A few minutes past one o' clock in the afternoon at the Raipur Sessions Court in Chhattisgarh, the wall of rifle-wielding policemen parted as Dr. Binayak Sen, Pijush Guha and Narayan Sanyal were ushered out of Justice B.P. Verma's courtroom and bundled into a waiting police van.
“The judge simply said guilty,” cried Pranhita Sen as she watched the van carrying her father, a celebrated human rights activist and physician, recede into the distance. By late afternoon, Justice Verma emerged from his chamber to pronounce the three men guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit sedition, under Section 124(a) read with 20 (b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In his order (written in Hindi) Justice Verma said that while Mr. Sanyal was a member of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist), Dr. Sen and Mr. Guha aided and supported the CPI (Maoist), including ferrying three letters purportedly written by Mr. Sanyal.
Justice Verma justified the harsh sentence on the ground that “the way that terrorists and Maoist organisations are killing State and Central paramilitary forces and innocent Adivasis and spreading fear, terror and disorder across the country and community implies that this court cannot be generous to the accused and give them the minimum sentence under law.”
Dr. Sen, Mr. Guha and Mr. Sanyal were also convicted under Section 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, and Sections 8 (1), (2), (3) and (5) of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act 2005 which charged them with supporting, aiding and abetting in the activities of a criminal organisation, in this instance the CPI (Maoist), which carry sentences of up to 5 years.
Mr. Sanyal was also found guilty of belonging to a banned organisation under Section 20 of the UAPA, which carries a sentence of 10 years. The sentences shall run concurrently.
The accused were not convicted under Section 121 (a) of the IPC, which relates to waging war against the Government of India.
In May 2007, Dr. Sen was accused of acting as a courier between the alleged Maoist leader Narayan Sanyal and Kolkata businessman Pijush Guha, and imprisoned for two years before getting bail on the directions of the Supreme Court.
The prosecution alleged that Mr. Guha was arrested on May 6, 2007 and found to be in possession of Maoist publications and three letters purportedly written in jail by Sanyal, and delivered to him by Dr. Sen. As per prison records, Dr. Sen frequently visited the incarcerated Sanyal in his capacity as president of the Chhattisgarh unit of the People's Union for Civil Liberties. The four-year trial has been dogged by allegations that the police fabricated vital evidence and schooled key witnesses.
“This sentence reveals the true face of the Indian state. [In Chhattisgarh] they would jail Mahatma Gandhi if they could,” Mr. Guha said.
“This judgment makes me feel really sorry for the state of my country,” said Ilina Sen, wife of Dr. Sen. “I hope the Indian judicial system has the strength to negate this judgment.”
Senior Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan said: “The Supreme Court has held that the charge of sedition can be upheld only if the prosecution proves that the accused attempted to incite violence or public disorder. It is clear that this case doesn't meet that standard.”
Keywords: Binayak Sen, human rights
Should someone not file a case against the judge who passed such an appauling decision. Should he not be accountable for what seems like a consciously made poor judgement ?
I am amazed at the comments on this report. In a court of law, with evidence present before him the judge pronounced the correct judgement based on incontrovertible evidence before him and one must respect the court of law. Just because noisy activists are offended by this judgement, should not be the basis for setting aside this judgement. There is an appellate process available for the defense, they should pursue that.
This judgement like the earlier Ayodhya verdict reflects, in a court of law, justice works nicely. Abusing security forces and then denouncing democratic institutions to bolster their case, the loud mouth activists are clearly abetting violent outfits and their dangerous designs. In Binayak Sen's case, he conspired with banned violent organsations to maim, kill and and eventually destroy India.
By denouncing the judgement,Justice Verma and the democratically elected government which brought the case, the noisy activists are reaffirming what most Indians fear about them: that they are part of a violent fringe group. The lurking suspicion will not go away.
It is a very bad judgement. Charge of sedition framed by the Chhattisgad police against a great humanitarian like Dr.Binayak Sen who has dedicated his entire life for the welfare of the poor tribals and malnourished children, which is upheld by the session court is nothing but travesty of truth.This judgement definitely needs to be reviewed.If nonviolent protest against the wrong policies of Govt. and atrocities on downtrodden people in a democratic setup is coined as sedition it should be called as nothing but "Naziism". All right thinking people should protest against this judgement.
If two ingredients ie to incite violence or public disorder are not proved even then judgement made against the innocent as well as highly acclaimed and worldly known for being the philanthropist and dedicated to the welfare of the poor people whom the Maoists are killing as the honble court observed,the verdict is liable to be set aside by the higher court.The verdict against Dr Sen is not being appreciated nationally and internationally too.
This is what appears once again as the governments way to make some amends to its utter failure in dealing with Maoists by incriminating men like Dr Binayak Sen falsely, who would expose the high handedness and oppression of the marginalised by the States Policies. Dr Sen Has upheld the values of His Alma Mater CMC Vellore in being a voice of those who had none selflessly and His work has been recognised as he was the recepeint of The Paul Harrison Lifetime Achievement Award BY CMC Vellore. Its a shame that the State is doing such injustice to someone who is truly fulfilling his duties as the son of the soil..
The advocates of civil liberties are shocked at Sen's conviction under sections 120B [hatching a criminal conspiracy] and 124 [waging war against the state] of the Indian Penal Code. The whole events right from his arrest by Chhattisgarh Police to his conviction by a sessions court in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, are shocking - to say the least. May be he was sympathetic to the Naxalites who have become a huge social cum law and order problem in as many as 150 districts in India. But, the magnanimous doctor cannot be branded as a dissident Naxalites seeking to wage war against the state. Equating him with the brutal Naxalites is not truthful and fair. Many civil liberty activists have already voiced concern for the beleaguered doctor. It is no one's case that the doctor should not be punished under the laws of the land. The single reasonable demand is not to subject the humanitarian social worker to unintended legal brutality. In India, it is very easy for the Police to frame anyone under the sections 120 B 124 of the Indian Penal Code. It is very hard to put up any persuasive defence against these sections. More so, under the circumstances prevailing in certain parts of the country. Dr. Binayek Sen issue must be viewed in the right perspective and it should not even be seen that the Indian state is persecuting him for his known sympathy for the merciless Naxalites. This is bond to dent the image of the country as witch-hunting the civil liberty activists which India can hardly afford at this juncture.
This shocking news has led to a range of emotions in me, including outrage, disgust and despair. By all accounts, there was no evidence that was presented to the court that justified the conviction, which seems to have been made on the flimsiest of grounds. While one is proud of the freedom of speech enjoyed in India, cases like this makes one despair for the state of the judicial system in India. One can only hope that justice will prevail when appeals are taken to the higher courts.The impact of this conviction can have far reaching consequences, making the youth of this country, for whom the life and work of Dr Sen should be an inspiration, turn cynical.
After having detained the man for years without trial, the government had to find a justification, that he was guilty all along of something or other that the government did not like. If, on appeal, it transpires that lower level judges failed to appreciate the motive of the prosecution while evaluating evidence collected and presented by government, it would reflect badly on the intellectual quality and integrity of the Chattisgarh judiciary. The distinction between views that government, or even a majority of the people, do not like, and specific acts of violence and murder is clear. Even non-violent support, offering medical treatment to the wounded no matter which side of the conflict to which the wounded belong, is not the same as participation in violence. It is a basic call of humanity to offer help for survival to the injured. Appeals judges must ensure that the judicial distinction between acts of violence and acts of non-violent nature that the government of the day happens to find risible is not blurred in society's zeal to root out terrorism. This approach of blurring the distinction between sympathy with those fighting for a cause and specific acts of violence perpetrated in the name of that cause did not work in Northern Ireland, and it did not work in the fight against the Baader-Meinhof gang in (then West) Germany. This approach may have aggravated problems in places like Kashmir. The task of restoring confidence in the robustness of democracy and in the intellectual integrity of the judiciary in India rests now on the judges sitting in appeal.
This judgment makes me feel really sorry for the state of my country
....And Mr. Raja, Nira Radia and several others will roam freely forever. That is our Indian system and morals.
If you work for a cause of human rights you will be a terrorist..
Please Email the Editor