State Congress Government didn’t represent case properly to protect its erring police officers. High Court failed to use its powers to appreciate the real facts of the case.
By TwoCircles.net Staff Reporter,
Hyderabad: The Monday evening order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court bench comprising of Chief Justice Kalyan Jyothi Sengupta and Justice K. C. Bhanu expressing State Government allocation of compensation to Muslim youths acquitted in terror cases as unlawful and ordering it to retract the amount, has received strong reactions from the victims and civil rights groups.
On 2nd July High Court admitting a writ petition challenging State Government action of allocation of compensation to Muslim youths acquitted in terror cases after Mecca Masjid blasts, ordered it to file a counter affidavit explaining that under which rule and provision of law it has allotted compensation to the acquitted Muslim youths; and whether it was the sole discretionary act of the state government or the compensation was ordered by any court of law.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
File photo of Minority affairs minister Ahmedullah allotting compensation check to terror acquitted Muslim youth.
The one dead rat now everyone smells behind the High Court order is the laxity on part of State Government to represent its case properly in the court. It is still not clear whether Advocate General represented all the required facts such as torture to the youths in the illegal police custody, prosecution in fabricated case by SIT officers and their acquittal on ground of lack of evidence. Earlier speaking with TCN, Minority Affairs Minister Mohammad Ahmedullah also express no knowledge on how the case was dealt in the High Court as he himself didn’t yet check the files presented before the court by the advocate general.
But Acquitted Muslim youths who got the compensation are assuming that Government didn’t represent the case with much required sincerity in the court of law; if it had put through all the facts and documents related to their illegal detention, torture and fabrication of terror cases, in addition to the reports submitted by the National Minorities Commission and State Minorities Commission, then they believe, judgment would have been totally opposite.
Dr. Ibrahim Ali Junaid is one such victim, who is now so fed up with Government tokenism is now planning to field is own advocate in the supreme court to challenge the High Court order.
Dr. Junaid said, “State Government was not at all serious in presenting the facts to the court; if they would have then judgment could have been different. Since the beginning it all has been a symbolic gesture by state Government but no concrete step to provide us justice. They promoted and protected those officers who tortured and prosecuted us in fake terror cases and tried to calm the anger in the community by just giving monetary compensation.”
If state Government had tabled all the concerned reports and facts in the court than Dr. Junaid believes administration would have been in the dock not them, “If they had submitted the NCM report in the Court, which along with compensation demanded action against errant officers, than court would have asked for the names or action taken report against officers who are responsible for our sufferings, so to obviously protect the face of their officers, Government didn’t represent this case logically in the court.”
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
File photo of Dr. Ibrahim Ali Junaid at his chamber in Hyderabad..
After all this Dr. junaid said it’s now difficult to believe the state Government, so he wants to fight the case directly in the court through his advocate by becoming party to state appeal as he is the first effected party because of the judgment. He believes other compensated youths will also follow the suit.
Advocate L. Ravichander was appointed by State Minorities Commission to investigate the allegation of torture and illegal detention of Muslim youths in terror cases after Mecca Masjid and twin blasts, whose report on police brutality on arrested Muslim youths became the base for the National Commission of Minorities recommendation for compensation, Mr. Ravichander said he is shocked by the High Court Judgment.
Like others he also echoed the obvious, that Government must have represented the matter half heartedly in the court. Advocate Ravichander said “In many tragedys of disasters or Human rights violations Government allots compensation, it is very unfortunate that an administrative decision to compensate a victim came to be tested in the court of law, and it never happened in this country that administrative decision like this gets crushed by the court of law. If at all Government was serious in representing the matter or putting forward the recommendations of NCM this situation wouldn’t have arisen.”
Advocate Ravichander also raised a very critical and important legal inaccuracy in the case, “The honorable High Court didn’t take into consideration to make the acquitted Muslim youth’s party to the case. They were the real beneficiaries in this case, the court order has a direct impact on them, and so Court should have given them a chance to present their case. The principle of ‘audi alteram partem’ (hear the other side) was not followed.”
Civil Liberties Monitoring Committee (CLMC) which fought for many of those youths when they were languishing in jail, stated that since the very beginning state congress Government is playing politics of tokenism.
Its general secretary Lateef Mohd Khan accused AP government of double standards, “The government didn’t represent the matter in the court properly and seriously. It did not submit the report and recommendations of NCM, even State Minorities Commission report prepared by Advocate Ravichander. It also didn’t submit any explanation in the High Court that reason behind providing compensation was on the direction of National Commission for Minorities.”
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
File photo of Akbaruddin Owaisi handing check to the victim.
He further added, “National Commission for Minorities has directed the state government to pay the compensation as confidence building measures and to take action against the guilty police officers. But AP government, to protect their tainted police officers has dealt this matter at low level. If the government admits everything on record, then it would have faced many difficulties. Therefore, to protect itself, the government did not present all the reports and other details.”
CLMC stated that atleast High Court should have utilized the principle ‘application of mind’ to issue directions to the state government to submit all the details relating to this case, “In fact when these youths were illegally detained by the police, Habeas Corpus petitions was filed in this same court. The court should have examined all the facts before delivering the judgment but it was announced in haste manner,” adding, “By going through the judgment of High Court one can understand how the courts are becoming far from the ground realities and how unconcern they are becoming towards the society especially the marginalized communities.”
So what lies ahead for the compensated youths if in the worst case scenario Supreme Court upheld the High Court judgment, Advocate Ravichander said it will not affect those youths in an immediate away. “The petitioner has made state Government party to the case not the those youths who has received the compensation. So state will be oblige by any judgment directly and the beneficiaries indirectly, so it will be the duty of the state Government to retract the compensation amount. But given the track record of Government recovery mechanism this possibility seems elusive,” he said.
Related:
Terror acquittal compensation saga again caught in controversy