasters
which subsequently required a monitoring of the performance of the State
to ensure that the rights of all, particularly those of the most vulnerable,
were respected. In the present
instance, however, the death and destruction sadly resulted from the inhumanity
of human beings towards other human beings, and the large-scale violation
of human rights. This therefore requires a response
from the Commission of a qualitatively different kind.
9.
The Commission would
like to observe that the tragic events that have occurred have serious
implications for the country as a whole, affecting both its sense of self-esteem
and the esteem in which it is held in the comity of nations.
Grave questions arise of fidelity to the Constitution and to treaty
obligations. There are obvious implications in
respect of the protection of civil and political rights, as well as of
economic, social and cultural rights in the State of Gujarat as also the
country more widely; there are implications for trade, investment, tourism
and employment. Not without
reason have both the President and the Prime Minister of the country expressed
their deep anguish at what has occurred, describing the events as a matter
of national shame. But most
of all, the recent events have resulted in the violation of the Fundamental
Rights to life, liberty, equality and the dignity of citizens of India
as guaranteed in the Constitution. And that, above all, is the reason
for the continuing concern of the Commission.
*
10.
It would now be appropriate
and useful to recall the background to the involvement of the Commission
in this matter.
11.
The Commission took
suo motu action on the situation in Gujarat on 1 March 2002 on the basis
of media reports, both print and electronic. In addition, it had also received
a request by e-mail, asking it to intervene.
12.
In its Proceedings of
that date, the Commission inter alia observed that the news items reported
on a communal flare-up and, more disturbingly, suggested inaction by the
police force and the highest functionaries in the State to deal with the
situation. The Commission
added:
“In view of the urgency
of the matter, it would not be appropriate for this Commission to stay
its hand till the veracity of these reports has been established; and
it is necessary to proceed immediately assuming them to be prima facie
correct. The situation
therefore demands that the Commission take note of these facts and steps-in
to prevent any negligence in the protection of human rights of the people
of the State of Gujarat irrespective of their religion.”
13.
Notice was accordingly
issued on 1 March 2002 to the Chief Secretary and Director General of
Police, Gujarat, asking
“for their reply within
three days indicating the measures being taken and in contemplation to
prevent any further escalation of the situation in the State of Gujarat
which is resulting in continued violation of human rights of the people.”
14.
Meeting again on 6 March
2002, the Commission noted, inter alia, that it had requested its Secretary
General, on 4 March 2002, to send a copy of its 1 March notice to its
Special Representative in Gujarat, Shri Nampoothiri, for his information.
The latter was also asked to send a report to the Commission on
the situation, involving in that exercise other members of the Group constituted
by the Commission to monitor the rehabilitation work in that State after
the recent earthquake in Kutch.
15.
In its Proceedings of
6 March 2002, the Commission further noted that
“a large number of media
reports have appeared which are distressing and appear to suggest that
the needful has not yet been done completely by the Administration.
There are also media reports attributing certain statements
to the Police Commissioner and even the Chief Minister which, if true,
raise serious questions relating to discrimination and other aspects of
governance affecting human rights.”
16.
Instead of a detailed
reply from the State Government to its notice of 1 March 2002, the Commission
observed that it had received a request dated 4 March 2002, seeking a
further 15 days to report
“as most of the State
machinery is busy with the law and order situation, and it would take
time to collect the information and compile the report.”
17.
The Commission’s Proceedings
of 6 March 2002 accordingly stated
“May be, preparation
of a comprehensive report requires some more time, but, at least, a preliminary
report indicating the action so far taken and that in contemplation should
have been sent together with an assurance of the State Government of strict
implementation of the rule of law.”
The Commission recorded its disappointment that even this had not
been done by the Government of Gujarat in a matter of such urgency and
significance. It added that
it “expects from the Government of Gujarat a comprehensive response at
the earliest.”
18.
A ‘Preliminary Report’
dated 8 March 2002 was received by the Commission from the Government
of Gujarat on 11 March 2002. However,
it was perfunctory in character. In the meantime, the Commission
had received a fairly detailed report on the situation from its Special
Group in Gujarat, comprising its Special Representative, Shri P.G.J. Nampoothri,
former Director General of Police, Gujarat, Smt. Annie Prasad, IAS (Retd)
and Shri Gagan Sethi, Director, Jan Vikas. With violence continuing, it was
in such circumstances that the Commission decided that the Chairperson
should lead a team of the Commission on a mission to Gujarat between 19-22
March 2002. And it was pursuant
to this that the detailed Report of the State of Gujarat was received
on 28 March 2002, in response to the Commission’s notice of 1 March 2002
and the discussions held with the team.
19.
There follow below certain
Preliminary Comments and Recommendations of the Commission on the situation
in Gujarat. As indicated
above, these will be followed, as required, by other Proceedings, containing
Comments and Recommendations, which will take into account the response
that will be received from the Central and State Governments to the mission-report
of the Commission’s team, a further reading and analysis of the voluminous
material that has been, and is being, submitted to the Commission, and
the situation as it develops on the ground.
Preliminary Comments:
20.
(i) The Statute
of the Commission, as contained in the Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993, requires the Commission under the provisions of Section 12, to perform
all or any of the following functions, namely:-
“(a) inquire, suo motu or
on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf,
into complaint of
(i)
violation of human rights
or abetment thereof; or
(ii)
negligence in the prevention
of such violation,
by a public servant;
………
(d)
review the safeguards
provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in
force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their
effective implementation;
……..
(f)
study treaties and other
international instruments on human rights and make recommendations for
their effective implementation;
……..
(j) such other
functions as it may consider necessary for
the promotion of human rights.”
The term
‘human rights’ is defined to mean the right relating to life, liberty,
equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution
or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in
India (Section 2(1)(d)), and the International Covenants are defined
as the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations on 16th December 1966” (Section 2(1)(f)).
(ii)
It is therefore in the
light of this Statute that the Commission must examine whether violations
of human rights were committed, or were abetted, or resulted from negligence
in the prevention of such violation. It must also examine whether the
acts that occurred infringed the rights guaranteed by the Constitution
or those that were embodied in the two great International Covenants cited
above.
(iii)
The Commission would
like to observe at this stage that it is the primary and inescapable responsibility
of the State to protect the right to life, liberty, equality and dignity
of all of those who constitute it. It is also the responsibility of
the State to ensure that such rights are not violated either through overt
acts, or through abetment or negligence. It is a clear and emerging principle
of human rights jurisprudence that the State is responsible not only for
the acts of its own agents, but also for the acts of non-State players
acting within its jurisdiction. The State is, in addition, responsible
for any inaction that may cause or facilitate the violation of human rights.
(iv)
The first question that
arises therefore is whether the State has discharged its responsibilities
appropriately in accordance with the above. It has been stated in the Report
of the State Government that the attack on kar sevaks in Godhra occurred
in the absence of “specific information about the return of kar sevaks
from Ayodhya” (p. 12 of the Report).
It is also asserted that while there were intelligence inputs pertaining
to the movement of kar sevaks to Ayodhya between 10-15 March 2002, there
were no such in-puts concerning their return either from the State Intelligence
Branch or the Central Intelligence Agencies (p. 5) and that the “only
message” about the return of kar sevaks, provided by the Uttar Pradesh
police, was received in Gujarat on 28 February 2002 i.e., after the tragic
incident of 27 February 2002 and even that did not relate to a possible
attack on the Sabarmati Express.
(v)
The Commission is deeply
concerned to be informed of this. It would appear to constitute an
extraordinary lack of appreciation of the potential dangers of the situation,
both by the Central and State intelligence agencies. This is the more so given the history
of communal violence in Gujarat. The Report of the State Government
itself states:
“The State of Gujarat
has a long history of communal riots. Major riots have been occurring
periodically in the State since 1969. Two Commissions of Inquiry viz.,
the Jagmohan Reddy Commission of Inquiry, 1969, and the Dave Commission
of Inquiry, 1985, were constituted to go into the widespread communal
violence that erupted in the State from time to time. Subsequently, major communal incidents
all over the State have taken place in 1990 and in 1992-93 following the
Babri Masjid episode. In
fact, between 1970 and 2002, Gujarat has witnessed 443 major communal
incidents. Even minor altercations,
over trivial matters like kite flying have led to communal violence.”
(p. 127).
The Report adds that
the Godhra incident occurred at a time when the environment was already
surcharged due to developments in Ayodhya and related events (also p.
127).
Indeed, it
has been reported to the Commission that, in intelligence parlance, several
places of the State have been classified as communally sensitive or hyper-sensitive
and that, in many cities of the State, including Ahmedabad, Vadodara and
Godhra, members of both the majority and minority communities are constantly
in a state of preparedness to face the perceived danger of communal violence. In such circumstances, the police
are reported to be normally well prepared to handle such dangers and it
is reported to be standard practice to alert police stations down the
line when sensitive situations are likely to develop.
(vi)
Given the above, the
Commission is constrained to observe that a serious failure of intelligence
and action by the State Government marked the events leading to the Godhra
tragedy and the subsequent deaths and destruction that occurred.
On the face of it, in the light of the history of communal violence
in Gujarat, recalled in the Report of the State Government itself, the
question must arise whether the principle of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ (‘the
affair speaking for itself’) should not apply in this case in assessing
the degree of State responsibility in the failure to protect the life,
liberty, equality and dignity of the people of Gujarat.
The Commission accordingly requests the response of the Central
and State Governments on this matter, it being the primary and inescapable
responsibility of the State to protect such rights and to be responsible
for the acts not only of its own agents, but also for the acts of non-State
players within its jurisdiction and any inaction that may cause or facilitate
the violation of human rights. Unless rebutted by the State Government,
the adverse inference arising against it would render it accountable.
The burden is therefore now on the State Government to rebut this
presumption.
(vii)
An ancilliary
question that arises is whether there was adequate anticipation in regard
to the measures to be taken, and whether these measures were indeed taken,
to ensure that the tragic events in Godhra would not occur and would not
lead to serious repercussions elsewhere. The Commission has noted that many
instances are recorded in the Report of prompt and courageous action by
District Collectors, Commissioners and Superintendents of Police and other
officers to control the violence and to deal with its consequences through
appropriate preventive measures and, thereafter, through rescue, relief
and rehabilitation measures. The
Commission cannot but note, however, that the Report itself reveals that
while some communally-prone districts succeeded in controlling the violence,
other districts – sometimes less prone to such violence – succumbed to
it. In the same vein, the
Report further indicates that while the factors underlining the danger
of communal violence spreading were common to all districts, and that,
“in the wake of the call for the ‘Gujarat Bandh’ and the possible fall-out
of the Godhra incident, the State Government took all possible precautions”
(p. 128), some districts withstood the dangers far more firmly than did
others. Such a development clearly points
to local factors and players overwhelming the district officers in certain
instances, but not in others. Given
the widespread reports and allegations of groups of well-organized persons,
armed with mobile telephones and addresses, singling out certain homes
and properties for death and destruction in certain districts – sometimes
within view of police stations and personnel – the further question arises
as to what the factors were, and who the players were in the situations
that went out of control. The Commission requests the comments
of the State Government on these matters.
(viii)
The Commission has noted
that while the Report states that the Godhra incident was “premeditated”
(p. 5), the Report does not clarify as to who precisely was responsible
for this incident. Considering
its gruesome nature and catastrophic consequences, the team of the Commission
that visited Godhra on 22 March 2002 was concerned to note from the comments
of the Special IGP, CID Crime that while two cases had been registered,
they were being investigated by an SDPO of the Western Railway and that
no major progress had been made until then. In the light of fact that numerous
allegations have been made both in the media and to the team of the Commission
to the effect that FIRs in various instances were being distorted or poorly
recorded, and that senior political personalities were seeking to ‘influence’
the working of police stations by their presence within them, the Commission
is constrained to observe that there is a widespread lack of faith in
the integrity of the investigating process and the ability of those conducting
investigations. The Commission notes, for instance, that in Ahmedabad,
in most cases, looting was “reported in well-to-do localities by relatively
rich people” (p. 130). Yet the Report does not identify
who these persons were. The
conclusion cannot but be drawn that there is need for greater transparency
and integrity to investigate the instances of death and destruction appropriately
and to instil confidence
in the public mind.
(ix)
The Report takes the
view that “the major incidents of violence were contained within the first
72 hours.” It asserts, however,
that “on account of widespread reporting both in the visual as well as
the electronic media, incidents of violence on a large-scale started occurring
in Ahmedabad, Baroda cities and some towns of Panchmahals, Sabarkantha,
Mehsana, etc” in spite of “all possible precautions having been taken”
(p. 128-129). The Report also adds that various
comments attributed to the Chief Minister and Commissioner of Police,
Ahmedabad, among others, were torn out of context by the media, or entirely
without foundation.
(x)
As indicated earlier
in these Prceedings, the Commission considers it would be naïve for it
to subscribe to the view that the situation was brought under control
within the first 72 hours. Violence
continues in Gujarat as of the time of writing these Proceedings. There was a pervasive sense of insecurity
prevailing in the State at the time of the team’s visit to Gujarat.
This was most acute among the victims of the successive tragedies,
but it extended to all segments of society, including to two Judges of
the High Court of Gujarat, one sitting and the other retired who were
compelled to leave their own homes because of the vitiated atmosphere. There could be no clearer evidence
of the failure to control the situation.
(xi)
The Commission has,
however, taken note of the views of the State Government in respect of
the media. The Commission
firmly believes that it is essential to uphold the Right to Freedom of
Speech and Expression articulated in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,
which finds comparable provision in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, 1948 and Article 19 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
It is therefore clearly in favour of a courageous and investigative
role for the media. At the
same time, the Commission is of the view that there is need for all concerned
to reflect further on possible guidelines that the media should adopt,
on a ‘self-policing’ basis, to govern its conduct in volatile situations,
including those of inter-communal violence, with a view to ensuring that
passions are not inflamed and further violence perpetrated.
It has to be noted that the right under Article 19(1)(a) is subject
to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
(xii)
The Commission
has noted the contents of the Report on two matters that raised serious
questions of discriminatory treatment and led to most adverse comment
both within the country and abroad. The first related to the announcement
of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation to the next-of-kin of those who perished
in the attack on the Sabarmati Express, and of Rs. 1 lakh for those who
died in the subsequent violence. The second related to the application
of POTO to the first incident, but not to those involved in the subsequent
violence. On the question
of compensation, the Commission has noted from the Report that Rs. 1 lakh
will be paid in all instances, “thus establishing parity.”
It has also noted that, according to the Report, this decision
was taken on 9 March 2002, after a letter was received by the Chief Minister,
“on behalf of the kar sevaks,” saying “that they would welcome the financial
help of Rs. 1 lakh instead of Rs. 2 lakhs to the bereaved families of
Godhra massacre” (see p. 115). This decision, in the view of the Commission,
should have been taken on the initiative of the Government itself, as
the issue raised impinged seriously on the provisions of the Constitution
contained in Articles 14 and 15, dealing respectively with equality before
the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India,
and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste,
sex or place of birth. The
Commission has also noted the contents of the Report which state that
“No guidelines were given by the Home Department regarding the type of
cases in which POTO should or should not be used” and that, subsequent
to the initial decision to apply POTO in respect of individual cases in
Godhra, the Government received legal advice to defer “the applicability
of POTO till the investigation is completed” (pp. 66-67). The Commission intends to monitor
this matter further, POTO having since been enacted as a law.
(xiii)
The Commission has taken
good note of the “Rescue, Relief and Rehabilitation Measures” undertaken
by the State Government. In
many instances, strenuous efforts have been made by Collectors and other
district officers, often acting on their own initiative. The Commission was informed, however,
during the course of its visit, that many of the largest camps, including
Shah-e-Alam in Ahmedabad, had not received visits at a high political
or administrative level till the visit of the Chairperson of this Commission.
This was viewed by the inmates as being indicative of a deeper
malaise, that was discriminatory in origin and character. Unfortunately, too, numerous complaints
were received by the team of the Commission regarding the lack of facilities
in the camps. The Commission
has noted the range of activities and measures taken by the State Government
to pursue the relief and rehabilitation of those who have suffered.
It appreciates the positive steps that have been taken and commends
those officials and NGOs that have worked to ameliorate the suffering
of the victims. The Commission,
however, considers it essential to monitor the on-going implementation
of the decisions taken since a great deal still needs to be done. The Commission has already
indicated to the Chief Minister that a follow-up mission will be made
on behalf of the Commission at an appropriate time and it appreciates
the response of the Chief Minister that such a visit will be welcome and
that every effort will be made to restore complete normalcy expeditiously.
(xiv)
In the light of the
above, the Commission is duty bound to continue to follow developments
in Gujarat consequent to the tragic incidents that occurred in Godhra
and elsewhere. Under its
Statute, it is required to monitor the compliance of the State with the
rule of law and its human rights obligations.
This will be a continuing duty of the Commission which must be
fulfilled, Parliament having established the Commission with the objective
of ensuring the “better protection” of human rights in the country, expecting
thereby that the efforts of the Commission would be additional to those
of existing agencies and institutions. In this task, the Commission will
continue to count on receiving the cooperation of the Government of Gujarat,
a cooperation of which the Chief Minister has stated that it can be assured.
Recommendations
21.
The Commission now wishes to make a first set of Recommendations
for the immediate consideration of the Central and State Governments. As indicated earlier, once a response
has been received from these Governments on the report of the visit of
the Commission’s team to Gujarat, and a full analysis made of the numerous
representations received by the Commission, additional Proceedings will
be recorded by the Commission on the situation in Gujarat, offering further
Comments and Recommendations.
I.
Law & Order
(i) In view of the widespread allegations that FIRs have been poorly or wrongly recorded and that investigations are being ‘influenced’ by extraneous considerations or players, the Commission is of the view that the integrity of the process has to be restored. It therefore recommends the entrusting of certain critical cases to the CBI. These include the cases relating to the
· Godhra incident, which is at present being investigated by the GRP;
· Chamanpura (Gulbarga Society) incident;
· Naroda Patiya incident;
· Best Bakery case in Vadodara; and the
· Sadarpura case in Mehsana district.
(ii)
The Commission recommends that Special Courts should try these
cases on a day-to-day basis, the Judges being handpicked by the Chief
Justice of the High Court of Gujarat. Special Prosecutors should be appointed
as needed. Procedures should
be adopted for the conduct of the proceedings in such a manner that the
traumatized condition of many of the victims, particularly women and children,
is not aggravated and they are protected from further trauma or threat.
A particular effort should be made to depute sensitive officers,
particularly officers who are women, to assist in the handling of such
cases.
(iii)
Special Cells should be constituted under the concerned District
Magistrates to follow the progress of the investigation of cases not entrusted
to the CBI; these should be monitored by the Additional Director-General
(Crime).
(iv)
Specific time-frames should be fixed for the thorough and expeditious
completion of investigations.
(v)
Police desks should be set-up in the relief camps to receive complaints,
record FIRs and forward them to Police Stations having jurisdiction.
(vi)
Material collected by NGOs such as Citizen’s Initiative, PUCL and
others should also be used.
(vii)
Provocative statements made by persons to the electronic or print
media should be examined and acted upon, and the burden of proof shifted
to such persons to explain or contradict their statements.
(viii)
Given the wide variation in the performance of public servants
in the discharge of their statutory responsibilities, action should be
initiated to identify and proceed against those who have failed to act
appropriately to control the violence in its incipient stages, or to prevent
its escalation thereafter. By
the same token, officers who have performed their duties well, should
be commended.
II. Camps
(i) Visits to camps by senior political leaders and officers should be organized in a systematic way in order to restore confidence among those who have been victimized. NGOs should be involved in the process and the management and running of the camps should be marked by transparency and accountability
(ii)
Senior officers of the rank of Secretary and above should be given
specific responsibility in respect of groups of camps.
(iii)
Special facilities/camps should be set-up for the processing of
insurance and compensation claims.
The Chief Minister of the State had requested the Commission to
issue an appropriate request to insurance companies for the expeditious
settlement of claims of those who had suffered in the riots. The Commission will readily do so
and recommends that the State Government send to it the necessary details
at an early date in order to facilitate such supportive action.
(iv)
Inmates should not be asked to leave the camps until appropriate
relief and rehabilitation measures are in place for them and they feel
assured, on security grounds, that they can indeed leave the camps.
III.
Rehabilitation
(i)
The Commission recommends that places of worship that have been
destroyed be repaired expeditiously.
Assistance should be provided, as appropriate, inter alia by the
State.
(ii)
Adequate compensation should be provided to those who have suffered.
This will require an augmentation of the funds allocated
thus far, through cooperative arrangements involving both the State and
Central Governments. Efforts should be made to involve
HUDCO, HFDC and international financial and other agencies and programmes
in this process.
(iii)
The private sector, including the pharmaceutical industry, should
also be requested to participate in the relief and rehabilitation process
and proper coordinating arrangements established.
(iv)
The role of NGOs should be encouraged and be an intrinsic part
of the overall effort to restore normalcy, as was the case in the coordinated
effort after the earthquake. The
Gujarat Disaster Management Authority, which was also deeply engaged in
the post-earthquake measures, should be requested to assist in the present
circumstances as well.
(v)
Special efforts will need to be made to identify and assist destitute
women and orphans, and those subjected to rape. The Women and Child Development
Department, Government of India and concerned international agencies/programmes
should be requested to help. Particular care will need to be
taken to mobilize psychiatric and counselling services to help the traumatized
victims. Special efforts
will need to be made to identify and depute competent personnel for this
purpose.
(vi)
The media should be requested to cooperate fully in this endeavour,
including radio, which is often under-utilized in such circumstances.
IV.
Police Reform
(i) The Commission
would like to draw attention to the deeper question of Police Reform,
on which recommendations of the National Police Commission and of the
National Human Rights Commission have been pending despite repeated efforts
to have them acted upon. The
Commission is of the view that recent events in Gujarat and, indeed, in
other States of the country, underline the need to proceed without delay
to implement the reforms that have already been recommended in order to
preserve the integrity of the investigating process and to insulate it
from extraneous influences.
(Justice J.S. Verma)
Chairperson
(Justice Sujata V. Manohar)
Member
(Virendra Dayal)
Member