India will highlight its “impartial” justice system when it sends its top law officer, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, to the Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva next week.
Mr. Rohatgi will defend India’s case against allegations of violations in Jammu and Kashmir, torture, minority rights and recent strictures against NGOs.
Mr. Rohatgi said he would convey that the treatment of 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab and 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Yaqub Memon proves the Indian legal system’s "impartial" standards.
Impartial trials
“These are two people who committed crimes against the State. They orchestrated and were directly involved in the massacre of hundreds of innocents, both Indian and foreign, in the heart of our financial capital. Yet, both were tried impartially by a court of law, provided legal aid, were given every opportunity to appeal till the last stage even as their petitions for clemency were entertained at the highest level,” Mr. Rohatgi told The Hindu on Saturday.
“I will tell them about how the Supreme Court of India heard Yakub Memon till four o'clock in the evening on the eve of his execution. And again, a Bench of the Supreme Court convened specially at 3 a.m. to hear his plea when the time of his execution was fixed at 6 a.m. Which other country will do this?” Mr. Rohatgi said.
In the run-up to the hearings at the HRC, held once in five years for every country, reports from governmental and non-governmental agencies from other countries in the 47 member council, including from the U.S. Congress and civil society groups, and international agencies like Human Rights Watch and the Indian National Human Rights Commission have been sought.
Kashmir situation
Making a special mention of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, the Human Rights Council’s own report by its Special Rapporteur has also asked for India to repeal or at least radically amend the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the Jammu and Kashmir Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act” while “removing all legal barriers for the criminal prosecution of members of the armed forces.”
The Special Rapporteur’s report has also focussed on incidences of caste and gender-based violence, including a special mention of criticism of the National Commission of Women over what it called the “2002 Gujarat massacre”.
According to the Human Right’s Council submissions so far, countries including the U.K., Switzerland, Netherlands and Norway have registered questions on the treatment of religious minorities in India, asking specifically about recent incidents of communal violence, while Sweden and Spain have questioned India’s failure to ratify the Convention on Torture yet, despite agreeing to it in 1997. Sweden and Spain have asked for the government to explain its stand on homosexuality rights and the repeal of Article 377 that criminalises same-sex relationships.
The HRC has received dozens of submissions, including from advocacy groups like Centre for Justice & Peace (CJP), India, and Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) who have spoken of hate speech against minorities, and cases of “cow vigilantism” and violence in the name of inter-community marriages called “love jihad”.
“The UPR is a peer-review process,” explained IAMC Advocacy Director Ajit Sahi, adding, “India itself sits in judgement on other countries at the Human Rights Council, so cannot object to the process itself.”
The Attorney General, who will respond to the questions during a four-hour session in Geneva, told The Hindu he would speak about constitutionally-mandated protections to minorities in India. “The law applies equally to all and provides equal protection to all, heedless of religion, caste or language,” he added.
