Set Binayak Sen free now
Siddharth Varadarajan is an eminent journalist and former academic who seems to be familiar with the arbitrary dispensation of justice of a national security state. Now he writes at length urging the release of Dr. Binayak Sen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alongside
the arming of private militias, the jailing of a human rights defender
for two years on trumped up charges is proof that there is no rule of
law in Chhattisgarh.
Every criminal case is unique but there is
something truly peculiar about the fate of Dr. Binayak Sen. While
politicians, film stars, gangsters and businessmen accused or convicted
of heinous offences like manslaughter, rioting and possession of
firearms seem to have no trouble getting bail, the gentle doctor is
considered such a dangerous criminal that he has been held in jail for
two years on a far less serious charge.
Arraigned under
Chhattisgarh’s draconian Public Security Act, Dr. Sen, who is also the
national vice-president of the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, has
repeatedly been denied bail by the trial court and High Court.
Regrettably, the Supreme Court too rejected his special leave petition
for bail in December 2007. Binayak’s trial is now underway.
As
per the original chargesheet, 83 witnesses were meant to depose against
him. Of these, six were declared hostile by the state and 16 were
dropped while the remaining 61 testified in court. However, none has
corroborated the prosecution case that Dr. Sen delivered a letter from
Maoist leader Narayan Sanyal, whom he used to visit in Raipur jail in
his capacity as doctor and civil libertarian, to some wider Naxalite
network.
Be that as it may, are there valid grounds for refusing
Binayak bail? No. For one, he is not a flight risk, a fact he
demonstrated at the outset by turning himself in when he heard during a
visit to Kolkata that the Chhattisgarh authorities were looking for
him. The second reason bail is sometimes denied is the fear that an
under-trial might use his liberty to influence witnesses. But there are
no more witnesses left for Dr. Sen to suborn. Of course, sensing the
collapse of its flimsy case, the police say they will produce more
witnesses.
But it is evident that this is just a tactic to
punish the victim through process since the evidence on the basis of
which the original arrest was made was clearly insufficient to sustain
a conviction.
If there are no valid reasons to deny bail, the
fact that Dr. Sen in a heart patient who is being deliberately denied
proper medical care at a facility in which he has confidence means any
delay in his release may prove fatal to his health. In February, Dr.
Sen noticed the onset of symptoms of heart disease but the authorities
ignored his pleas for help. His wife, Ilina Sen, then asked the court
to send him for treatment to a hospital of his choice, as envisaged by
the Prisoners Act. Dr. Sen conveyed that he would like to be treated at
CMC Vellore, where he had studied and in whose doctors he had full
faith. On February 20, the trial judge ordered the prison authorities
to get the opinion of a medical board on Binayak’s heart condition.
Despite
being examined at Raipur district hospital, no treatment was offered
and Binayak had to move the court again. The judge subsequently ordered
that he be examined in Raipur by any doctor he wanted, who, in turn,
would decide on onward referral to CMC Vellore.
On March 25,
Binayak was examined by a doctor of his choice in the presence of Ilina
Sen. The doctor diagnosed him with Coronary Artery Disease and referred
him to Vellore for an angiography to be followed by angioplasty or
bypass surgery. A copy of the prescription was handed over to Ms. Sen
but no action has been taken because the Jail Superintendent procured
another note from the doctor in which he said angiography facilities
were available in Raipur and that Vellore was mentioned only because
Binayak wanted to go there. On the basis of this note, the authorities
are insisting Binayak be treated in Raipur, something he is rightfully
refusing since he has begun to fear the worst about the police’s
intentions.
The Supreme Court is already seized with another
grave matter from Chhattisgarh – the extra-legal depredations of the
state-sponsored Salwa Judum in a Public Interest Litigation filed by Nandini Sundar and others. In their obiter,
the learned judges have said it is not permissible for the state to arm
private citizens to commit crimes like murder and arson.
More than one lakh adivasis have been displaced by the Salwa Judum.
Far
from heeding the apex court’s warning, the BJP, in its election
manifesto, has promised “the ‘Chhattisgarh Model’ will be used for
counter-Maoist operations” elsewhere in the country.
It should
come as no surprise that violence and intolerance go hand in hand.
Salwa Judum is the most dangerous aspect of the ‘Chhatisgarh model’ but
the persecution of Dr. Binayak Sen, the intimidation of the local media
and the refusal to tolerate the opposition of adivasis to the land
grabbing agenda of corporate giants are also part of this ‘model’.
When
the executive is bent on subverting rights guaranteed by the
Constitution, the judiciary has an obligation to act. Putting a stop to
Salwa Judum and releasing Binayak are two remedies that are urgently
required.
Comments