Amnesty+slams+lifer+for+Binayak+Sen-+SC+GRANTED+BAIL+BINAYAK+SEN

Shared by: keralaguest

Tags

Stats

views:: 3
posted:: 12/28/2011
language:
pages:: 43

Public Domain

Document Sample

People's Democracy Vol. XXXV

No. 01
(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
January 0

Binayak Sen: Travesty of a Trial

THE verdict sentencing Binayak Sen, a doctor and public health specialist, to life
imprisonment by an additional sessions court judge in Chattisgarh is shocking and a
grave miscarriage of justice.

Binayak Sen has been found guilty of sedition under the relevant clauses of the Indian
Penal Code, the Chhattisgarh Special Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act.

The evidence presented at the trail by the prosecution was so flimsy and concocted that it
is surprising that such a judicial verdict has been given. The verdict draws attention to the
dangers attendant in having draconian provisions in laws like the Chhattisgarh Special
Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). When the
amendments were brought to the UAPA in parliament after the Mumbai terrorist attack,
the CPI(M) had pointed out how some of the draconian provisions would be liable to
misuse. Denial of bail for a prolonged period is one of them.

The BJP government of Chhattisgarh has been, in the name of fighting the Maoists,
trampling on the democratic rights of citizens. The state government had promoted the
Salva Judam which led to one lakh adivasis being uprooted from their homes and herded
into camps. Some of the media who highlighted the excesses in the state were
threatened.

The Maoists are resorting to large-scale violence and killings in the state. They need to be
fought and countered, and the police forces have been deployed for that purpose in
Dantewada and other places. The Maoists who are perpetrating violence, when they are
apprehended, must be tried by law. But the BJP government and the police authorities
cannot be given the license to brazenly violate the rights of the citizens. The Binayak Sen
case needs to be reviewed by the higher judiciary expeditiously. The travesty of justice
perpetrated by the trial needs to be corrected.

Amnesty slams lifer for Binayak Sen
HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, December 25, 2010

A day after activist Binayak Sen was convicted of sedition and sentenced to life in prison, international human rights
organisation Amnesty International responded with a statement that declared the sentence a "violation of international
standards of fair trial" and asked the Indian government to
revoke the Chhattisgarh court‘s order and set Sen free.

"Life in prison is an unusually harsh sentence for anyone, much less for an internationally recognised human rights
defender who has never been charged with any act of violence," said Amnesty International‘s Asia-Pacific director Sam
Zarifi, adding that Sen was convicted under laws that were impermissibly vague and fell well short of international
standards for criminal prosecution.

National Advisory Council member Aruna Roy and other RTI activists also termed the trial unfair and a miscarriage of
justice. "We condemn the charges, the prosecution and the conviction as a blow to democracy," they said in a statement
on Saturday.

Zarifi said instead of persecuting Sen, the state should focus more on protecting people in Naxalism-affected region
from the abuses of both the Maoists and security forces.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A professional doctor and a pass-out of Vellore's prestigious Christian Medical College (CMC), Sen has sought bail
contending that the trial court has erred in convicting him when there was no substantial evidence against him.

A bench of justice H S Bedi and justice C K Prasad had on April 11 deferred the hearing after Chhattisgarh government
sought more time to argue its case.

In the last hearing family members of Sen, PUCL activists, and two members of the European Union, who have been
monitoring the Sen's case, were present in the court.

Opposing Sen's bail plea, the state government in its affidavit had said that the activist should not be granted any relief
as he has deep links with hardcore Naxalites.

"He (Sen) provides active support and co-ordinates in spreading the base of CPI-Maoist in the country. Apart from
providing logistic support, he exchanges information and material directly and indirectly with the Naxalites in the area
of Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, Jharkhand and Orissa and propagates Naxal
ideology," the affidavit filed by the state government said.

According to the state government, Sen helped Naxal leaders in arranging accommodation in Raipur and through his
wife Elina Sen also helped open bank accounts of hardcore Naxalites Shankar Singh and Amita Shrivastava.
Sen, vice-president of People's Union of Civil Liberties, was convicted for sedition and sentenced to life imprisonment
along with Naxal ideologue Narayan Sanyal and Kolkata businessman Piyush Guha for colluding with the Maoists to
establish a network to fight the state.

Sen's conviction and sentence had led to outrage in many quarters, including international human rights bodies which
has sought government's permission to observe the court proceedings in the case.

SC grants bail to Binayak Sen, drops sedition charges against him

Dhananjay Mahapatra & Supriya Sharma, TNN | Apr 15, 2011, 12.19pm IST

Supreme Court grants bail to Binayak Sen
NEW DELHI/RAIPUR: The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to civil rights activist Binayak Sen, who has been
sentenced to life imprisonment on charges of sedition and for having links with Naxalites.

The apex court said that the evidence on record proves no sedition case against Sen. At the worst he could be termed
active sympathizer of Naxals.

The court also observed that mere possession of Naxal literature does not make a person a Naxalite, guilty of sedition,
as one who possesses Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography can not call himself a Gandhian.

Granting bail to the civil rights activist, the apex court said that the trial court would impose condition of bail while
ordering jail authorities to release Binayak Sen.

A bench comprising Justices HS Bedi and CK Prasad passed the order on the petition moved by Sen challenging the
order of Chhattisgarh high court denying him bail.

Reacting to the bail order for Binayak Sen, Chhattisgarh chief minister Raman Singh said, "We have always respected
the orders of each and every court. We respect the order of the Supreme Court. The court has only granted bail to Dr
Sen. All other legal proceedings will continue in the Bilaspur high court. Whatever be the final outcome and order in
the case, we shall continue to respect it."

Sen, 61, had challenged a Chhattisgarh high court order that rejected his bail plea on February 10. He had sought bail
contending that the trial court had erred in convicting him without substantial evidence.

Sen had filed a petition in the Chhattisgarh high court on January 6, challenging a district and sessions court order that
had convicted him on various charges, including sedition, and had sentenced him to life imprisonment.

A Raipur sessions court had on December 24 last year held Sen and three other people guilty of treason and for waging
war against the state. He was also found guilty of sedition.

Sen was arrested in Chhattisgarh in 2007 and was granted bail two years later. He was honoured with Jonathan Mann
Award in 2008 while still in prison.

Supreme Court grants bail to Binayak Sen
Apr 15, 2011 PTI

The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to rights activist Binayak Sen, who has been convicted and sentenced to life
imprisonment by a Chhattisgarh trial court for sedition and helping Naxalites to set up a network to fight the state.

The apex court said it was giving no reason for granting bail to 61-year-old Sen and left it to the satisfaction of the trial
court concerned to impose the conditions for his release on bail.

A bench comprising justices H.S. Bedi and C.K. Prasad passed the order on the petition moved by Sen challenging the
order of Chhattisgarh high court denying him bail.

During the hearing, the bench observed that "we are a democratic country. He may be a sympathiser (of Naxalites) but
it did not make him guilty of sedition.

"He is a sympathiser. Nothing beyond that," the bench further said, perusing the affidavit filed by the Chhattisgarh
government opposing his bail.

Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Sen, a doctor by profession, submitted in his affidavit that the state has
been unable to point out misconduct on his part.

The bench also said that all the statements made by the state has no relevance.

It said other documents and evidences produced by the state government including that he met co-accused Piyush Guha
30 times in a jail and pamphlets and documents relating to Maoist activities were recovered from his possession did not
mean that he was involved in seditious activities.

However, senior advocate U.U. Lalit, appearing for the state government, said that no case is made out for the bail and
submitted that the activities of Sen have to be seen in a broader perspective.

When the bench asked him whether his activities in any way connect to the offence of sedition, Lalit said, "My case has
been accepted by the trial court and the apex court has only to consider whether he can be granted bail or not."

When the court asked him if there were any documents backing the charge of sedition, Lalit said Sen visited the jail and
exchanged documents with Guha and others.

However, this submission did not satisfy the bench, which said, "Visitors are screened and searched by the jail staff
when they go and meet the inmates.

"The jailers are there to oversee all these things. So the question of passing letters or documents doesn't arise."

"The worst can be said that he was found in possession of general documents (relating to Naxal activities) but how can
it be said that such possession would attract the charge of sedition. How can you lay the charge of sedition?" the bench
asked.

While granting bail, the bench said, "We are concerned with the implementation of the judgement as even no case of
sedition is made out."

Khurshid welcomes bail for Binayak Sen

Apr 15, 2011 | PTI
|
Minority affairs minister Salman Khurshid today welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to grant bail to Binayak Sen,
who has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by a Chhattisgarh court for sedition and helping Naxalites.

"I think the circumstances in which the bail has been granted should be welcomed," Khurshid told reporters here.

He said a general impression was gaining ground that the treatment meted out to Sen was not correct.

"The kind of support Binayak Sen has got across the country and the number of scholars standing behind him. A
general impression was gaining ground that the treatment meted out to Sen was not correct," he said.

"Although, there is another aspect that a large number of people believe that there should be no compromise on the
issue of security when it is concerned with a serious issue like Maoist, but right now his getting bail should be
welcomed," he said.

Khurshid said after Sen is out on bail, he will also have something to say and people will get another aspect to hear.

The Supreme Court gave no reason for granting bail to 61-year-old Sen and left it to the satisfaction of the trial court
concerned to impose the conditions for his release onFriday, April 15, 2011 |

Binayak Sen gets bail; escapes sedition charge
April 15, 2011 5:02:17 PM

IANS | New Delhi -pioneer
The Supreme Court Friday granted bail to human rights activist Binayak Sen, who
is undergoing life imprisonment in a Chhattisgarh jail on charges of sedition and
links with Maoists.

No case for sedition was made out against Sen, the apex court bench of Justice H.S.
Bedi and Justice C.K. Prasad said while making a scathing observation that a person
does not become a Gandhian just because he is found with a biography of Mahatma
Gandhi.

The bench said the bail would be subject to the satisfaction of the trial court. The
court ridiculed the state's submission that Sen was actively involved in spreading
disharmony and disaffection against the state.

The court said that even if the state government's contention that Sen was in the possession of banned material and was
involved in its circulation was true, it did not justify the charge of sedition. Mocking at the contention of the state
government, the court said that if a biography of Mahatma Gandhi is recovered from a person that did not make him a
Gandhian.

Sen, 61, at present in a jail in the Chhattisgarh capital Raipur, had challenged the Feb 10 order of the Chhattisgarh High
Court rejecting his bail plea.

He was sentenced by the trial court Dec 24, 2010, for sedition. He was accused of acting as a courier between Maoist
ideologue Narayan Sanyal and Kolkata-based businessman Piyush Guha, both of whom have also been jailed for life.

The state government, in its reply to Sen's petition in the high court, said he "has the same ideology as that of CPI-
Maoist (Communist Party of India-Maoist) and he is addressed as a comrade by hardcore Naxalites (Maoists)".

"He provides active support and co-ordinates in spreading the base of CPI-Maoist in the country. For hardcore
Naxalites, he arranges safe hideouts by arranging house on rent, helps open bank account, helps in getting employment
to conceal identity and provides employment by incorporating trusts."

The Chhattisgarh government claimed Sen was helping the Maoists in building "urban network and sympathisers".
bail.

Chidambaram expresses happiness over SC granting bail to Sen

Apr 15, 2011 |

 PTIHome minister P. Chidambaram on Friday expressed happiness over the Supreme Court decision to grant
bail to rights activist Binayak Sen, who had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for sedition
by a Chhattisgarh court.

"I am happy to know that Binayak Sen has got bail from the Supreme Court. I have always believed that if one is not
satisfied with a lower court order, one can get reprieve by approaching a higher court," he told reporters while reacting
to the apex court order.

After the conviction of Sen on charges of sedition and helping Naxalites to set up a network to fight the state,
Chidambaram had said that the judgement may be unsatisfactory for many people but the only way to "correct" it was
by filing an appeal.

In its order, the Supreme Court said it was giving no reason for granting bail to 61-year-old Sen and left it to the
satisfaction of the trial court concerned to impose the conditions for his release on bail.

A bench comprising justices H.S. Bedi and C.K. Prasad passed the order on the petition moved by Sen challenging the
order of Chhattisgarh high court denying him bail.

SC bail to Binayak Sen, questions conviction for sedition
New Delhi, Apr 15, (PTI):
Rights activist Binayak Sen was on Friday granted bail by the Supreme Court which questioned his conviction and life
sentence for sedition saying he could be a sympathiser of Naxalites and nothing beyond that.
"No case of sedition is made out," a bench comprising justices H S Bedi and C K Prasad observed while granting bail
to 61-year-old Sen, who was also held guilty by a trial court in Chhattisgarh for helping naxalites to set up a network.

The bench, which preferred not to give any reasons for granting bail, said, "We are a democratic country. He may be a
sympathiser (of Naxalites) but it did not make him guilty of sedition.

"He is a sympathiser. Nothing beyond that," the bench said, perusing the affidavit filed by the Chhattisgarh government
opposing his bail.

"Is it like that if someone has got the autobiography of (Mahatma) Gandhi at his home he will be called a Gandhian. Is
that your logic that having documents and pamphlets on Maoists and Naxalites at his (Sen's) house (makes him an
outlaw)," the bench said.

Some of Sen's family members including his wife Elina were present in the courtroom along with some right activists
when the order granting bail to him was pronounced.

However, members of European Union, who were present in the previous hearing, could not be seen in the visitors'
gallery of the courtroom.

At the outset, senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Sen, said that the conviction for sedition was untenable
and illegal in the face of law and the trial court judgement did not comply with any requirement of law.

He said before the trial, the apex court had released him on bail and there was no misconduct on his part and questioned
the allegations made by the state government in its affidavit.

Chhattisgarh Government, in its affidavit, had said Sen should not be granted any relief as he has "deep links" with
hardcore Naxalites and was providing active support and co-ordination in spreading the base of CPI-Maoist in the
country.

"Apart from providing logistic support, he exchanges information and material directly and indirectly with the
Naxalites in the areas of Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, Jharkhand and Orissa and
propagates Naxal ideology," the affidavit had said.

It had said documents and pamphlets recovered from Sen's house suggest he was actively associated with the Naxalites
and he visited his co-accused Pyush Guha 33 times in the jail.

The bench, however, said that all the statements made by the state in its affidavit have no relevance.

It said other documents and evidences produced by the state government including that Sen, a doctor by profession, had
met Guha 33 times in a jail and pamphlets and documents relating to Maoist activities were recovered from his
possession did not mean that he was involved in seditious activities.

However, senior advocate U U Lalit, appearing for the state government, said that no case is made out for the bail and
submitted that the activities of Sen have to be seen in a broader perspective.

Lalit took exception at being interrupted during arugments by Jethmalani and told the bench that he should given
protection by it. "I may be given protection from such interruption," he said.

When the court asked him if there were any documents backing the charge of sedition, Lalit said Sen visited the jail and
exchanged documents with Guha and others.

However, this submission did not satisfy the bench, which said, "Visitors are screened and searched by the jail staff
when they go and meet the inmates.

"The jailors are there to oversee all these things. So the question of passing letters or documents doesn't arise."

The bench also said visitors' areas in jails were fitted with cameras and in such a situation there could be no exchange
of documents.

However, the bench was told that at that time cameras were not installed in the jail.
While granting bail, the bench said, "We are concerned with the implementation of the judgement as even no case of
sedition is made out."

When the bench was about to pronounce its order, another senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi joined Lalit and said, "There
is no presumption that Sen is innocent".

He said Sen is allegedly actively supporting the banned organisation and on being released on bail, he would foment
further trouble in the state.

Realising that the bench had made up its mind to grant bail, Rohatgi said some conditions be put upon Sen that he
would not enter Chhatisgarh.

He said the apex court, which has granted bail to former Gujarat Minsiter Amit Shah in connection with the
Sohrabuddin Sheikh case, has asked him not to enter the state and such a condition should be imposed on Sen also.

However, the bench said both the cases were different as in the case of Shah trial has not been completed and in this
(Sen's) case, he has already been convicted.

It left it to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned to impose the conditions for his release on bail.

Sen had challenged the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had rejected his bail plea on February 10.

A pass-out of Vellore's prestigious Christian Medical College (CMC), Sen had sought bail contending that the trial
court has erred in convicting him when there was no substantial evidence against him.

Sen, vice-president of People's Union of Civil Liberties, was convicted for sedition and sentenced to life imprisonment
along with Naxal ideologue Narayan Sanyal and Guha, a Kolkata businessman, for colluding with the Maoists to
establish a network to fight the state.

Sen's conviction and sentence had led to outrage in many quarters, including international human rights bodies which
had sought government's permission to observe the court proceedings in the case.

SC grants bail to Binayak Sen

15 April 2011

Press Trust of India
NEW DELHI, 15 APRIL: The Supreme Court today granted bail to rights activist Dr Binayak Sen, who has been
convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by a Chhattisgarh trial court for sedition and helping Naxalites to set up a
network to fight the State.
The Supreme Court said it was giving no reason for granting bail to 61-year-old Dr Sen and left it to the satisfaction of
the trial court concerned to impose the conditions for his release on bail. A Bench comprising Mr Justice HS Bedi and
Mr Justice CK Prasad passed the order on the petition moved by Dr Sen challenging the order of Chhattisgarh High
Court denying him bail.
During the hearing, the Bench observed: ―We are a democratic country. He may be a sympathiser (of Naxalites) but it
did not make him guilty of sedition."
―He is a sympathiser. Nothing beyond that,‖ the Bench further said, perusing the affidavit filed by the Chhattisgarh
government opposing Dr Sen's bail plea.
Senior advocate Mr Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Dr Sen, submitted in his affidavit that the state had been unable to
point out misconduct on his part.
The Bench also said that all the statements made by the state were irrelevant.
It said documents and evidences produced by the state government stressed on the fact that he had met co-accused
Piyush Guha 30 times in a jail and pamphlets and documents relating to Maoist activities had been recovered from his
possession but did not mean that he was involved in seditious activities.
However, senior advocate Mr UU Lalit, appearing for the state government, said that no case had been made out for
bail and submitted that the activities of Dr Sen have to be seen in a broader perspective. When the Bench asked him
whether Dr Sen's activities, in any way, were connected to the offence of sedition, Mr Lalit said: ―My case has been
accepted by the trial court and the SC has only to consider whether he can be granted bail or not.‖
When the court asked him if there were any documents backing the charge of sedition, Mr Lalit said Dr Sen had visited
the jail and exchanged documents with Guha and others. However, this submission did not satisfy the Bench, which
said: ―Visitors are screened and searched by the jail staff when they go and meet the inmates. The jailors are there to
oversee all these things. So the question of passing letters or documents doesn't arise.‖
―The worst can be said that he was found in possession of general documents (relating to Naxal activities) but how can
it be said that such possession would attract the charge of sedition? How can you lay the charge of sedition?‖ the Bench
said. While granting bail, the Bench said: ―We are concerned with the implementation of the judgment as even no case
of sedition is made out.‖ Minority affairs minister, Mr Salman Khurshid, today welcomed the
SC's decision to grant bail to Sen. ―I think the circumstances in which the bail has been granted should be welcomed,‖
Khurshid told reporters here.

SC grants bail to Binayak Sen, says he is not guilty of sedition
Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, April 15, 2011

Binayak Sen flashes victory sign after the Supreme Court granted him bail. The civil rights......
more photos »
The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to human rights activist Binayak Sen, who is undergoing life imprisonment
in a Chhattisgarh jail on charges of sedition and links with Maoists. No case for sedition was made out against Sen, the
apex court bench of justice HS Bedi and justice CK Prasad said
while making a scathing observation that a person does not become a Gandhian just because he is found with a
biography of Mahatma Gandhi.

The bench said the bail would be subject to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The court ridiculed the state's submission that Sen was actively involved in spreading disharmony and disaffection
against the state.

Sen, 61, at present in a jail in the Chhattisgarh capital Raipur, had challenged the Feb 10 order of the Chhattisgarh High
Court rejecting his bail plea.

Sedition laws outdated, says Moily
Press Trust Of India
New Delhi, April 15, 2011
Hours after the Supreme Court granted bail to Binayak Sen convicted for helping Naxalites, law minister M Veerappa
Moily on Friday dubbed sedition laws as "outdated" and said he would ask the Law Commission to study the issue.
Reacting to bail granted to the rights activist by the apex court, Moily
said he would soon consult Home Minister P Chidambaram and after he agrees, the matter could be refered to the Law
Commission to study whether there was need for change in sedition laws.

"I will consult the home minister and after that the Law Commission could be asked to revisit laws relating to sedition,"
Moily said.

He said bail to Sen also reflected upon the investigations carried out by Chhattisgarh Police. He said there has been
debate that sedition laws do not reflect on the democratic aspirations of the country and the spirit of Constitution.

Granting bail to Sen, the apex court said "we are a democratic country. He may be a sympathiser (of Naxalites) but it
did not make him guilty of sedition.

"He is a sympathiser. Nothing beyond that," the bench further said, perusing the affidavit filed by the Chhattisgarh
government opposing his bail.

We honour the court’s decision: Raman Singh
Ejaz Kaiser, Hindustan Times
Raipur, April 15, 2011
The Supreme Court granted rights activist and a pediatrician Dr Binayak Sen bail on Friday but he would not get a
chance to walk out from the Raipur Central Jail, serving life imprisonment on charges of sedition and links with
Maoists, before Monday. Sen's counsel in Chhattisgarh Mahendra Dubey
told Hindustan Times that the certified copies of the court order would be available by the evening on Friday. "Even if
the court's order is brought to Raipur on Saturday, it will not serve any purpose since tomorrow is a holiday and the
court will not function", said Dubey.

The Apex Court order will be produced before the trial court where bail bond will be furnished by Dr Sen following
which the court will issue 'release warrant' to the jail authorities of Raipur, stated the Sen's counsel.

After the SC verdict Dr Sen's wife, Ilina said, "We have to take copy of the order to trial court and bail has to be
activated and Binayak has to be released from jail and lot of work still needs to be done".

"Going by all the processes involved and the next two days being holiday, Dr Sen will be out from jail only on
Monday", said Farhan Khan, another lawyer of Sen.

Meanwhile the state government said it respects the decision of the Supreme Court. "We have always respected the
court's verdict. The law will takes its own course, as the legal process of the case will continue in the high court. We
will respect whatever the final decision the court arrives at in the given case", Dr Raman Singh, Chhattisgarh chief
minister said.

Singh further added that the state would continue to adhere to its policy to safeguard democracy and fight against the
Maoists menace.

"It is not just a bail but a moral victory for Dr Sen. His bail was long overdue, which should have been granted
by the High Court," said Rajendra Sail, former president of Chhattisgarh People's Union for Civil Liberties
(PUCL).

Binayak Sen's family overjoyed at SC verdict
Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi/Kolkata, April 15, 2011
It's the perfect nobo borsho, the Bengali New Year, for activist Binayak Sen's family. The Supreme Court granted him
bail and a chance to walk out from the Chhattisgarh jail, where he has been serving life imprisonment on charges of
sedition and links with Maoists. For his mother, wife and
daughter, this was an overwhelming moment.

"It's a very emotional moment and I am relieved. But I did shut my mind for the last four months and had stopped
thinking... I have now slowly started breathing and unwinding and I am really feeling good," Sen's wife Ilina told the
media in Delhi after the verdict.

"We have to take copy of the order to trial court and bail has to be activated and Binayak has to be released from jail
and lot of work still needs to be done," she added.

His daughter Aparajita was equally elated: "Our family was really shattered and it was a tough journey with Baba
(father) inside (jail). This (judgment) is the result of everybody's hard work. Now I am looking forward to meeting
him."

Sen's mother Anasuya said this was the perfect beginning of the New Year.

"I am so relieved. A son will come home and you can imagine how a mother feels when her son comes home. I am so
happy," Anasuya told a news channel from her home in West Bengal.

"My son should be as free as an ordinary man. All the cases against him should be squashed as soon as possible so that
he is totally free and can go to any place in the world. He cannot be Gandhi but he is a Gandhian and believes in non-
violence. From his childhood days, he always hated violence."

Anasuya said there were moments when she was worried that she may not "live long enough" to see her son again.

"I wrote to him when he was sent to jail. But I could not write after that. When his wife went to meet him, he told her to
ask me to write again, so I wrote again. Now I am happy that I don't have to write letters, because I can just speak to
him," she added.

Brother Dipankar Sen added that he was overjoyed.

No case for sedition was made out against Sen, the apex court bench of justice HS Bedi and justice CK Prasad said
while making a scathing observation that a person does not become a Gandhian just because he is found with a
biography of Mahatma Gandhi.

The bench said the bail would be subject to the satisfaction of the trial court. The court ridiculed the state's submission
that Sen was actively involved in spreading disharmony and disaffection against the state.

Sen, 61, at present in a jail in Raipur, challenged the Feb 10 order of the Chhattisgarh high court rejecting his bail plea.

He was sentenced by the trial court Dec 24, 2010, for sedition. He was also accused of acting as a courier between
Maoist ideologue Narayan Sanyal and Kolkata-based businessman Piyush Guha, both of whom have also been jailed
for life.

Ilina said: "I am always optimistic but am also realistic. That's how I have stayed alive. The Dec 24 judgment was such
a shock, because he was charged with sedition with no evidence. My husband and I have worked for Chhattisgarh for
the last 30 ears. We have always worked with and for the people. This is just an attempt to malign the work".

S.K. Farhan, Binayak'a lawyer, said: "We were eagerly awaiting the judgment and were confident that we will get
justice, so am very happy. There is no evidence at all that he helped the Maoists. When there is a final hearing in the
court we hope to get justice."

Expressindia
SC grants bail to Binayak Sen, says no proof of sedition

Agencies
Posted: Apr 15, 2011

New Delhi The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to rights activist Binayak Sen, who has been convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment by a Chhattisgarh trial court for sedition and helping Naxalites to set up a network to
fight the State.

The apex court said it was giving no reason for granting bail to 61-year-old Sen and left it to the satisfaction of the trial
court concerned to impose the conditions for his release on bail.

A Bench comprising Justices H S Bedi and C K Prasad passed the order on the petition moved by Sen challenging the
order of Chhattisgarh High Court denying him bail.

During the hearing, the Bench observed that "we are a democratic country. He may be a sympathiser (of Naxalites) but
it did not make him guilty of sedition.

"He is a sympathiser. Nothing beyond that," the Bench further said, perusing the affidavit filed by the Chhattisgarh
government opposing his bail.

Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Sen, submitted in his affidavit that the state has been unable to point
out misconduct on his part.

The Bench also said that all the statements made by the state has no relevance.

However, senior advocate U U Lalit, appearing for the state government, said that no case is made out for the bail and
submitted that the activities of Sen have to be seen in a broader perspective.

When the Bench asked him whether his activities in any way connect to the offence of sedition, Lalit said, "My case
has been accepted by the trial court and the apex court has only to consider whether he can be granted bail or not."

When the court asked him if there were any documents backing the charge of sedition, Lalit said Sen visited the jail and
exchanged documents with Guha and others.

However, this submission did not satisfy the bench, which said, "Visitors are screened and searched by the jail staff
when they go and meet the inmates.

"The jailors are there to oversee all these things. So the question of passing letters or documents doesn't arise."

While granting bail, the Bench said, "We are concerned with the implementation of the judgement as even no case of
sedition is made out."

15 Apr, 2011, PTI

Binayak Sen granted bail by SC, questions conviction for sedition
NEW DELHI: Binayak Sen was today granted bail by the Supreme Court which observed that no case of sedition was
made out against the rights activist who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by a Chhatisgarh court.

"No case of sedition is made out," a bench comprising justices H S Bedi and C K Prasad observed while granting bail
to 61-year-old Sen, who was also held guilty by a trial court in Chhattisgarh for helping naxalites to set up a network.

Sen has challenged his conviction and life sentence before the Chhattisgarh High Court which had refused to suspend
the punishment pending the appeal.

The bench, which preferred not to give any reasons for granting bail, said, "We are a democratic country. He may be a
sympathiser (of Naxalites) but it did not make him guilty of sedition.

"He is a sympathiser. Nothing beyond that," the bench said, perusing the affidavit filed by the Chhattisgarh government
opposing his bail.

Some of Sen's family members including his wife Elina were present in the courtroom along with some right activists
when the order granting bail to him was pronounced.

However, members of European Union, who were present in the previous hearing, could not be seen in the visitors'
gallery of the courtroom.

He said before the trial, the apex court had released him on bail and there was no misconduct on his part and questioned
the allegations made by the state government in its affidavit.

It had said documents and pamphlets recovered from Sen's house suggest he was actively associated with the Naxalites
and he visited his co-accused Piyush Guha 33 times in the jail.

Binayak's bail plea dismissed

Aman Sethi

Bilaspur: The Chhattisgarh High Court on Thursday dismissed an application of rights activist and paediatrician Dr.
Binayak Sen seeking bail and suspension of life term awarded to him. But the court will continue to hear his appeal
against the life sentence handed down by a Raipur Additional District and Sessions Court.

The court also dismissed a similar application of co-accused Kolkata businessman Pijush Guha.

On December 24 last, the Raipur court convicted Dr. Sen, Guha, and alleged Maoist ideologue Narayan Sanyal of
conspiring to commit sedition and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
Dr. Sen was arrested in May 2007 on the suspicion that he served as a courier for Sanyal. Prison records indicate
that Dr. Sen visited Sanyal several times in the Raipur Jail. Dr. Sen maintained that the visits were in his capacity as a
doctor and as the Chhattisgarh Secretary of the People's Union for Civil Liberties.

Dr. Sen's wife Dr. Ilina Sen, expressing disappointment at the court verdict, felt there were fair grounds for bail. ―We
shall file a special leave petition in the Supreme Court as soon as possible.‖

Defence lawyer Mahendra Dubey said: ―The court observed that since the bail application was filed under Section 389
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no detailed consideration of evidence was possible at this stage.‖

Prosecutor Kishore Bhaduri said the court probably relied on the contents of Dr. Sen's computer that was seized by the
police. Mr. Bhaduri believes that the documents indicated that Dr. Sen was a supporter of the banned Communist Party
of India (Maoist).

―It appears that the court has relied on the prosecution's argument of culpability by association,‖ said Ramesh
Gopalakrishnan of Amnesty International, adding he was yet to read the 34-page judgment. ―The prosecution's
argument was based on thin evidence and did not establish the chain of events from Dr. Sen's association with Narayan
Sanyal to any actual acts of violence,‖ he said.

Binayak Sen could've been let off with just a fine

Manoj Mitta, TNN | Apr 11, 2011,

Author Arundhati Roy addressing activists of All India Students Association (AISA) during a demonstration in support
of Binayak Sen.
NEW DELHI: The sedition provision, under which civil liberties activist Binayak Sen is serving a life sentence, is so
arbitrary that he could well have been let off for the very same offence with just a fine.

This is because Section 124A IPC, without a word of explanation, offers three very different levels of punishment for
those found guilty of sedition. The highest level of punishment for sedition is life sentence, which is normally given for
a heinous offence like murder. The next level of punishment plunges to imprisonment not exceeding three years. The
lowest punishment is nothing but a monetary penalty.

Such dramatic disparity in the punishments prescribed for sedition has been highlighted like never before by the
Binayak Sen case as the trial court gave him the highest level of punishment in December even though he has not been
accused of complicity in any specific instance of Maoist violence.

In a further irony, the Chhattisgarh high court devoted 35 pages to deny him bail in February without any discussion on
the sentence. This is despite the fact that bail proceedings after conviction are all about "suspension of sentence". The
high court order gives no inkling of how the life sentence was justified rather than the lesser sentence of three years or
fine.

It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will address the sentencing anomaly, whether in Section 124A itself
or in the high court order, when Binayak Sen's plea for bail comes up for hearing on Monday. The significance of this
anomaly is that if the option of the lesser punishment (imprisonment up to three years) had been exercised, the trial
court would have been legally obliged to release him on bail even while convicting him.
For, Section 389 of CrPC stipulates that the court "shall" grant bail to the convicted person for the purpose of filing an
appeal if the sentence is three years or less and the accused is already on bail.

While steering clear of the sentence issue, the high court made much of Binayak Sen's failure to speak up against
Maoist violence. It lamented that though he was "in the forefront of exposing atrocities of police", Binayak Sen "has
not made any demand to these (Maoist) organizations to refrain from violence".

Underlying this lament is the high court's concern that "men in uniform are also human beings and citizens of this
country". However apt this judicial concern for slain security men may be, Binayak Sen's silence on such atrocities can
hardly constitute sedition or any other offence for that matter.

Another major ground cited by the high court is his links with four "hardcore Naxalites": Narayan Sanyal, Shankar
Singh, Amita Shrivastava and Malti. For all the details given of his links with these four extremists, there is no
suggestion in the order that that this association extended to Binayak Sen's involvement or participation in any violent
act committed by any of them.

In other words, even without attributing any complicity in actual violence, this human rights activist has been convicted
for sedition through conspiracy and given the highest possible sentence merely on the premise of "guilt by association".

SC adjourns Binayak Sen's bail plea till Friday

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Apr 11, 2011, 11.47am IST

SC adjourns Binayak Sen's bail plea till Friday
See photo
NEW DELHI The Supeme Court on Monday adjourned civil liberties activist Binayak Sen's bail plea till Friday on the
Chhattisgarh government's request.

The Chattisgarh government standing councel said he would need two days time to brief a senior advocate on opposing
the bail plea of Binayak Sen.

Binayak Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment on charges of sedition and links with Naxalites.

Sen, 61, has challenged the order of the Chhattisgarh high court, which had rejected his bail plea on February 10.

A professional doctor and a pass-out of the prestigious Christian Medical College (CMC), Vellore, Sen has sought bail
contending that the trial court has erred in convicting him when there was no substantial evidence, PTI reports.

A bench of justices H S Bedi and C K Prasad had on March 11 agreed to hear Sen's plea and had sought the response of
Chhattisgarh government within four weeks.

Opposing Sen's bail plea, the state government in its affidavit had said that the activist should not be granted any relief
as he has deep links with hardcore Naxalites.

"He (Sen) provides active support and co-ordinates in spreading the base of CPI (Maoist) in the country. Apart from
providing logistic support, he exchanges information and material directly and indirectly with the Naxalites in the area
of Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, Jharkhand and Orissa and propagates Naxal
ideology," the affidavit filed by the state government said.

Sen, vice-president of People's Union of Civil Liberties, was convicted for sedition and sentenced to life imprisonment
along with Naxal ideologue Narayan Sanyal and Kolkata businessman Piyush Guha for colluding with the Maoists to
establish a network to fight the state.

Sen's conviction and sentence had led to outrage in many quarters, including international human rights bodies.

Family members of Sen, PUCL activists, and two members of the European Union were present in the high court
during the hearing. The EU had earlier sought the high court's permission to attend the hearings.
| Monday, April 11, 2011

SC defers hearing on Binayak Sen's bail plea to April 15
April 11, 2011 the pioneer
PTI | New Delhi

The Supreme Court today adjourned till April 15 the hearing on the bail plea of
rights activist Binayak Sen, sentenced to life imprisonment for colluding with
Maoists, after Chhattisgarh government sought more time to argue its case.

A bench of Justices H S Bedi and C K Prasad deferred the hearing on the plea
of Chhattisgarh government which had been directed on March 11 to submit
within four weeks its response to the bail application of Sen.

61-year-old Sen is serving life term in a Chhattisgarh jail following his
conviction on charges of sedition and links with Naxalites.

He had moved the apex court challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court order
rejecting his bail plea on February 10.

A doctor and a pass-out of the prestigious Christian Medical College (CMC),
Vellore, Sen sought bail contending that the trial court has erred in convicting him when there was no substantial
evidence.

Opposing Sen's bail plea, the state government in its affidavit had stated that the activist should not be granted any
relief as he has deep links with hardcore Naxalites.

Vice-president of People's Union of Civil Liberties, Sen was, in December last year, convicted for sedition and
sentenced to life imprisonment along with Naxal ideologue Narayan Sanyal and Kolkata businessman Piyush Guha for
colluding with the Maoists to establish a network to fight the state.

Sen's conviction had drawn a sharp reaction from many quarters, including international human rights bodies.

Headlines Today Bureau | Raipur, February 10, 2011
 Binayak Sen's
bail plea in HC
rejected

Binayak Sen
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Thursday rejected the bail plea of
rights activist Dr Binayak Sen. Here is a brief look at the charges
against him:

 In jail for over a month, Sen has been sentenced to life term for sedition.
 He has been arrested under the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act 2005 and the Unlawful Activities
prevention Act 1967.
 Sen was arrested in Bilaspur on the charges of acting as a courier between jailed Naxalite leader Narayan
Sanyal and businessman Piyush Guha.
 Sen had met the 70-year-old Sanyal 33 times in Raipur jail, though all the visits were with prior police
permission.

We respect SC decision on Binayak Sen, says Raman Singh

ITGD Bureau | Raipur, April 15, 2011 |

Binayak Sen.
Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Raman Singh on Friday said that his government 'respects' the Supreme Court's decision of
granting bail to activist Binayak Sen, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for sedition by Chhatisgarh High
Court.

"We respect the decision given by Supreme Court," Singh said.

"We have always respected any court's decision and we will continue to do that," the chief minister of the BJP ruled
state said.

A bench comprising Justices H S Bedi and C K Prasad of the apex court in New Delhi passed the order on the petition
moved by Sen challenging the order of Chhattisgarh High Court denying him bail.

"Supreme Court has only granted him the bail. The pending legal process will continue in High Court at Bilaspur.
Whatever the final verdict be, we will respect that decision too," Singh said.

SC Bail to Binayak: CPI Demands Withdrawal of Cases
New Delhi | Apr 15, 2011
Welcoming the Supreme Court decision to grant bail to Binayak Sen, the CPI today
demanded that Chhattisgarh government withdraw all cases against the activist.

CPI National Secretary D Raja demanded that the BJP government in Chhattisgarh
withdraw the cases "foisted" on Sen, who has been convicted and sentenced to life
imprisonment by a trial court there for sedition and helping Naxalites.

He claimed that a number of CPI leaders and cadres were in prison in the state and
demanded their immediate release.

"The Home Minister must see that security forces do not go on a rampage against tribal
people and he should be held responsible for whatever happens to the tribals in
Chhattisgarh," Raja said.

review
There Is No Other Way
Dr Binayak Sen resisted every effort to make this a personal story, insisting it is
everyman‘s
Sheela Reddy inayak Sen doesn‘t take kindly to hero worship.
B
When Minnie Vaid, a documentary film-maker, first hears
of the now celebrated doctor jailed for sedition, she
throws up her corporate job and goes in hot pursuit of her
new idol. She wants to write a book and make a film on
him, she tells Dr Sen. But to her dismay, the doctor
refuses to cooperate. He‘s just a symbol of what‘s going
wrong in the country, Sen tries to explain, ―it has nothing
to do with my personal qualities‖. But the star-struck Vaid
can‘t be dissuaded, either by his stern silences or his
A DOCTOR TO DEFEND: THE BINAYAK snubs. Eventually, they hit on a compromise: Sen gives
SEN STORY
BY
her a list of half-a-dozen friends and ―close associates‖
MINNIE VAID she can interview. Thus begins Vaid‘s breathless journey,
RAJPAL | PAGES: 243 | RS. 350
stretching from the prestigious Christian Medical College
in Vellore, from where Sen graduated in the ‘60s, to remote villages deep in the forests of
Chhattisgarh, where he ran his crowded clinics, to discover the man behind the celebrity.

Wherever Vaid travels, Sen‘s name works like magic: doors are thrown open, stringcots
dragged out, and Vaid is plied with tea and food as villagers readily share their stories
about their doctor—how he saved their children‘s lives, helped them start a self-help
women‘s group, guided them during a famine or to start organic farming. ―I have never
seen a man like him,‖ Ghasiya Ram, a health worker whom Sen trained from scratch,
tells Vaid. ―He goes to each person‘s house, asks them about their difficulties, attends to
patients in their homes and, at times, even arranges food for them.‖

We get a sense of the villagers‘ outrage, that a man as good as their doctor, who ―would
sit on the floor and eat with us‖, should be slammed into jail. They tried to visit him in
jail, and when they were stopped by the police, turned out in large numbers at the protest
rally when his case was being heard in Raipur.

But the people that Sen suggests Vaid meet are no random list of friends. We soon realise
what he‘s trying to do: gently guide his would-be biographer into discovering the
appaling human rights abuses going on in Chhattisgarh, whether it is the displacement of
thousands from their villages in order to vacate the land for the big mining companies or
the state‘s refusal to provide healthcare and schools for the displaced. In her single-
minded pursuit of Sen‘s story, Vaid can‘t help but give us a fleeting glimpse of the
condition in which villagers live. One woman who had lost her husband and burnt her
hands in a stove burst, for instance, had to walk 110 km for 15 days to reach a doctor. By
then, there were insects crawling out of her hands and the doctor said she would have lost
both her hands if she had come even a week later. But Vaid quickly turns this horror story
into a pat on Sen‘s back for showing moral courage and compassion under trying
conditions.

It‘s not difficult for Vaid to coax personal stories about Binayak from his associates.
Yogesh Jain, an aiims-trained doctor inspired by Sen to throw away a good life in the city
to run a hospital for tribals, recounts a particularly insightful episode. Once, while
travelling on a train, Sen was mistaken for a maulvi because of his long beard. Jain then
asked Sen why he insisted on growing a beard. ―Because I want to see what it means to
be insecure, to know how it feels to be a minority in one‘s own country.‖

It‘s this refusal to care about consequences that Jain admires most about Sen. ―Binayak is
that rare doctor who looks at root causes, links ill-health to politics, to unequal
distribution of resources, whether it is water, food, money or healthcare services. Health
work of this kind is a political act and he goes ahead, not caring about consequences. I
can‘t do it myself but I would support someone who does,‖ Jain tells the author. ―I would
tell him how scared we all were for him and he‘d say: ‗Yogesh, I can‘t stop doing this,
there‘s no other way.‘‖

Till the end, the biographer and her subject remain at odds: Vaid determined to focus on
his personal story, while Sen is equally stubborn that his story is Everyman‘s. Whether it
is his healthcare services or his years in prison, Sen is steadfast in his refusal to
personalise his story. One can see why. So long as we insist, like Vaid, in valourising
Sen, we can pretend that we aren‘t faced with his choices: to either resist injustice or
perish.

Appeal
'Under The Highest Standards Of Indian Law'

40 Nobel laureates urge Dr. Binayak Sen’s immediate release on bail, insisting that
this time his appeal be heard without delay

We, the 38* undersigned Nobel Laureates, respectfully express our astonishment and
dismay at the unjust life sentence handed down last month in India to a fellow scientist
and human rights advocate, 61-year-old Dr. Binayak Sen.

We note that, when Dr. Sen was on trial in 2008 and many of us appealed for his release
on bail, a year later the Supreme Court of India concurred with our opinion and ordered
his immediate release. Several months after voicing our concern about Dr. Sen‘s
detention, one of us traveled to Chhattisgarh; met government officials; consulted Dr.
Sen‘s family, lawyers, and colleagues; visited his remote clinic to learn more about his
selfless work with the Adivasis; and, after a few days and many hours spent waiting in
the Raipur prison yard, finally met with Dr. Sen himself in the presence of the prison
warden.

We have seen that Dr. Sen is an exceptional, courageous, and selfless colleague,
dedicated to helping those in India who are least able to help themselves. Yet his
recompense has been two years in prison under difficult conditions, a blatantly unfair trial
lasting two years in the so-called ―Fast Track‖ Sessions Court, an unjust conviction of
sedition and conspiracy, and condemnation to life imprisonment.

We earnestly hope that our renewed appeal is heard. We know that there are leaders in
India who have the power, humanity, patriotism, and decency to speak out against this
injustice. We entreat those leaders to act now, to urge Dr. Sen‘s immediate release on
bail, and insist that this time his appeal is heard without delay under the highest standards
of Indian law.

Surely, those who would see the largest democracy in the world survive and thrive can do
no less at this crucial time for both Dr. Sen and for the future of justice in India.

Respectfully,

Peter Agre, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2003
Kenneth J. Arrow, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 1972
Richard Axel, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2004
David Baltimore, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1975
Martin Chalfie, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2008
Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1997
Robert Curl, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1996
Johann Deisenhofer, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1988
Richard R. Ernst, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1991
Edmond H. Fischer, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1992
Walter Gilbert, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1980
Roy J. Glauber, Nobel Prize in Physics, 2005
Paul Greengard, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2000
David J. Gross, Nobel Prize in Physics, 2004
Roger Guillemin, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1977
Dudley Herschbach, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1986
Antony Hewish, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1974
H. Robert Horvitz, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2002
François Jacob, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1965
Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 2002
Eric R. Kandel, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2000
Lawrence R. Klein, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 1980
Roger D. Kornberg, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2006
Sir Harold W. Kroto, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1996
Finn E. Kydland, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 2004
Yuan T. Lee, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1986
Rita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1986
Roderick MacKinnon, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2003
Sir James Mirrlees, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, 1996
Joseph E. Murray, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1990
Douglas D. Osheroff, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1996
John C. Polanyi, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1986
V. Ramakrishnan, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2009
Sir Richard Roberts, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1993
Jens C. Skou, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1998
Jack Steinberger, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1988
Sir John Sulston, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2002
Charles H. Townes, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1964
Klaus von Klitzing, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1985
Torsten N. Wiesel, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1981

*After this appeal was released two additional Nobel Laureates requested to sign it,
bringing the total number of signatories to 40 as of 18h EST on Tuesday, February 8.
Their names are included above.
Community cause Christian rally in Delhi
Binayak Sen: Middle Class Icon
The Long Harm Of The State
Everyone knows the case against Binayak is bogus, but Chhattisgarh will not let him
have it easy

hen the state decides to go for someone, a lot of energy, paperwork and
W
determination is on display. The four chargesheets against Binayak Sen run into over
1,000 pages. Some 417 exhibits were presented in court. The defence team presented 56
documents. There were 97 prosecution witnesses compared to just 11 defence witnesses.
During the arguments, both sides cited 70 different judgements.

Judge B.P. Verma of the Raipur sessions court came to the case just a year ago and the
final arguments closed just a week before the judgement was pronounced. He apparently
managed the feat of going through all the evidence and arguments and writing a 92-page
judgement in just about a week. Activists accuse the judge of cutting-and-pasting the
judgement from the police chargesheet and fir, but that remains only a speculation.

What is indeed a fact is that most lawyers believe any court would have thrown out the
case. They say it cannot stick even in Chhattisgarh. But then Binayak Sen‘s family has
learned the hard way that the worst can happen in the emergency-like situation prevalent
in the state. So the question is, what next? The family has, of course, moved appeal in the
high court but now the question is how long it will take for the appeal to be heard.

Another option would be for the family to argue that justice cannot be delivered in the
state and the trial be moved to another high court. This was done in some of the cases
linked to the Gujarat riots of 2002. They were shifted to the Bombay High Court.

Sympathisers and friends of the incarcerated doctor say the trial is the punishment being
meted out to him by the BJP government in Chhattisgarh. The state knows the charges
will not stick eventually but they will drag the doctor through the process in order to
make an example of him and put fear in the minds of others who would dare critique their
methods and motives.

Opinion
The Idea Of Sedition
Those who protest most loudly their devotion to their country are the truly seditious; that
is, if anyone should be so foolish as to dwell on archaic offences...
Jeremy Seabrook

The disproportionate sentence passed on Dr Binayak Sen suggests India is waging war
against its own people. This should come as no surprise, for India is in the paradoxical
position of pursuing colonial policies without any colonies. This means that unusual
pressure is placed upon its periphery, its outlying ‗hinterland‘, which must be seized for
the treasures it contains, to feed, not the poor, but the voracious growth of the economy.

The idea of sedition has, of course, strong colonial associations. Sedition, in its modern
usage, first entered the English language during the Elizabethan period, towards the end
of the sixteenth century. (from Latin –se apart, ire to go) At that time, it was interpreted
as ‗inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority.‘

Sedition contained the notion, not only of illegal actions, but also of actions committed
by unauthorised people: that is to say, it was essentially a pre-democratic concept,
initiated by the lower orders, outlaws and riff-raff, unruly elements who had no stake in
society. Laws against sedition were widely used in Britain when the franchise remained
limited, particularly in the aftermath of the French Revolution, the more so since this
coincided with the disruptions of early industrialism in Britain. Governments lived in fear
of the mob, and its insurrectionist capacity. ‗Seditious libel‘ was used to stifle free
expression.

The last prosecution for sedition in Britain took place in 1972, in a case in which the
accused were charged with inciting people to travel to Northern Ireland to fight for the
Republican cause. The case was dropped. The crimes of ‗sedition‘ and ‗seditious libel‘
gradually withered away, and these outworn acts were repealed in Britain last year.

It is regrettable, but perhaps only to be expected, that such grand-sounding offences as
sedition should have found a comfortable resting-place in India, where so many colonial
echoes lead a sinister after-life, waiting to be invoked against dissenting voices and those
who question the wisdom and integrity of an India, certified to have ‗emerged‘ by none
less than the President of the United States. The original British law on sedition stands,
despite subsequent modification, as Section 124A of the Penal Code. ‗Whoever, by
words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise,
brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excited or attempts to excite
disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, to which fines may be added, or with imprisonment which may
extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.‘

That Dr Binayak Sen should have been subject to such immoderate punishment, when his
calling is the relief of suffering among the most dispossessed, hints at the insecurity of
those who know how fragile the trumpeted economic success of India is, how
promiscuously distributed its rewards, and how estranged large segments of the
population remain from the international hyperbole.

In many ways, the India of today bears a strong resemblance to the condition of Britain in
the early nineteenth century, when the rising imperial power, whose reputation abroad
struck awe into lesser peoples, had, at home, set in movement great rural-urban
migrations, evicting people in large numbers from settled ways of life and sending them
to fetid city slums, there to make their own accommodation with the forces of capital. At
that time, too, Britain had seen the growth of an assertive middle class, which also
demanded its place in the sun. So India today is represented, not by its excluded and
impoverished majority, but by the showy lifestyle of a middle class which fills the malls
and hypermarkets of the cities, seeking the meaning of life in a technology of its own
creation. And beneath the hymns of praise to commodities, the voice of the dispossessed
has been stilled, as the unemployed noiselessly sweep the fallen bougainvillea blossoms
from the terrace, self-effacingly serve whisky and cocktails, silently swab marble floors,
quietly open doors and unsmilingly sit behind the wheel of cars, conveying their betters
to the superior destinations of power.

It would be astonishing if there were not convergences between the old imperial power
and its legatee in the modern world. For like all rising powers, the territory it occupies is
never sufficient for its own perceived needs. India now occupies its border spaces in
much the same way that Britain once governed its own outer fringes – clearing the
Highlands of Scotland of people for the sake of more profitable sheep, enclosing common
land for private use, plundering Wales of its coal and tearing up the valleys that were
exhausted of their riches in a mere two or three generations, doing nothing to mitigate
hunger in Ireland, because this might interfere with the sacred laws of the free market. It
should be noted that colonialism began at home; and nothing Britain practised in its
global empire had not already been tried and tested in the British Isles; a story India
seems only too ready to emulate.

So it is that India, that booming later miracle of the 21st century, constantly revisits is
own past, seeking inspiration in the way it was treated by its former masters, in order to
deal with its own contemporary recalcitrants and dissidents. Beset by the consequences of
injustice to its minorities, its indigenous peoples, to victims of development sheltering in
city slums, to the unfortunates of Kashmir, who occupy one of the most highly military
pieces of real estate on earth, it is bound to have recourse to the blunt legal instruments
bequeathed to it, directly and indirectly by its sometime rulers.

Hence the offence of sedition, a gift, if not of the gods, at least of imperialists who
behaved like gods. How satisfying to still the tongues and the pens of those who persist in
bringing to public attention disquieting truths.

The real offence of Dr Sen, like that of others threatened with charges of sedition,
Arundhati Roy or SAS Geelani, has little to do with ‗sedition.‘ They have disturbed the
self-flattering image with which India has been beguiled by foreign leaders to their
shores, people seeking markets, kickbacks, loot, easy pickings, cheap labour or any other
advantages to be had from those ready to sell anything to the highest bidder. It is a great
pity that government should have believed the blandishments of all the new East India
Companies, which have come in such smart modern garb, sharp suits and battalions of
security personnel with dark eyeshades and fast guns, bringing the more advanced
trinkets of the hour, to cozen the people of India out of whatever they can be persuaded to
part with.

Sen, Roy or Geelani are not the true anti-nationals. The true betrayers of India are those
who act in the name of patriotism and pride of the waking giant, the power-house of
tomorrow, the new arrival at the top table. Those who protest most loudly their devotion
to their country are the truly seditious; that is, if anyone should be so foolish as to dwell
on archaic offences, rather than addressing the epic inequalities which divide the people
of India.

Opinion
Dr Binayak Sen & Two Others Vs The State
The prosecution and the court had adopted a narrowly legalistic approach to the case
without seeing it in the broader context of the benign personality of Dr Sen.
B. Raman

To be read in continuation of my article of October 26, 2010, Arundhati Roy Vs The
State

Dr Binayak Sen, a paediatrician who is the Vice-President of the People's Union of Civil
Liberties (PUCL), an alleged Naxal ideologue Narayan Sanyal and a Kolkata
businessman Piyush Guha were sentenced to life imprisonment on December 24, 2010,
after having been found guilty by Shri B.P.Verma, a sessions judge of Raipur in the State
of Chattisgarh, of the charge of sedition by colluding with Maoists to establish a network
to fight the state. Dr Sen had been accused by the police of acting as a courier for Sanyal,
who was in jail, by carrying his messages and letters to the underground Maoists.

The Hindu of December 27 has reported the following police version based on the
testimony of a witness by name Anil Kumar Singh: "Anil Kumar Singh claimed that on
May 6, 2007, he saw Town Inspector B.S. Jagrit detain Mr Guha near the Raipur railway
station. According to Mr Singh's court testimony, the police searched Mr Guha's black
and blue shoulder bag and found pamphlets supporting the banned Communist Party of
India (Maoist), a mobile phone, a rail ticket dated May 6, 2007, Rs. 40,000 in cash and
three letters which, Mr Guha said, were written by the jailed Narayan Sanyal, an alleged
Maoist, and handed over to him by physician and human rights activist Binayak Sen."

The judge found the statements of Inspector Jagrit regarding the circumstances under
which Guha was arrested and Anil Kumar Singh regarding what he saw and heard on
May 6, 2007, credible enough to sentence Binayak Sen, Sanyal and Guha to life
imprisonment for supporting the CPI (Maoist) and conspiring to commit sedition. The
"Hindu" has reported as follows: " Despite holding Mr Guha in prison for nearly four
years and producing 97 witnesses, the Chattisgarh Police have been unable to explain
how Mr Guha was arrested, how he got hold of the letters written by Mr Sanyal and how
they relied on Mr Anil Singh's testimony that he heard Mr Guha tell the police that Dr
Sen gave him the letters."

Expressing shock over the awarding of the life sentence to Binayak Sen on charges of
sedition, over 80 intellectuals including Noam Chomsky demanded on December 27 that
his appeal be heard 'expeditiously' with 'enlightened reason' and sought his immediate
release on bail. They claimed that Sen never resorted to violence or incited anyone else to
do so. On the contrary, according to them, as a doctor and a human rights activist, he
stood up in defence of the rights of the downtrodden."Yet he has been handed down this
sentence whose savagery is unbelievable. Such an action on the part of the State in the
name of preserving the Constitutional order will only serve to undermine that
Constitutional order itself. It will inevitably raise the thought in the minds of many that
an order within which the activities of a person like Dr Sen can be held to be seditious is
not worth defending."

Dr Sen's supporters have started an online campaign for his release by posting a petition
on the Internet. It alleges: "The charges against Dr Sen, of allegedly aiding outlawed
Maoist rebels in Chhattisgarh, have not been corroborated by any of the witnesses or
evidence produced in court so far. On the contrary, there have been numerous instances
of the prosecution resorting to the use of fabricated documents and contradictory
testimonies to press its case."

The conviction and sentencing of Dr Sen and two others have been questioned by the
critics on grounds of the reliability of the facts as adduced before the court and the
interpretation of the laws relating to sedition. The police version regarding the date of the
arrest of Guha and the circumstances under which he was arrested has been questioned. It
has been alleged that he was already in the informal custody of the police for five days
before the police officially showed his arrest. There is apparently no independent
corroboration of Guha's statements that the documents allegedly written by Sanyal had
been brought out of jail by Sen after one of his meetings with Sanyal and handed over to
Guha. The conviction of Sen seems to have been based largely on the uncorroborated
testimony of Anil Kumar Singh who claims to have heard Guha tell the police that Sen
gave him the letters from Sanyal.
The awarding of the extreme penalty of life sentence on the basis of an independently
uncorroborated testimony of a single witness has shocked the critics of the judgement.
Questions have also been raised regarding the interpretation of the laws relating to
sedition. To prove a charge of sedition, it is necessary to show that Sen--even if he had
received the letters from Sanyal as alleged by the police-- had intended to cause
disaffection against the State and promote acts of violence.

Certain mitigating circumstances should have been taken into consideration while
awarding the punishment. Among such circumstances, one could mention, firstly, the
benign personality of Dr Sen as a human rights activist and as a humanitarian medical
worker; secondly, the fact that he had not come to notice in the past for indulging in or
advocating acts of violence; and, thirdly, the fact that the prosecution case was largely
based on circumstantial evidence as narrated by the police without credible corroboration.
In many terrorism-related cases in other countries, it has been held that convictions can
be awarded purely on the basis of circumstantial evidence provided there was a
continuous chain of such evidence. In the case of Sen, a continuous chain would mean
evidence to connect his visit to the jail to meet Sanyal, his receiving the letters, his
smuggling them out and handing them over to Guha. The only facts in the chain which
the police has apparently been able to establish are that the letters were recovered from
the possession of Guha who stated that he got them from Sen.

A careful identification of the missing links in the chain and an examination of the
evidence regarding the benign personality of Sen might have led to the mitigating
circumstances being given greater weight than they apparently were. One would find it
difficult to avoid the conclusion that the prosecution and the court had adopted a
narrowly legalistic approach to the case without seeing it in the broader context of the
benign personality of Sen. Available reports indicate that he might be a peripheral
sympathiser of the Maoists, but he definitely was a not a hard-core Maoist.

It has been reported that one of the reasons the Judge awarded the extreme penalty of life
sentence is the fact that the Maoists in the area have been indulging in savage acts of
violence directed against the security forces and innocent civilians. This fact could have
been a valid ground for awarding a deterrent punishment to those involved in acts of
violence when they are arrested and prosecuted, but not to those like Sen who had no
previous proven history of indulging in or advocating violence.

Our counter-insurgency operations against the Maoists should be more nuanced than they
are at present--marked by strong action against those in the hard core indulging in or
advocating violence and a more sympathetic approach to those like Sen, who do not
belong to the hard core and do not advocate violence. By treating both as no different
from each other who deserve deterrent punishment, we will be driving more people who
are now merely in the periphery into the arms of the hard core. The police should not
unwittingly become a source of aggravation of the problem.
B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi,
and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai

Outrage
Critiquing The Binayak Sen Judgement
A quick analysis of the facts of the case and the judgement convicting Binayak Sen,
Pijush Guha and Narayan Sanyal for rigorous life imprisonment
Ilina Sen , Sudha Bharadwaj , Kavita Srivastava

As you are aware the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge of Raipur Sh. B. P.
Verma convicted Binayak Sen, Pijush Guha and Narayan Sanyal for rigorous life
imprisonment on the 24 December, 2010. A ninety two page judgement was delivered by
Judge BP Verma on 24 December, 2010. What follows is a quick analysis of the facts of
the case and the judgement that has finally been delivered.

Important Dates of the case

The FIR was lodged on the 6th of May, 2007, when Pijush Guha‘s arrest was shown. Dr.
Sen was arrested on the 14th May, 2007 from Bilaspur and Narayan Sanyal was only
made an accused in July 2007, who was already an under trial detained in the Bilaspur
Jail in another case. The Charge sheet was filed in August, 2007. The charges were
framed on 27th December, 2007 and subsequently the trial began. The trial lasted for two
years where 97prosecution witnesses and 12 defence witnesses deposed. Many of the
prosecution witnesses were policemen. Three judges presided over the two year trial.
They were Judge Saluja, Judge Ganpat Rao and finally Judge B P Verma (a judge
awaiting confirmation in the lower judiciary). The judgement would have taken longer
had it not been for the Supreme Court, which on a bail application filed by Pijush Guha
ordered in October, 2010 that the trial be completed in three months.

The Analysis of the Judgement

The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur B.P. Verma has sentenced human rights
defender Dr. Binayak Sen, Kolkata businessman Pijush Guha and Maoist ideologue
Narayan Sanyal for rigorous life imprisonment and shorter prison terms, to run
concurrently under Sections 124A read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
Sections 8(1), 8(2), 8(3) and 8(5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam,
2005 (Chhattisgarh Special Public Safety Act) and Section 39(2) of the Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act, 1967. Narayan Sanyal has been additionally sentenced under
Section 20 of the UAPA Act, 1967. Briefly put Section 124A read with Section 120B of
IPC pertains to sedition and conspiracy for sedition; CSPSA, 2005 makes culpable
membership of, association with, and furthering the interests, financially or otherwise, of
organizations notified and banned under the Act as unlawful. UAPA, 1967 seeks to
penalize membership of a terrorist gang or association, holding proceeds of terrorism, or
support given to a terrorist organization.
To hold the three accused guilty under the above mentioned laws, the judgment had to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were either directly indulging in
seditious activities as individuals or as members of an organization, or conspiring to abet
and further seditious activities of individuals or organization. Also, the judgment was to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were either members of organizations
notified as unlawful under CSPSA or/ and UAPA, or conspiring to abet and further the
activities of such unlawful organizations. Judge Verma‘s verdict weaves a flawed legal
narrative trying to establish the aforementioned links.

Judge Verma‘s narrative hinges on the following points:

 Narayan Sanyal is a member of the highest decision making body, Politburo, of
CPI (Maoist) a seditious organization and notified as unlawful under the CSPSA
and UAPA. As a basis for this, the judgment cites the content of certain journals
purported to be organs of the CPI (Maoist) and certain cases lodged against him
for Maoist activities in the states of Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand. The above-
mentioned magazines have been reportedly seized from co-accused Pijush Guha
who has contended that they were planted on him by the police. The judge has
unquestioningly accepted the version of the police on the basis of the supposed
testimony of the seizure witness Anil Singh, ignoring the objections of Pijush
Guha and co-accused Binayak Sen to the effect that the seizure witness had
claimed to overhear a conversation between Guha and the police in a situation
where the police had Guha in their custody, and any statement made by Guha to
the police in a custodial situation is inadmissible as evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. It should not be forgotten that the seizure witness Anil Singh
did not accompany the police when they came to apprehend and search Guha, but
was supposedly a passerby, who was stopped by the police when Guha was
already in their custody. The judge has held Narayan Sanyal to be a member of
CPI (Maoist) on the basis of cases against him in other states in which he has not
yet been pronounced guilty.

 The central point around which the verdict‘s narrative is woven is the arrest and
seizure of certain articles, including the abovementioned journals and three letters
supposedly written by Narayan Sanyal to his party comrades, handed over to
Binayak Sen when he met Sanyal in jail, and then handed over by Sen to Pijush
Guha who was supposed to pass it on to Sanyal‘s party comrades. This
supposedly establishes a chain binding the three in a conspiratorial relationship.
According to this supposed conspiratorial chain, Narayan Sanyal is a leader of a
seditious organization also notified as unlawful and as such banned; Binayak Sen
conspires with Sanyal to pass on his letters to his party comrades through Guha,
thus both Sen and Guha assist in the activities of a seditious and unlawful
organization. In constructing this conspiratorial chain, the Judge has relied on
forensic evidence testifying that the letters were indeed written by Sanyal, but for
them being in possession of Pijush Guha, he has relied solely on the evidence of
police officers and seizure witness Anil Singh whose versions have been
contested by Guha but ignored by the Judge. Guha‘s statement before the
Magistrate which was recorded when he was produced on the 7th of May, 2007
says that he was arrested on 1.5.2007 from Mahindra Hotel, kept in illegal
custody blindfolded for six days and finally produced before a Magistrate only on
7.5.2007. The Judge has ignored even Guha‘s statement to this effect made before
the Magistrate as soon as he was produced. Judge Verma has said in his verdict
that Guha has failed to produce any evidence in favour of his statement, thereby
putting the onus of proof on the accused and not the prosecution, which is
bad in law. (Neither the CSPSA or UAPA (2004) puts the burden of proof on the
accused.

 The Judge has also ignored the contradiction between the police affidavit filed
before the Supreme Court while opposing the bail application of Binayak Sen and
the police version presented in the charge sheet filed in the sessions court. In the
Supreme Court the police said that Guha had been arrested from Mahindra Hotel
(which Guha has alleged in his testimony) but in the sessions court the police
have said that Guha was arrested from Station Road where the police supposedly
seized the aforementioned incriminating articles in the presence of seizure witness
Anil Singh. The police‘s flimsy argument, that the discrepancy was because of a
typographical error in the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, has been fully
accepted by Judge Verma. Actually, the police officer responsible should be tried
for either filing a false affidavit in the Apex Court, or lying in the Sessions court
under oath. Accepting Guha‘s testimony would have rendered the seizure
witness‘s statement implausible on which the Judge has centrally relied for his
narrative. This would have in turn resulted in a complete collapse of the case
against all the accused, especially so against Guha and Binayak Sen, against
whom there was no material evidence of either being a member of CPI (Maoist)
or being in conspiratorial relationship with Narayan Sanyal, the principal Maoist
character in Judge Verma‘s narrative.

 Once the central conspiratorial point and incident has been constructed in the
judicial narrative, conspiratorial linkages between the three accused and their
common causes and actions before the incident also needed to be established.
This has been attempted in Pijush Guha‘s case by a reference to his frequent visits
to Raipur and a case pending in district Purulia, West Bengal. Judge Verma has
ignored the fact that Guha was made an accused in the Purulia case after 6.5.2007,
the date on which he is said to have been arrested in Raipur. This fact strongly
generates a suspicion of afterthought by the police of the two states acting in
collusion. Judge Verma‘s verdict also naturally ignores the fact that Pijush Guha‘s
frequent visits are explained by his being a tendu leaf trader trading in the areas of
Chhattisgarh.

 Binayak Sen‘s supposed conspiratorial relationship with Narayan Sanyal and his
seditious Maoist causes is sought to be established by the following:

1. Testimony of the so called Landlord of Narayan Sanyal
Deepak Choubey‘ in his testimony stated that he accepted Narayan Sanyal as a tenant in
his house on the recommendation of Binayak Sen some time before Sanyal‘s arrest.

The Judge has ignored the fact that Deepak Choubey did not own the house but acted on
behalf of his brother in law. More crucially, the Judge set aside Sen‘s objection that
Choubey‘s assertion came in response to a leading question by the Public Prosecutor.
Judge Verma‘s verdict makes no reference to Sen‘s objections against this witness going
beyond his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., and the fact that the witness
admitted in cross examination that an earlier statement recorded by the police at the time
when allegedly a Maoist leader was arrested from his house was not brought on record.
This casts doubt as to the veracity of the statement made subsequently since the same
could be manipulated so as to suit the Prosecution story. Judge Verma rejected Sen‘s
contention that Choubey‘s statement was made under duress because the police
threatened to implicate him in context of the said arrest. It also does not take into account
the contradiction with the police‘s own version that Narayan Sanyal was arrested from
Bhadrachalam in Andhra Pradesh to which effect police officers of Andhra Pradesh have
testified.

2. Binayak Sen’s thirty three meetings in eighteen months with jailed Narayan
Sanyal.

The judge without giving any reason has ignored Sen‘s contention that he was merely
performing his duty as a human rights activist and a physician in addressing the legal and
health issues of an ailing undertrial prisoner on the request of the undertrial‘s family. The
Judge has not considered the documents exhibited by the defence showing that Sen had
permission from the Senior Superintendent of Police for his jail visits. Instead, Judge
Verma‘s verdict makes a convoluted argument by holding that Sanyal‘s sister-in-law‘s
(Bula Sanyal‘s) phone calls to Binayak Sen in this regard proved a conspiratorial
relationship between him and Narayan Sanyal, whereas Bula Sanyal is a housewife
absolutely unconnected with any kind of Maoist/ unlawful activity. Since the prosecution
failed to produce even a single jail official or any other eye witness testifying to any letter
or message, oral or written, being passed by Narayan Sanyal to Binayak Sen in their jail
meetings, the verdict makes much fuss about certain entries in jail registers referring to
Sen being Sanyal‘s relative, ignoring the defence contention that these entries were filled
in by the jail officials, and not by either the visited or visitor, as apparent from the face of
the record. On the contrary, all the applications Binayak Sen submitted to the jail
officials, requesting a meeting with Sanyal, were written on the letterhead of his
organization – PUCL (a Civil Liberties and Democratic Rights organization founded by
leading Sarvodaya leader Jayprakash Narayan). These visits were duly permitted by the
jail officials and transpired in their full view and hearing.

3. Binayak Sen’s relationship with the CPI (Maoists)

3.1 That Binayak Sen had a close relationship with CPI (Maoist) is sought to be
established by the unsubstantiated testimonies of police officials claiming that Sen and
his wife Ilina Sen had assisted alleged hard core Maoists Shankar Singh and Amita
Srivastava. Sen has not disputed that Shankar was employed by Rupantar – an NGO
founded by his wife Ilina. Nor has he disputed that he and Ilina knew Amita Srivastava
whom the latter, on the recommendation of a friend, had helped find a job in a school.
But the Judge has just accepted the police‘s word, without any other testimony or
material evidence whatsoever that Shankar and Amita were Maoists.

3.2 Judge Verma has also wrongly concluded, on the basis of hearsay by the police, that
one Malati employed by Rupantar was the same person as Shantipriya, also using the
alias Malati, a Maoist leader‘s wife convicted for 10 years in a case tried in another court
in Raipur. The judge has not even mentioned or verified the defence evidence put on
record that the Malati employed by Rupantar was actually Malati Jadhav, whose address
was provided by defence witness Prahlad Sahu.

3.3. Judge Verma‘s narrative seems to have a particular fondness for police hearsay as he
has blindly accepted, without any corroboration by another witness or any material
evidence, wild allegations made by police officials Vijay Thakur and Sher Singh Bande,
officer in charge of Konta and Chhuria police stations respectively that Binayak Sen, his
wife Ilina Sen and other PUCL members and human rights activists attended the
meetings of Maoists in their respective areas. These officials have gone well beyond
their Section 161 statements introducing documents not earlier annexed with the charge
sheet, and all defence objections in this regard were overruled by the Judge.

3.4 But a certain planted letter, exhibit A-37, takes the cake in Judge Verma‘s narrative.
This unsigned letter, supposedly written by the Central Committee of CPI (Maoist) to
Binayak Sen, was claimed by the police to have been seized from Sen‘s house when the
police ran a search there. But this letter finds no mention in the seizure list, neither has it
been signed by Sen nor the investigating officers nor the search witnesses as per proper
procedural requirement. The said letter was also not part of the copy of the charge sheet
received by Sen in the court. But the Judge has completely overlooked this obvious
planting of evidence, accepting the ridiculous explanation provided by investigating
officers BS Jagrit and BBS Rajput that the Article A-37 probably stuck to another article
(chipak gaya tha) and hence could not get signed by either Sen or the investigating
officer or search witnesses. It is no surprise that the judge has also ignored the very valid
testimonies of defence witnesses Amit Bannerji and Mahesh Mahobe in this context.

3.5 The verdict lets the cat of its ideological bias out of the bag , however, when it
accepts above the Supreme Court‘s wise judicial pronouncements which were brought on
record in the case by Sen, the testimony of a mere district collector KR Pisda in charge of
Dantewada district that Salwa Judum was a peaceful and spontaneous protest movement
of the tribals against the atrocities committed by the Maoists, and not a brutal and armed
vigilante operation sponsored by the state. Later in his judgment Judge Verma insinuates
that Binayak Sen‘s principled opposition as a human rights defender to such a non-legal,
repressive, brutal vigilante operation indulging in mayhem and violence put him in the
Maoist camp against whom the Salwa Judum was targeted.

Not taking into cognizance the evidence provided by the Defence
The statement made by Binayak Sen, the evidence that he brought on record as to his
work as a human rights activist, and the newspaper reports which were exhibited by the
defence carrying statements of the then DGP Police threatening to take human rights
activists to task, which reveal prima facie malice and motive have not been taken into
consideration by the Judge, who appears to have considered and relied only upon that
interpretation of the evidence that supported the prosecution case without a reasoned
consideration of the lacunae and contradictions therein, the objections of the defence and
the evidence adduced by Sen, or even the well settled legal principles on which the
defence rested its arguments.

Using the legal provision of sedition as a political instrument

While weaving a narrative of sedition against Binayak Sen and other accused in the case,
the Sessions court verdict violates a well laid judicial principle of the Supreme Court in
matters of sedition. In Kedarnath Singh Vs State of Bihar the Supreme Court has held that
the provision of sedition in the Indian Penal Code must be interpreted in a manner
consistent with the fundamental freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the
Indian Constitution. In this regard the Supreme Court held that the offence of sedition,
which is defined as spreading disaffection against the state, should be considered as
having been committed only if the said disaffection is a direct incitement to violence or
will lead to serious public disorder. No speech or deed milder than this should be
considered seditious. The Sessions court verdict in the case against Binayak Sen and
others fails to establish that the words or deeds of the accused were a direct incitement to
violence or would lead to serious public disorder. This would be the case even if it was
established beyond doubt that Binayak Sen had passed on Narayan Sanyal‘s letters to
Pijush Guha, or Pijush Guha was likely to pass on these letters to other members of the
CPI (Maoist), or that Narayan Sanyal was a politburo member of the CPI (Maoist).

Filed In:
Authors: Ilina Sen | Sudha Bharadwaj | Kavita Srivastava
People: Binayak Sen
Tags: Maoists/Naxals | Judiciary | Sedition
Section: National
Subsection: Opinion
Open Letter
Dear Professor Manmohan Singh
I hope you don‘t mind the temerity of this letter. It is written as one scholar to another,
one citizen to another...I was aghast to find that Doctor Binayak Sen has been given a life
term for sedition...
Shiv Visvanathan

Dear Professor Manmohan Singh,

I hope you don‘t mind the temerity of this letter. It is written as one scholar to another,
one citizen to another. I know you are a PM and people like me may not be influential.
However some things must be said and said clearly.
I was aghast to find that Doctor Binayak Sen has been given a life term for sedition. Let
me put it simply. I think it is an appalling act of injustice and a betrayal of an ethical
vision.

The point I wish to make is simple. We do not have to agree with Binayak Sen, anymore
than we have to agree with Mahaswta Devi or Arundhati Roy or Baba Amte. But these
have been voices of conscience. These are people who have care and healed, given a
voice to the voiceless. They represent the essential goodness of our society. They are
Indians and outstanding Indians and no nation state can negate that. I admit that such
people are not easy people. They irritate, they agonize over things we take for granted or
ignore. They take the ethical to the very core of our lives. Let us be clear. It is not Sen‘s
ideology that threatens us. It is his ethics, his sense of goodness. We have arrested him
because we have arrested that very sense of justice in ourselves.

Sen is a man with courage, a professional doctor with the conviction that healing has to
go beyond medicine, that the body cannot heal when the body politics is ill. He is a
reminder that health, politics and ethics go together. Another man who said it but a bit
differently was Mohan Das Gandhi.

Sen is a reminder of the deeper travails of our society. We hate the poor for their poverty.
Worse, we hate those who fight for the poor. Somehow it has become fashion to
condemn human rights, to treat activists as fifth columnist, to regard them as fronts for
terrorists groups.

A human rights activist has the courage to point out the humus of terror is injustice.
Oddly and predictably people who fight injustice are condemned as terrorists. A human
rights activist often has to defend a man he disagrees with, keeping both the activist and
the disagreement alive.

The sadness of our state is that its categories have become numb and lifeless. Categories
like the nation state, the idea of security, our sense of territoriality lack a recognition of
generosity, the courage, the challenge to categories that dissenters make. Yet the risk the
dissenter takes is preferable to the silence that exonerates violence torture, injustice or
genocide. Mr.Binayak Sen should be in your cabinet Mr.Singh, or a member of your
development councils, not in jail. A life giving career cannot be met with a life sentence.
Think of your own angst and silent suffering after 1984. You are an honest man, a
sensitive man and a gentle man. Think of the slow indifference to justice then.

The word Naxal or Maoist sins less than it is sinned against. It is a term that black-boxes
a variety of reactions to violence and injustice. Some of them seek to meet violence with
violence, some seek to engage with the roots of violence. Others sympathise quietly with
victims of injustice. When was empathy a crime? It is a strange world where to call a man
a naxal sympathizer condemns him as much as the Naxal activist. The word Naxals is
also applied to tribals who fight for justice or the activists who fight along with the
tribals. To condemn all is to condemn a large part of India. If fighting for justice or caring
for an old man is sedition, then the seditious need a param vir chakra, as warriors against
injustice, not a life sentence. To punish Sen is not just bad law, it is an act of cowardice.
It is odd that it is Sen who believes in the law at the very moment the law condemns him.
Both radicalism and the rule of law are human creations and both demand critical
scrutiny. It is time for a conversation. A society where those who fight for decency are
attacked cannot be a decent society. You are a decent man and a thinker. All I ask is that
you think about the case of Binayak Sen. Invite him for tea listen to him. It will not
tarnish you or the rule of law. It might show you the yawning gap between law and
justice.

Think of it, Mr.Prime Minister that ours is a society that spends more on defending the
Raja, Radia and Kalmadi than Binayak Sen. The law works for the first three who corrupt
the core of our system but fails for Binayak Sen who upholds some of its finest values.
Tell me Mr.Singh how long can a society remain sane without confronting such ironies?

Let me frame it in a different way. Today‘s sedition might be tomorrow‘s axiomatics. We
often define as sedition what we can‘t understand or can‘t stand. It challenges our sense
of security, the security of categories. It might be easier to understand Sen‘s work within
a framework, a spectrum of thought.

Begin with the Arjun Sengupta report on the informal Economy. It shows how we have
sinned against the life world of hawkers, traders, scavengers, trades which constitute 70%
of our economy. Then think of Jairam Ramesh claiming forests are not as renewable as
we think and that tribes and forests have a connectivity that we must understand. That
shakes up the naïve theory of growth. Then think of Mahasweta showing how tribes have
been converted to bonded labour, how mining has corroded our country. Then place
Binayak Sen in that spectrum as a doctor and a human rights activist. It is the Chattisgarh
bureaucracy that sounds tyrannical and unreasonable. One realizes sedition has become a
stick to beat down dissent or to even erase concern for the downtrodden.

To impose a life sentence on Sen is to freeze our own lives of possibility. It is time not
just to release Binayak Sen but to honour him and the ideals he worked for. Our
democracy for all its bumbling can still rise to the occasion

Shiv Viswanathan

Circulated by Communalism Combat

For The Record
Final Statement
'I submit that my prosecution is malafide; in fact it is a persecution. I am being made an
example of by the state government of Chhattisgarh as a warning to others'
Binayak Sen I am a trained medical doctor with a specialization in child health. I
completed my MBBS from the Christian Medical College, Vellore in 1972, and
completed studies leading to the award of the degree of MD (Paediatrics) of the Madras
University, from the same institution in 1976. After this, I joined the faculty of the Centre
for Social Medicine and Community Health at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New
Delhi and worked there for two years, before leaving to join a field based health
programme at the Friends Rural Centre, Rasulia in Hoshangabad, MP. During the two
years I worked there, I worked intensively in the diagnosis and treatment of Tuberculosis
and understood many of the social and economic causes of disease. I was also strongly
influenced by the work of Marjorie Sykes, the biographer of Mahatma Gandhi, who lived
at the Rasulia centre at that time.

I came to Chhattisgarh in 1981 and worked upto 1987 at Dalli Rajhara (district Durg),
where, along with the late Shri Shankar Guha Niyogi and the workers of the Chhattisgarh
Mines Shramik Sangh, I helped to establish the Shaheed Hospital, that continues to
practice low cost and rational medicine for the adivasis and working people of the
surrounding areas upto the present. After leaving Dalli Rajhara, I worked to develop a
health programme among the Adivasi population in and around village Bagrumnala,
which today is in Dhamtari district. This work depended on a large group of village based
health workers who were trained and guided by me. When the new state of Chhattisgarh
was formed, I was appointed a member of the advisory group on Health Care Sector
reforms, and helped to develop the Mitanin programme, which in turn, became the role
model for the ASHA of the National Rural Health Mission. A copy of the Order of the
Department of Health and Family Welfare of the Govt. of Chhattisgarh regarding my
nomination to the advisory group mentioned above is attached. (Annexure 1.)

My work in the area of community health, as well as my work on Human Rights which is
detailed below, has been nationally and internationally recognized. I have been awarded
the Paul Harrison Award by the CMC Vellore in 2004; the RR Keithan Gold medal by
the Indian Academy of Social Sciences in 2007; and have received the Jonathan Mann
award for Health and Human rights from the Global Health Council in 2008. I am
attaching notarized copies of the citations of these awards with this statement, and am
carrying the originals for the perusal of the court. (Annexures 2, 3, 4 and 5)

I have been a member of the Peoples‘ Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) since 1981. The
PUCL is an organization devoted to the preservation of constitutional civil liberties and
human rights that was founded by the late Shri Jayprakash Narayan during the years of
the Emergency. In Chhattisgarh, as well as in many other parts of the country, the PUCL
led the campaign for the preservation of the freedom of speech, prevention of custodial
violence, and for the public accountability of the police. I became General Secretary of
the Chhattisgarh unit of the PUCL in 2004, and am currently the President of the State
unit, and Vice President of its National body.

In Chhattisgarh, the PUCL has been in the forefront of exposing the atrocities of the
police. Atrocities by men in uniform against vulnerable sections continue to be a serious
problem in the state, as the front page news item in the ―Sunday Times‖ dated 12th
September 2010, annexed hereto as Annexure 6 shows. In this situation PUCL‘s efforts
were always directed towards the establishment of good governance and constitutional
values. PUCL findings and investigations were always made available in the public
domain through press releases and its own publications. One such Press Release reporting
investigation into police atrocities in Village Jiramtarai, Thana Koylibeda is annexed
hereto as Annexure 7. The report of one such investigation pertaining to police atrocities
in Katgaon (Kanker district) was published in the ―Navbharat‖ and ―Deshbandhu‖
newspapers which are annexed hereto as Annexure 8 and 9 respectively. A PUCL
publication on the State of Human Rights in Chhattisgarh is appended to this statement.
(Annexure 10). In this connection PUCL regularly corresponded with the National and
State Human Rights Commissions. Copies of some of the letters sent to the PUCL by the
National Human Rights Commission (collectively) and the State Human Rights
Commission are attached to this statement. (Annexure 11 and 12)

Apart from investigating and documenting many cases of Human Rights abuse involving
the police, the PUCL has acted as a whistleblower in the matter of exposing the true
nature of the Salwa Judum. The Salwa Judum, which began in the Dantewada district in
2005, has been represented by the state government as a spontaneous peoples‘ movement
against the Maoists active in the area. However, an investigation led by the PUCL and
involving several other Human Rights organizations revealed that it was in reality a state
sponsored and state funded as well as completely unaccountable vigilante force, to which
arms were provided by the government. The activities of the Salwa Judum have led to the
emptying of more than 600 villages, and the forced displacement of over 60,000 people.
Concerns regarding the activities of the Salwa Judum have been expressed by several
independent organizations including the National Human Rights Commission.
International organizations like the UNICEF have also voiced serious concern and have
invited me to dialogue with them about the restoration of normalcy in the region affected
by Salwa Judum. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court has also, on several occasions, expressed
its grave concern over the activities of the Salwa Judum and the deployment of armed
vigilantes for the promotion of state policy. This has been widely reported in the press. A
Table with an indicative list of agencies that have made critical observations on the Salwa
Judum is attached (Annexure 13). A copy of the report on the Salwa Judum by the
Chhattisgarh PUCL and other organizations (Annexure 14), and copies of the
investigation reports on the Salwa Judum brought out by the Independent Citizens
Initiative and Asian Centre for Human Rights are being filed along with this statement
(Annexure 15 and 16 respectively). An invitation from the UNICEF, Chhattisgarh
Regional Office to participate in a dialogue to seek a resolution to the crisis in Dantewada
as a fallout of the Salwa Judum is similarly attached to my statement (Annexure 17).Press
reports in the Hitavada, dated 23.10.2010 pertaining to the Hon. Supreme Court‘s critical
observations are attached (Annexure no 29), as are Certified copies of Supreme Court
orders that make critical observations on the Salwa Judum are also being attached
(Annexure 18)

The PUCL has also, during 2006, organized two major conventions, opposing the
proposal to enact the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, because it has been, and
continues to be, our view that this Act contravenes the civil liberties assured to us in the
constitution. I have expressed these views in the Press as well, and am attaching with this
submission a copy of newspaper carrying a press report of such a convention (Annexure
19), as well as a copy of the newspaper ―Chhattisgarh‖ dated 30th March 2006 in which
my interview appears in this regard. (Annexure 20) A Civil Writ Petition (Writ Petition
No 2163/2009) challenging the vires of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act has
been filed by the PUCL in the Chhattisgarh High Court. Certified copies of the Court
orders admitting this petition and issuing notice are being filed along with this statement
(Annexure 21).

For all the reasons mentioned above, the Chhattisgarh police and the state government
have harboured a grudge against me, and the then DGP of Chhattisgarh, Mr OP Rathore,
has gone on record threatening to take action against the PUCL and its office bearers.
Copies of a newspaper of 3rd January 2006 carrying a report to this effect are attached to
my statement. (Annexure 22) I have been concerned with the rights of prisoners in my
capacity as a Human Rights worker and was approached by the family of Mr Narayan
Sanyal to look after his health and well being after he was brought to Raipur jail in 2006.
My first visit to him in jail was in the company of his family and lawyer. Subsequently, I
obtained permission from the police authorities for visiting him in jail, and visited him
several times, each time applying to do so in my capacity as a PUCL office bearer. After
my visits, I informed his family members about his condition over the telephone. During
the course of these visits, it was brought to my notice that the surgery on his hands that
was necessary for medical purposes, was being delayed due to communication problems
between the jail and the doctors in the Raipur Medical College. I played a role in
facilitating his surgery and kept his family informed about the process. During this period
there was considerable correspondence between the prisoner‘s family, jail administration
and medical authorities, of which copies were marked to me. I attach along with this
statement copies of the letter written by Mr Radha Madhav Sanyal (brother of Narayan
Sanyal) to the Jail Superintendent with a copy to me (Annexure 23); copies of my
applications to visit Mr Narayan Sanyal in jail which were obtained through an
application under the RTI (Annexure 24); copy of the written permission given to me by
Shri BS Maravi, Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur (Annexure 25) and copies of the
correspondence from the Jail authorities to the medical doctors mentioned above with
copies marked to me (Annexure 26).

It was with similar concern for the situation of prisoners that I acted upon the letter
received in the post from one Madanlal Barkhade about prison conditions in the Raipur
Central Jail. I released his letter to the press in Raipur and attach the newspaper in which
the aforesaid letter was published. (Annexure 27)

The documents seized from my house during the house search on 19.5.2007 were those
of concern to me in the ordinary and transparent conduct of my work. Human rights
organizations from all over the country used to send me books, pamphlets and
documents, and there were thousands of these lying in my residence, which I also used as
my office. None of the seized documents had been secretly or clandestinely obtained.
Document No. A 19 was sent to me by post by Shri Govindan Kutty, Editor, Peoples‘
March. Document no A 20, purported to be written by Madanlal Barkhade was similarly
received by me in the regular post. The document A 21 was sent to me by Dr Kalpana
Kannabiran, one of the authors of the article, then Professor at the National Law School
Hyderabad, by e-mail. Article A 22, photocopy of a hand written document, and Articles
A 23 and A 36 were available for distribution at a seminar on the Salwa Judum organized
by the Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution, Jamia Milia Islamia,
New Delhi in January, 2007, to which I was invited , and were picked up by me there.
Article A 24 was received by me in the post. Newspaper clippings A 25 to A 35 are
newspaper clippings that I had maintained in furtherance of my interest in the emerging
situation in Chhattisgarh.

Several policemen in the search party were involved in the process of the search at my
house. Having found a document, the person finding it would hand it over to Mr Rajput.
Mr Rajput would first read it, and then hand it over to me for my signature. He would
also sign it himself. After we had both put our signatures on the document, he would
dictate to TI Jagrit what was to be written in the seizure memo. Mr Jagrit would then
make the entry, following which Mr Rajput would then hand over the document to Mr
Jagrit. In this manner, each document was seized, signed, and entered in the seizure
memo. None of the documents were signed by the public witnesses in my presence. Nor
were the documents sealed in my presence. At the end of the search process the
documents were carried away in a paper bag in an unsealed condition. Document A37
was never received by me to sign. It was not in my office, and was not seized during the
search. It was fabricated after the search by the police to implicate me falsely. When the
challan in my case was filed, my advocate, Mr Amit Banerjee was present in court and
received the chargesheet on my behalf. A copy of the chargesheet is annexed hereto as
Annexure 28. Upon going through the charegesheet, we noticed that in the copies of
articles A 19 to A 24, the signatures of the panch witnesses were not present in the
documents. Copies of articles A 25 to A 37 were not supplied to us at the time. Despite a
court order, the contents of the computer were copied onto DVDs without the presence of
my advocate, and only DVDs of selected material from the computer were supplied later
during the course of the trial. Out of the DVDs supplied, three relate to investigation of
police atrocities / fake encounters in Golapally, Jiramtarai and Katgaon. My images on
these tapes are in conversation with the villagers who are affected by these atrocities.

I have never seen Deepak Chaubey (PW7) until the time he testified in the court. I did not
introduce Narayan Sanyal to him and his story that Narayan Sanyal was arrested from his
house is patently untrue as, in fact, Sanyal was arrested in Bhadrachalam.

I submit that my prosecution is malafide; in fact it is a persecution. I am being made an
example of by the state government of Chhattisgarh as a warning to others not to expose
the patent trampling of human rights taking place in the state. Documents have been
fabricated by the police and false witnesses introduced in order to falsely implicate me.

Binayak Sen
List of Defence Documents filed along with Binayak’s statement and defence
witnesses (Annexures)

1. A copy of the Order of the Department of Health and Family Welfare of the Govt.
of Chhattisgarh regarding nomination to the advisory group.
2. Award Certificate of the Paul Harrison Award.
3. Notarized Copy of the Citation for the Paul Harrison Award
4. Citation of the RR Keithan Award.
5. Press Release regarding grant of the Jonathan Mann Award for Health and Human
Rights by the Global Health Council.
6. Newspaper ―Sunday Times‖ dated 12th September 2010 containing front page
news item regarding torture of adivasi villagers by the BSF.
7. Press Release of PUCL investigation into police atrocities in Village Jirmtarai.
8. Navbharat newspaper dated 13th June 2005 containing report on Page 13
regarding police atrocities on villagers at Katgaon.
9. Deshbandhu newspaper dated 13th June 2005 containing report on Page 13
regarding police atrocities on villagers at Katgaon.
10. PUCL publication on State of Human Rights in Chhattisgarh.
11. Correspondence made with the PUCL by the National Human Rights
Commission.
12. Correspondence made with the PUCL by the State Human Rights Commission.
13. Table listing critical observations on Salwa Judum by various agencies including
Agencies of the Govt of India.
14. ―When The State makes War on its own People‖: Report on Salwa Judum‖ by
PUCL Chhattisgarh and other Human Rights organizations.
15. War in the Heart of India: Enquiry into the ground situation in Dantewada district,
Chhattisgarh. By Independent Citizens‘ Initiative.
16. ―Adivasis of Chhattisgarh: victims of Naxalite movement and the Salwa Judum
campaign.‖ Report by the Asian Centre for Human Rights.
17. Invitation from UNICEF to participate in a dialogue seeking resolution of the
crisis in
18. Dantewada as a result of the Salwa Judum.
19. Certified copies of Interim Orders and observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme
Court of India in the PIL challenging the activities of the Salwa Judum.
20. Navbharat Newspaper dated 25th June 2006 on page 18 of which there is a report
regarding Convention of the PUCL on the Chhattisgarh Special Security Act.
21. ―Chhattisgarh‖ Newspaper dated 30th March 2006 on Page 8 of which there is an
interview of Dr Binayak Sen regarding the Chhattisgarh Special Security Act.
22. Certified copies of orders of the Chhattisgarh High Court admitting and issuing
notice in the Writ Petition no 2163/2009 filed by PUCL challenging the vires of
the CG Special Public Security Act.
23. Navbharat newspaper dated 3rd January 2006 on page 18 of which there is a
statement of DGP Shri OP Rathore reporting intention to move against PUCL.
24. Copy of letter from Shri Radhamadhav Sanyal to the Jail Supdt, with copy
marked to Dr Binayak Sen.
25. Copies of applications of Dr Binayak Sen to visit Shri Narayan Sanyal in jail
along with RTI application for obtaining these.
26. Copy of permission letter allowing visits to Narayan Sanyal from Shri BS Maravi,
SSP, Raipur.
27. Correspondence from jail authorities to doctors treating Narayan Sanyal, with
copies marked to Dr Binayak Sen.
28. Newspaper Daily Chhattisgarh dtd 16.2.07 on page 6 of which letter of prisoner
Madanlal Barkhade and issues mentioned by him are reported, attributing source
of letter to Dr Binayak Sen.
29. Copy of chargesheet supplied to the accused. (docs 1-28 filed along with BS
statement) The ‗Hitavada‖ dated 23.10.2010 REPORT ENTITLED ―Supreme
Court unhappy with Salwa Judum‖ on page no 3.
30. Haribhumi dtd 3. 01.2006 which there is a statement of DGP Shri OP Rathore
reporting intention to move against PUCL.
31. Deshbandhu dtd 31.12.2005 in the supplement (Capital Zone) of which there is a
news item about the arrest of an un named Maoist leader from Raipur Videos 1,2,
3,4, of House search of Binayak Sen (docs 29-32 filed on 2.11.2010)
32. Letter from Superintendent, Central Jail enclosing Jail appeal for the Supreme
court of one Laxmandas Manikpuri with copy marked to to PUCL Secretary dtd
25.04.07. (filed on 30.11.2010)
33. ―Know PUCL‖ incorporating PUCL information and constitution(filed through
Shri Prabhakar Sinha< National President PUCL on 26.11.2010)
34. Audited accounts for Rupantar Trust (filed through Prahlad Sahu on 26.11.2010)
35. Rupantar Trust Deed

Outrage
A Miscarriage Of Justice
'It is a sad day for the PUCL and all human rights defenders in the country and a black
day for the Indian Judiciary'
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)

The People's Union for Civil Liberties is deeply disappointed at the miscarriage of justice
reflected in the judgement of Raipur Additional District and Sessions Judge B. P Verma
sentencing our National Vice President Dr. Binayak Sen to life imprisonment under
charges of sedition 124 (A) of the IPC read with conspiracy (120-B IPC) along with
convicting him concurrently u/s 8-(1), (2), (3) and (5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan
Suraksha Adhiniyam,2005 (Chhattisgarh Special Public Safety Act, 2005) and u/sec 39
(2) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 2004 (amended). It is a sad day for the
PUCL and all human rights defenders in the country and a black day for the Indian
Judiciary

Dr. Binayak Sen was charged with being a courier of letters from co-accused Narayan
Sanyal to Piyush Guha. All through the trial not a single Jail authority appearing as
prosecution witness confirmed this. In fact, there was no substantive evidence to confirm
any of the allegations of the prosecution.
The PUCL holds that Dr Binayak Sen is a victim of the vendetta of the Chhattisgarh
government for his bold and principled opposition to state sponsored vigilante operation
Salwa Judum, which has been held unacceptable even by the Supreme Court. His
conviction is one more example of the state succeeding in securing the conviction of an
innocent person on the basis of false evidence. It is an occasion for the nation to demand
drastic reform of the criminal justice system to ensure that it is not manipulated by the
state to persecute, prosecute and victimize innocent persons.

The PUCL will continue to work towards Dr. Binayak Sen release and take all legal
measures in this regard. It will also work towards building public opinion against the
ongoing persecution of activists and Human Rights Defenders in the country.

Prabhakar Sinha ( President)
Pushkar Raj ( General Secretary)
Mahipal Singh ( National Secretary)
Kavita Srivastava ( National Secretary)