Address by the National President in the PUCL National Council Meeting held in Delhi 18-19 January 2025
By Kavita Srivastava
We find ourselves standing at crossroads in the year 2025. There are some gains and several losses. The biggest gain at the international level is that the Palestinians are inching towards the ceasefire after a 14 month Israeli war against them. A big downside is that liberal values which are already under threat will suffer another blow with the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States. In today’s neo liberal globalized world, even an organisation like the PUCL which works more in the context of India with Indian laws and humanitarian principles, cannot say that Palestine and the Trump Presidency will not affect us. The attack on liberal and humanitarian principles anywhere whether through increasing corporatisation of business, food & natural resources, trade of arms or surveillance technology, will affect the people all over the globe. Therefore this context must not be forgotten when addressing civil liberties and democratic rights in India.
What have the last two years meant for our country and the PUCL and where do we go from here. What does it mean for the PUCL as an organisation? These are some questions that we need to ask ourselves.
1.The UAPA cases in the Bhima Koregaon matter to present day killings in Bastar: Human rights implications of Government policy of eradicating and flushing out Maoists and Maoism from India
Let us begin with the case of Bhima Koregaon, 2018, where some of the finest dissenters, (sixteen in all) including writers, lawyers, cultural artists, Dalit rights activists, trade-unionists, those working with the issues related to the human rights of Adivasis were arrested. This 100 % false case, has already taken the life of one person, Father Stan Swamy, who died in judicial custody. Of the 16 arrestees, 9 have been granted bail. For some it has taken 6 years 6 months to get bail. The Indian Courts well established jurisprudence of Jail being the exception and bail being the rule has been thrown to the winds by our present day courts at all levels. Thus after six and half years we still have six of the 15 arrestees in jail. It is also painful to observe that in one case, where bail was granted by the HC, the Supreme court almost instantaneously stayed the order. Thus despite 12 months after the grant of bail Mahesh Raut stays in jail. Two others are in the process of getting out, bail has been granted, but are still awaiting their release.
The Bhima Koregaon case in 2018 caused a chilling effect, silencing a lot of activists who were working for the rights of Adivasis. But this did not stop the young Adivasis in Bastar who formed the Moolwasi Manch in particular, to continue struggling against the Indian state and corporate interests who sought to plunder the area for Iron ore and Bauxite. The Manch is clear in its mission to save their forests and question the development model based on big roads being built for mining companies. The roads are accompanied by para military camps.
We saw more than 217 deaths in 2024 (official figures) beginning with a six month old child killed in January of 2024. Over 800 Maoists were also arrested while 802 laid down their arms. In the first week of 2025, we saw 16 deaths and killings, all happening under Home Ministry policy of snuffing out Maoists through various combing operations of the security forces, under the over sight of the Home Minister Amit Shah, who has vowed to eradicate the Maoists by 2026. Till the 19th of January 2025, another 18 Maoists including two women were killed, which according to the Hindu took the toll to more than 40 Maoists being killed by the forces since January 2025. The New Indian Express in its News report of 22nd January, 2025, states that, “so far 48 Maoists have been killed in separate encounters in different districts of Chhattisgarh in the month of January, 2025.”
Mr. Amit Shah described it as a “major success” and a “mighty blow to Maoism.” Of the Maoists killed was one who carried a bounty of 1 crore, a ‘high value target’ by security forces. He also stated that “… the operation marked a major success towards building a Naxal free India and the joint efforts of our security forces. Naxalism is breathing its last today.”
Let us not forget that the war against the Adivasis by the Indian State in the Bastar region is two decades old. It has been underway since 2005, to mainly take control of the natural resources in the name of carrying out development of the region. With one fifth of the country’s iron ore found in the 5 districts of Kanker, Rajnandgaon, Durg, Dantewada and Bastar of Chhattisgarh, MOUs had been signed which are causing massive displacement of the people and immense human suffering. In that period the Congress led UPA was in power at the centre and a BJP Government in the State of Chhattisgarh, with the two enjoying a cosy relationship, in their joint agenda to hand over the natural resources to the corporates.
The PUCL has first hand experience regarding the incarceration of activists. Dr. Binayak Sen, who is a Vice President of the PUCL, was one of the first human rights dissenters to be jailed in this war by the Indian State against Naxalism, which Dr. Manmohan Singh called the “biggest threat to internal security”. In Manmohan Singh’s thinking, it was “imperative to control Left-wing extremism for the country’s growth”.
It is important to recall that it was following the publishing of the PUCL Fact Finding report “When the State makes war against its own People”, on the Salwa Judum, a militia that was mobilised and deployed by the State Government of Chattisgarh, as a part of counter-insurgency operations 2005, that the then PUCL General Secretary, Dr Binayak Sen was arrested. While Dr. Raman Singh the Chief Minister of the Government of Chhattisgarh was relentless in arresting activists, Dr. Manmohan Singh with Mr. Shivraj Patil, the erstwhile Home Minister in year 2007 and later Mr. P. Chidambaram, the erstwhile Home Minister in 2008, were also uncompromising in keeping Binayak Sen behind bars. The bogey then was the recruitment of young people from the city as Naxals. The term Urban Naxals was coined then, by the DG police Mr. Rathore.
From Salwa Judum, where Adivasis were armed to kill Adivasis, we have reached a point where Indian security forces are directly firing at the people in Bastar. All institutional remedies seem to have collapsed, as far as justice for the adivasi people is concerned. The PUCL in Chhattisgarh has been in the firing line of the Indian State and under the scanner for taking up the cause of arbitrary killings, wrongful incarcerations and making the judiciary and other quasi agencies like the NHRC accountable.
The arbitrary killings by the State in the name of Maoism have to be stopped. The present operation of eradicating Maoists is violating all norms of combat in conflict areas. Children are being attacked, civilians are being killed. Adivasis are unable to go on with their routine lives as the price of being killed by a Maoist is also very high. The policy related to Maoists who surrender is ridden with secrecy and there is no transparency about the process. The PUCL members in the course of human rights work of raising the issue of arbitrary killings, know that their work could be criminalised by the police and tarred in the name of supporting maoists through money or any other support. Yet all civil society organisations including the PUCL are working fearlessly in order to expose the truth through fact findings, press statements and protests. Legal intervention are also being made through the support of lawyers from PUCL as well as other lawyers, with respect to justice and accountability for the injured villagers or those killed.
2. Delhi Riot cases, 2020: The use of terror laws as a tool to suppress the questioning of Government policy of discriminatory citizenship laws. (Bhima Koregaon Part II)
The continued incarceration in the name of crimes against the sovereignty of the nation, of the 17 young Muslim leaders (out of a total of 21 in the UAPA cases) made out as a part of the Delhi Riots of 2020 is a travesty. The fact that added to this unjust arrest is the opposition to bail being granted, by the Delhi police special cell, indicates that the young men protesting against the CAA and NRC have been held guilty without trial. The attitude of the State is to break the spirit of these young Muslims by delays related to the criminal justice system, so that on release, they will not question the Indian state.
The Delhi Police Special Cell has been filing chargesheets with 25,000 to 30,000 pages, using the length of the chargesheet as a technique to buttress a baseless case. Though there is no evidence, a section of the media too has left no stone unturned in demonising these young leaders, so that the ordinary viewer/ reader is sought to be convinced that they are dangerous terrorists. The truth is being reduced to a lie by the media. The judiciary too has not been true to its constitutional responsibility, as inspite of these being false cases, there has been no release on bail, despite four years having passed. Their continued incarceration is becoming a fast forgotten history. The struggle has been left to family members to fight their cases. The PUCL role in the beginning was to oppose the witchhunt carried out by the Delhi Police Special Cell and to stand in solidarity with the activists who were in hundreds and had been called for interrogation by the Delhi Police Special Cell. This was followed by conducting press conferences against the false cases and demanding their release.
Let us reflect and ask ourselves as to whether we are able to sustain such a campaign in the long term. Presently, we do not have a strategy to work with individual case work. So what is it that we can do? Our young PUCL group in Bengaluru, ran a campaign of sending letters of solidarity for the falsely incarcerated in jail, covering both the Delhi riot accused and the Bhima Koregaon accused. While such activities may not be enough to create a ground swell for justice to be obtained, but they do prevent prisoners and their family members from getting into isolation and feeling that they are fighting lonely battles. Such solidarity activities should continue in more widespread ways with the PUCL taking a lead and mobilising other organisations to join in.
The PUCL at another level after the death of Father Stan Swamy, initiated a dialogue with the political parties for the repeal of the UAPA, . An ongoing agenda, which needs to be worked upon. Most political party leaders were in agreement that we had to repeal these laws, but till now, no plan has been made between civil society and political parties to put pressure on the Government to repeal UAPA or read it down.
Repeal UAPA should be a part of our agenda for the next two years and before the next Parliament elections, in an effective way we should build a campaign which has an impact and becomes an election issue.
3. The attacks on Human Rights defenders
The attacks on human rights defenders can be understood through four lens:
1) There are clear trends demonstrating the use of anti-terror and sedition laws against civil society actors and human rights defenders. This disproportionate and targeted application of law creates an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship.
2) The growing number of arrests and lengthy incarcerations is discouraging young people from engaging with human rights work. This is, in turn, will lead to a situation that our future generations may not have the checks and balances and independent voices that exist in some measure today.
3) There is a shift towards dominance of groups espousing divisive, hate-filled ideologies, often drawing on Hindutva and related extremist narratives. These groups have gained significant influence often with overt state support.
4) At the same time, activists and organisations advocating democracy, pluralism, and constitutional values face systematic harassment, de-legitimisation, and resource constraints. This has also led to a negative public discourse on human rights work.
What is the way forward to address these concerns?
a) In addition to domestic efforts, international engagement with global networks and UN mechanisms.
b) In many jurisdictions, explicit recognition of human rights defenders as a protected category—akin to journalists, whistle-blowers, or vulnerable witnesses—has significantly helped in safeguarding their work. However, given the challenging political climate, achieving state-backed recognition in India must become a long term vision.
c) Even if immediate legislative progress is unlikely, it is crucial to continue pushing these conversations in the mainstream and lay the groundwork for future reform through processes like advocacy with like-minded parliamentarians, judges and legal experts.
d) In the short term when there is not much expectation of ‘official support’, civil society coalitions, legal networks, and human rights institutions should come together to develop independent mechanisms. This could include:
(i)Setting up a credible, transparent process for “accrediting” or identifying HRDs, which could serve as a means of mutual recognition and collective advocacy.
(ii)Establishing support systems that provide legal aid, solidarity and advocacy for defenders under threat. (There are similar models in Europe as well).
4.The new criminal tribe, The Muslim: Criminalisation by consensus of the majority, with any requirement of notification
The Hindu Rashtra has several enemies. Presently the two who are frontline targets are Adivasis and Muslims (and to some extent the Dalits). The Adivasis and Muslims have been criminalised in every sense. The Adivasis were always “criminals” since the times of the British, as they were leading resistance to reclaim their land since 1830s. But this time round the Indian Muslims are the new criminal tribe without notification. Under the 1871 law, you had to declare a tribe as a criminal tribe through notification. But this time round, there is a consensus against the Muslims amongst a large section of the majority community that Muslims should not exist, leading to the de facto status of Muslims becoming a criminal tribe.
From lynching in the name of the cow, which started in a major way in 2015, where the poorest Muslims were killed, we have now moved to bogus surveys of Mosques, to discover temples underneath. Today Muslims are seen as blasphemous, as “potential slaughterers” of the holy cow. Bovine laws have life imprisonment to death sentence for slaughtering the cow, which has empowered the mob to kill the person there itself. Today Muslim religious structures have no right to exist, with the allegation that they are encroachments on Hindu religious places. Making almost every Muslim believer a criminal and an encroacher of temples and in the same breath an anti-national. As such either the structure is to be handed over to the Hindu community or else the other community has no right to exist. The law protecting religious structures called the Places of Worship Act, 1991, was diluted by the former CJI Justice Chandrachud, by playing into the hands of those who wish to declare all Muslim religious structures to be disputed structures, by agreeing to the survey of a religious structure as a first step towards their demolition or hand over.
5. The Whistle blower (Litigant) as the Criminal
The role of the courts in this present crisis situation of human rights violation, is of either refusing to intervene, or mostly criminalising the litigant. This trend was established by Justice Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice CT Ravikumar in the judgement passed on 24th June 2022 in the Zakia Ahsan Jaffery vs. State of Gujarat, where personal remarks were made against Teesta Setalvad and R B Shreekumar, IPS and Sanjeev Bhatt, IPS for having pursued ‘lies and defamed the PM for Gujarat riots, taking up the time of the police and courts, with misleading cases.’ FIRs were lodged against them and they were arrested and jailed for no crime committed but merely on untruths.
Similarly in the matter of Himanshu Kumar vs the state of Chhattisgarh, Justices Khanwilkar and Pardiwala, imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on Himanshu Kumar case in 2022 and directed ‘the State of Chhattisgarh/CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) to take appropriate steps in accordance with law…A case of criminal conspiracy or any other offence under the IPC may also surface. We may not be understood of having expressed any final opinion on such action/proceedings. We leave it to the better discretion of the State of Chhattisgarh/CBI to act accordingly keeping in mind the seriousness of the entire issue. Thus, the relief prayed for in terms of Para 67(b) hereinabove, of the subject interlocutory application is hereby granted that he be investigated prosecuted as it is the agenda of NGOs to divert the state agencies through reports and other processes like litigation in their pursuance of snuffing out anti national activities of the Maoists.’
The seeds sown by the judiciary, attacking those exposing the crimes of the state, was reflected in the NIA Lucknow judgement. 4th January, 2025 where the judge of the Kasganj court states that NGOs ought not to be providing litigation support and lawyers to those who have committed heinous crimes. He states that “NGOs advocating Muslim interest promptly provide legal aid. This contradicts constitutional principles as it boosts the morale of these undesirable elements.”
The judgement went on to state that, “Fact finding reports puts undue pressure on the judiciary and that communal element with stealth creeps into the realm of ideas. NGOs providing legal aid and lawyers is resulting in promoting a point of view which is very narrow and dangerous. In this context the judiciary and all eminent persons associated with it, and all stakeholders must think about this. It is important to think about the point that the communal contestation which happened in UP in the district of Kasganj, several NGOs located in India…… along with NGOs located abroad…..What could be their interests? Where is their funding coming from, and what are their collective objectives? To investigate this, prevent their unwarranted interference in the judicial process, and to take necessary action to stop them, a copy of this decision should also be sent to the Chairman of the Bar Council of India and the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.”
These cases demonstrate that today, the Whistle blower ( Litigant ) is being treated as the criminal.
5. The PUCL role in defending the Non-violent and peaceful tool of fact finding.
This is not the first time that the tool of Fact finding has been attacked. The attack is on the most powerful tool of human rights, which is documentation. The work of rigorously bringing out the facts and exposing the truth. This is our key work. We are not being allowed to do our work. Our work is being criminalised, our spaces our closing in.
“Can there be a parallel judicial system? I cannot have my own tribunal. If you have grievance go to the competent court. I cannot have my own fact-finding committee.” The remarks were made by Tushar Mehta, Solicitor-General, on February 23 before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh. He was speaking on a petition which challenged five reports by private individuals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on the riots in North East Delhi last year.
The petition was filed by the head of a school management; the school had been set on fire during the riots. Tushar Mehta’s plea was that the reports affected the cases registered by the police with respect to the arson. The court rightly issued notices to the Delhi Police and the Government of India to file their response and declare their stand by March 26.
Human rights groups including the PUCL are not being allowed to function with peaceful human rights tools. The entire history of India’s freedom movement is studded with inquiries by citizens’ bodies. The tradition continued after independence and was followed in the Delhi case as a matter of course. There is no difference in law, between reports of citizens’ inquiries and those of a public-spirited individual prepared to do the hard work or, for that matter, the press.
Neither a press report nor the report of a citizens’ inquiry can prevent the state from instituting an inquiry with all the powers and sanctions under the Commissions of Inquiry. We will not go into the question of why these commission reports are discredited. But fact finding investigations by Citizens, especially when the state is perceived to have failed or, the state has behaved in an openly partisan manner, like in Bastar, Gujarat, Delhi is an essential characteristic of a constitutional democracy. The fact that the state is seeking to muzzle such inquiries is a testimony to the high credibility of these inquiries.
The PUCL Committee on Strengthening Human Rights tools needs to activate its work and develop this tool in a more robust way. Trainings regarding collection of evidence, recording testimonies and tools for documentation need to be done with urgency. The PUCL should also consider becoming an intervenor in the Delhi High Court Case.
6. Continued deaths of political activists in jails and the failure of the judiciary to prevent such unconscionable deaths
There is a shift in jurisprudence, that today jail is the rule and bail is the exception in crimes related to the sovereignty of the Indian state under laws such as the UAPA. What is particularly unconstitutional and completely unjust is the fact that stringent bail conditions are applied without the concomitant speedy trial, resulting in prisoners spending many long years in jail.
We saw the tragic death of 82 year old Father Stan Swamy, 2021, Kanchan Nanavare alias Bhoomi, only 38 years in 2021 for lack of treatment, Pandu Narote, in 2023 for lack of treatment and Prof. Saibaba’s demise in October 2024, seven months after his release, after having spent more than nine years in jail. It should affect us as a human rights organisation that the state is callously unconcerned by these deaths.
How do we seek justice for these unconscionable deaths caused through negligence and callous treatment in judicial custody? It is not known how many of the thousands of prisoners who die in our jails every year die due to neglect by the jail authorities. The official Prison Statistics India (PSI) states that 1,879 men and women died due to “natural causes” in prisons across India in 2021. “Illness” and “ageing” constitute natural causes. According to the PSI report, more than 185 prisoners died of “unnatural” causes, and 52 of “causes not yet known”. “Unnatural deaths” include “deaths due to negligence or excesses by jail personnel”. It is important to note that Justice Lokur in a landmark Supreme Court judgment, in 2013, said that “The distinction made by the NCRB [National Crime Records Bureau] between natural and unnatural deaths is unclear. For example, if a prisoner dies due to a lack of proper medical attention or timely medical attention, would that be classified as a natural death or an unnatural death?”
As a civil liberties organisation it is important to note that there is no assessment of whether prisoners die due to a pre-existing health condition which is neglected in prison, due to diseases which develop because of jail conditions or because of ‘natural causes’. We have to ensure that there are systems of monitoring in place to assess the states responsibility for these deaths.
In conclusion, it must be stated that the PUCL must on an urgent basis run a campaign demanding adequate and good treatment for prisoners who fall ill, their health conditions must be well documented: Adequate treatment is the human right of every prisoner. Any abuse or neglect must be recorded. If they die due to neglect or abuse, compensation needs to be paid. This is not a matter of charity but the right of those for whose lives and that of their dependents the State is responsible.
7. Criminalising of the media and shrinking spaces for expression as well as the declining right to public protest in the country.
In February, 2023 BBC was raided. In October 2023, 104 staffers of News click were raided and Prabir Purkayastha the editor along with the HR head Amit Chakraborty, a 90% disabled person were arrested. Several journalists had FIRs filed against them and several were sent to jail.
India was ranked 159th in 2024 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index which was a small improvement of the earlier year of being 161 in the 2023 ranking. Thus India has among the worst ranking in the world when it comes to freedom of the press, which is deeply troubling for a country which prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy. The PUCL is committed to standing for freedom of speech and expression. The constitution of the PUCL clearly states that it will work towards encouraging freedom of thought and defend the right of public dissent. Today this would extend to ensuring the freedom of the press and independence not just of mass media like radio and television but freedom at the level of cyberspace and social media. Similarly the freedom to public protest and civil liberties are paramount for upholding democracy. Increasingly State after state are becoming police states. Not allowing rallies and protests has become the norm in district after district. The selective manner in which some groups are allowed to protest and others not, is something that the PUCL must highlight.
It would be useful if the PUCL brought out annual reports, statewise of the status of the attack on the media and public protest and civil liberties.
8. The continuing tragedy in Manipur due to the abdication of constitutional responsibility by the Union of India
Since May 2023 the Kuki Meitei conflict has continued. The ethnic conflict between the Kuki and the Meitei, with the Naga groups being onlookers has put the entire population 28.6 lakhs (2011 census) in misery. The PUCL is putting together a well researched Tribunal Report which analyses not only the situation of conflict and the abdication of the Indian State from stopping this internal war, but also proposes a road map to peace.
Very sadly, at the time of the completion of this report in December end, there is not even a glimmer of hope for a return to normalcy for the 60,000 + `Internally Displaced People’ (IDPs) who live miserable lives in the camps. Abandoned by the State and forgotten by the political parties, no one – not even the Chief Minister of the State, or the Union Home Minister or the Prime Minister of India – seem to be concerned about their plight. Nobody seems to be working to bring back peace and justice to the beleaguered people of the state. In a total violation of all constitutional norms and propriety, the state has been bifurcated into two zones, with the Imphal valley and its surrounding districts closed to entry of Kuki – ZO community and roads passing through the Hill areas barred to the Meitei community. Hatred and anger is allowed to fester, suspicion and hostility allowed to permeate all narratives and discourse between the two major ethnic communities – the Meiteis and the Kuki-Zos. Reconciliation, peace building and building harmonious relations appear like alien concepts.
Even while the political establishment, both in the State as also the Centre remains callously unbothered and unmoved by the continuing saga of violence and continues to foster impunity from accountability and sense of hopelessness, should we, in the rest of India remain mute spectators to what many commentators are calling as `acts of ethnic cleansing’, `human catastrophe’ and `crimes against humanity’?
As concerned citizens, should not all of us in the rest of India, own up to our responsibility for what is happening to our own people in Manipur and intervene to help build peace and harmony in the state?
The PUCL will have to seriously work on the road map to peace and justice in the next two years.
9. Organisational
In the last several months that I have had the opportunity to travel to the various states, what has disturbed me most is our differences organisationally. Our internal conflict, the conflict within us, our differences on how to run the organisation and attempts at which group will control the organisation, is weakening us. Which is not to say that we must not look at our differences. We must however address it in such a way that it helps us to move further. Non resolution of these differences, allowing them to fester can cause major breaks in relationships within the organisation.
My suggestion has always been to make our organisation as diverse as possible, by bringing in members who reflect a diversity in caste, class, ethnicity, region and religion. It is this diversity that helps us be a broad tent which cannot easily be branded. Leadership should also be participatory and new faces ought to be promoted. We have to learn to accept each other as members and work on providing leadership within each state.
It is my humble proposal that we establish internal mechanisms for resolution of these differences. The national team will always be available but it is important that we dialogue with each other and find platforms to do it. State wise internal mechanisms off resolving conflict will open up a new doorway for other organisations too who work voluntarily.
I close here with the above issues which will be discussed not only in the next two days but also when we get back to our districts and states from this convention.