New Delhi: A special NIA sessions court in Lucknow, while passing an order in the 2018 Kasganj violence case, made a series of controversial remarks against human right organisations and NGOs. The court questioned their motivations behind providing legal aid to accused persons and conducting fact-finding exercises among other things.
Several Indian and international organisations, including People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Alliance for Justice and Accountability (New York) and Citizens for Justice and Peace (Mumbai) were mentioned in the judgement. Notably, none of these organisations were party to the court proceedings.
What did the court say?
The court, while sentencing 28 individuals to life imprisonment, criticised organisations for providing legal aid to individuals accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and terrorism charges.
The court also questioned the legitimacy of these organisations, suggesting that their funding and objectives be investigated, and recommended action to prevent their ‘interference’ in the judicial process.
“The prosecutors have expressed concern that in NIA courts across the country, when accused in cases under the UAPA or other anti-national/terrorist activities are brought for trial, NGOs – primarily advocating Muslim interests – promptly provide legal aid. This contradicts constitutional principles, as it boosts the morale of undesirable elements,” the court observed.
In his 130-page order, special judge Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi said, “This trend is promoting very dangerous and narrow thinking regarding the judiciary and all the stakeholders of judiciary (bar and bench) must ponder over this.”
“To investigate this [and] prevent their unwarranted interference in the judicial process, and to take necessary action to stop them, a copy of this decision should also be sent to the chairman of the Bar Council of India and the principal secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India,” the order read.
PUCL’s rebuttal
PUCL expressed strong disapproval of the court’s comments and cited a Supreme Court judgement saying that courts should not make adverse remarks against individuals or groups without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
“It should be noted that, none of the implicated organisations were before the court or were put to notice that observations were likely to be made against them. We are shocked to note that the ruling has passed prejudiced, unsubstantiated and potentially damaging comments about the role of human rights organisations in general and PUCL in particular, when these comments are not germane to the issues in the criminal trial nor were they based on evidence led during the trial,” PUCL’s statement said.
The rights body argued that fact-finding, legal aid and financial support provided by NGOs “can by no stretch of imagination be considered as anti-national activity as sought to be conveyed by the court.”
PUCL also highlighted its role in public interest litigation (PIL) cases before the Supreme Court and high courts, where it has advocated for the protection of citizens’ basic rights.
“A number of judgments of the Supreme Court which ensure basic rights for citizens including the right to food, freedom from bonded labour and liberation of persons in manual scavenging have had the PUCL as the petitioner. PUCL has also worked towards enhancing the quality of our electoral democracy and has been the petitioner in the Supreme Court decisions recognising NOTA as a valid option.
The PUCL is also the petitioner in the decision of the Supreme Court recognising that the voter has a right to know the antecedents of their candidate including the assets he or she possesses as well as criminal antecedents,” its statement read.
The rights body also refuted allegations of foreign funding, stating that it operates solely through contributions from its members and supporters.
Referring to the Kasganj violence case specifically, the organisation said, “PUCL did not prepare a fact-finding report, nor did it provide any financial or legal support to families and accused,” adding that the court’s remarks “violate the judicial discipline of basing conclusions on facts which form part of the record”.
PUCL has called for the expunging of the court’s remarks, as they lacked “factual substance and attacked the credibility of human rights organisations.”
