Seminar by PUCL Bihar `Right to Justice for Poor People’ – Note by V. Suresh
By V Suresh
Preface
Greetings to friends in PUCL, Bihar on the occasion of the one-day Seminar on `Right to Justice for Poor People’. I congratulate the state unit for organising this Seminar. This is a most appropriate time for PUCL to
initiate a debate on the criminal justice system in the wake of the acquittal by the Patna High court of all the 26 persons convicted by the trial court for having killed 53 dalits and 5 fishing community people on 1st December,
1997. We need to ask some hard questions of the nature of the CJS, especially in terms of how it secures justice for the poor. We need to equally discuss the key principles on which the CJS is based on. And while we
rush to criticise the way a decision has been given in one case, we need to be equally circumspect in demanding changes which will alter the delicate checks and balances inbuilt into the CJS.
I thank the State unit for inviting me to write this note for the seminar as it has spurred me to consolidate my thoughts on the subject of how to ensure the criminal justice system remains robust, based on Indian
constitutional principles and respectful of national and international human rights and humanitarian norms.
*****
“When Dalit blood flows … can there be justice”?
Ranvir Sena, Laxmanpur Bathe massacre, Mass Acquittals and Reflections on the Criminal Justice System
V. Suresh, General Secretary, PUCL
7th December, 2013
Introduction
Bihar is no stranger to violent crimes. But what happened on 1st December, 1997 in a remote village
Laxmanpur Bathe of Jehanabad[1] district, was an unparalleled slaughter of Dalits by upper caste people
belonging to the Ranvir Sena. In orgy of ferocious blood letting at about 1030 pm on 1.12.1997, over 150-180
armed members of the Ranvir Sena crossed the river Sone, entered Laxmanpur Bathe and the dalit settlement
and under cover of darkness smashed into houses killing everyone they came across. None was spared including infants, some just one year old. The children were thrown up in the air and speared. Teen age girls
were raped after which their breasts were cut and shot through their vagina and killed. In all, officially, 53 dalits were slaughtered and killed including 27 women, 16 children and 10 men. Additionally 5 fishermen from the
Mallah caste, who ferried some of the Sena killers across the Sone were also killed in a most gruesome manner – by cutting their necks. The killing was a sequel to simmering land and wages dispute between the landless
labourer SC communities and the Bhumihar landlords; the extremely poor SCs were demanding higher wages
and also allocation of land from the government, which was opposed by the upper caste land lords.
Laxmanpur Bathe was an unusual caste carnage in the sense that it was not the first, and definitely not the last either; but the massacre was the result of a coldly diabolical plan hatched by the upper caste land owners in the
area who, with the support of the armed militia of the landlords, the Ranvir Sena, decided to teach the Dalits a lesson in a dramatic, massive massacre which would “teach others not to rebel or raise their voices”. (HRW,
1999, 62). Ironically, Laxmanpur Bathe’s SCs were so poor that they lacked all basic facilities like electricity, lived in inaccessible areas with nothing resembling roads and puccca constructions. The conflict arose because
the poor labourers started organising themselves and demanding better wages and improved work conditions.
The sheer brutality, bestiality and scale of the massacre was not matched with similar interest on the part of the
police and state authorities to launch an intensive manhunt to nab the killers and bring them to justice. In any
case the FIR was registered at 230 pm on 2.12.1997 at the Mehandia police station. As mandated by the law,
the FIR was sent and received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) at Jehanabad some 50-60 km away only
on 4.12.1997. The first arrest of one Ashok Singh was made only at 525 pm on 3.12.1997, that too only after the
then Chief Minister Rabri Devi, visited the village and reviewed security situation and police action. The first
charge sheet was field on 27.2.1998 naming 48 accused and listing 152 witnesses. A supplementary charge
sheet was also filed on 9.7.1998 naming an additional 2 accused. The CJM, Jehanabad committed the case for
trial by the Sessions Court on 6.1.1999. Initially the case was listed for trial before the I Additional Sessions
Judge, Jehanabad but subsequently transferred on 13.12.1999 to the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna
following an order by the Patna High Court. However the trial was not conducted for many years forcing the
High Court to pass directions on 29.11.2008 to expedite trial. Subsequently the trial was transferred yet again tot
he court of the Additional Sessions Judge 3 in Patna by High court order dated 5.12.2008.
Astonishingly the charges were framed only on 23.12.2008 and 28.1.2009, a full 11 years after the incident.
There were 45 accused. 91 witnesses were examined of whom 17 witnesses were eye witnesses, 4 were
injured eye witnesses. 38 witnesses turned hostile. The rest were official witnesses including 2 Investigating
Officers (IOs).
On 7.4.2010 the trial court delivered its verdict convicting 26 accused, awarding death penalty to 16 people and
rigorous life imprisonment to 10 persons; the rest of the accused were acquitted.
Since death sentences had been awarded the matter was referred to the Patna High court for confirmation
proceedings. On 9th October, 2013 the Division Bench consisting of justices VN Sinha and AK Lal, acquitted all
the 26 accused on the following grounds:
(i) The delay of 2 days in the FIR dated 2.12.1997 reaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not properly
explained and therefore it was doubtful if it was genuine and could be believed;
(ii) The statements of the eye witnesses, including the injured eye witnesses, could not be relied upon and
believed as there was (a) delay in recording of statements of eye witnesses immediately after the event by
the IO, (b) identification of the accused was improbable in view of the darkness prevailing, (c) key witnesses
were not produced in the court, (d) fact of recording of statements of eye witnesses on 2.12.1997 could not
be believed as there was no mention in the Case Diary of the police. The effect of all these infirmities,
according to the High Court, was that the list of names of accused was subsequently added and there was
doubt if they at all participated in the attack. The Prosecution witnesses were therefore held not to be
reliable and believed.
(iii) There were serious lapses on the part of Investigating Officer (IO) including in not having “any clue”
about the assailants and making no effort to track the accused on both sides of the river Sone and stopping
only with arresting accused from 2 villages, Kamta and Chanda; not explaining delay in sending FIR to court
or about delayed recording of statement of eye witnesses which led to doubts about the false implication of
accused by the eye and injured witnesses.
(iv) The motive for the massacre being the aim of “establishing their hegemony” and as arising out of land
and wage dispute was held to be “far fetched” with no concrete evidence regarding the disputes and
therefore was fully disbelieved.
In disbelieving and throwing out the entire prosecution case, despite the availability of injured eye witnesses, the
court had little to say or comment about the nature of the carnage itself. The sheer brutality of the killings
happening n a context of a region soaked in caste conflicts or the fact that the bulk of the dead (53) were all SCs
or the lowest castes (fishing community) raised the possibility of the assailants coming only from upper castes,
did not seem to both the court as something requiring judicial intervention, as a consequence of their conclusion
that the prosecution case was bereft of evidence and had to be thrown out.
Curiously, the High Court did not answer the demand of the Government counsel that in the event it concluded
that there were serious lapses on the part of the Investigating Officers (IOs) the Court should then order the
prosecution of the 2 IOs who conducted investigation under sections 182 and 195A of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court also had nothing to say by way of directing that the Bihar state enquire into the entire failure of
the criminal justice system by fixing responsibility and accountability on the different state authorities who were
collectively responsible for the massive failure of prosecution leading to the wholesale mass acquittals. The
court, it seems, had no interest to go beyond the narrow confines of criminal jurisprudence and procedure
beyond pronouncing verdict by evaluating the evidence before the court.
Did not the court have any role in laying down guidelines to prevent similar failures on the part of prosecution in
other cases of mass murders, carnages and massacres? Did not the court see the need to lay down norms
which would fix responsibility on IOs and police authorities for biased or compromised investigation and shoddy
evidence gathering?
In the end Laxmanpur Bathe is a triple tragedy for the Dalit victims of the entire area. First by the systemic
discrimination, deprivation, indignity and violence that they have to endure on a daily basis; secondly by having
suffered indescribable violence including in families losing three generations of family members;finally, in having
suffered murders for which they cannot hope for justice.
Justice for Victims of Laxmanpur-Bathe: Lessons for the Human Rights Movement
Was the High court correct in its conclusion that the prosecution case in Laxmanpur Bathe massacres cannot be
believed and had to be thrown out completely?
What is the consequence of the verdict? Will it not embolden the upper castes and landed gentry of Bihar (and
elsewhere too as caste animosity is a common experience all across India) to more violently or aggressively
suppress the Dalits and poor labour class and peasantry seeking more equitable and dignified wage levels and
conditions of work?
Is there any lesson from the High Court verdict for the human rights movement? For if it can happen in a case
involving 58 murder victims, what will be the fate in cases involving lesser numbers and intensity of violence?
While the final word has not been said as regards the acquittal by the High Court as the matter will invariably be
appealed in the Supreme Court, we nevertheless need to take note of the lessons that the entire case offers, in
order that victims of caste / communal / class violence may be more vigilant to ensure that victims of violence
get justice and persons guilty of committing crimes are made accountable for their acts.
We shall turn our attention to some key operational aspects of the criminal justice system.
“The Law defines the Crime, the state defines the offender”
One of the key elements in the common law criminal justice system which is followed in India is that while the
criminal law defines what constitutes an offence, the authority for invoking the law vests solely with the state,
represented by the police. In principle, the police, as the law enforcers, while being administratively under the
control of the government (political executive) are functionally expected to operate independently while
enforcing the law, and in a free and fair, unbiased and non-partisan manner. While the reality is far from the
ideal situation, we need to understand the consequence of this dictum.
In effect the laws of the land leaves it to the discretion of the police and the government to administer criminal
law in each state. It is axiomatic that where discretion powers exist, unless there are clear guidelines which will
pin accountability for partisan or biased exercise of discretion, the authority which discretionary powers provides
is always open to misuse, abuse or incorrect use. In a context of rampant caste, communal and other politics
this naturally means that the authority of law is liable to partial or discriminatory use.
In other words, the administration of the criminal justice system is liable to be used for partisan purposes. In the
political context that prevails in India today filled with caste, communal and regional mobilisations and
machinations, the law is bound to be and actually is abused as a weapon or instrument of political manipulation,
repression and at times, as a terror weapon too, by ruling parties and the caste or community groups which are
dominant in such political arrangements.
There is thus great need to have (i) remedial measures and (ii) independent oversight mechanisms in the law
itself which will speedily identify wrongful use or abuse of authority, fix accountability by punishing the power
holders for such systemic abuse and misuse and also provide for rectifying such errors deliberately or
consciously introduced.
Lack of Legal Provision fixing responsibility on chain of investigating officials
A big lacuna in the criminal justice system is that there is provision making the chain of police officials in charge
of criminal investigation responsible for the process of evidence gathering covering all aspects of investigation
from chemical and forensic examination, documentary and other evidence gathering, testimonies of witnesses
and all other forms of evidence which can be used in proof of prosecution case. So much so, even when a trial
or appellate court come to a finding based on scrutiny of evidence placed before the court that there has been
deliberate sabotage of criminal investigation to ensure that either real accused escape legal liability for their
criminal acts or to frame innocent people in false prosecutions, none of the officials are held culpable.
There is clearly a distinction between genuine errors made in the course of investigation and lapses pointed out
by courts over which there may be two or several opinions from instances when after scrutiny of evidence it is
clear that there has been a deliberate attempt to subvert the law and legal process for the sake of compromising
the case. In such cases, the officials should be made liable for their lapses, of course, after giving them due
opportunity to explain their conduct.
The critical aspect to be noticed here is that the entire chain of officials from the immediate IO to the senior
officials monitoring the investigation ought to be held liable. For ultimately it is the failure of the entire criminal
justice system which stands exposed when the entire prosecution case is thrown out by the court appreciating
the evidence completely, as has happened in the Laxmanpur Bathe case. It is appalling that the persons who
committed the gruesome massacres and murders of 58 persons can escape the law with such impunity.
This is indicated by the following finding of the High Court:
“In view of the conduct of the prosecution not to record the police statement of the eye-witnesses on 2.12.1997,
there appears substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that had the witnesses
been aware about the name of the miscreants, their police statement ought to have been recorded on
2.12.1997. Failure to record the police statement of the eye-witnesses on 2.12.1997 becomes relevant in the
light of the unexplained delay in reaching the FIR, Ext.21 to the court of CJM, Jehanabad on 4.12.1997”. (para
71, page 39, HC Patna Judgment)
It is a matter of concern that in the Laxmanpur Bathe appeal case too, the High Court which elaborately deals
with what clearly appears to be lapses in the criminal investigation does not deem it necessary to hold the IOs
personally liable for the slip shod investigation.
“It also appears that Investigating Officer having secured the arrest, surrender of the fardbeyan named accused,
stopped further investigation to track the accused persons who crossed river Sone and went towards Sahar
area in village Mathia, Chhotaki Kharaon, Barki Kharaon, Lodipur. Aforesaid conduct of the Investigating Officer
is indicative of the fact that he was absolutely clueless about the identity of the assailants who having
perpetrated heinous crime causing death of 58 innocent persons crossed the river Sone and went towards
Sahar area. There was absolutely no reason for the Investigating Officer not to pursue the lead, evidence
found on both the banks of the river Sone to track the assailants who crossed the river Sone and went towards
Sahar area with the help of Officer-in-charge, Sahar P.S. and S.P. Bhojpur with whom he was already in contact
as is evident from his own evidence in paragraphs 36, 6. It appears the effort to track the assailants in Sahar
area met dead end, the first Investigating Officer P.W.85 thought it appropriate to implicate these appellants
residents of place of occurrence village Bathe, adjoining village Kamta and Chanda by antedating the
fardbeyan, as there is no viable explanation for the delayed receipt of the FIR in Jehanabad court on
4.12.1997”.
(para 73, page 41, HC Patna Judgment)
In effect the High Court had concluded, based on a detailed analysis of the evidence that the IO (PW 85) had
committed a crime by falsely implicating the 26 accused knowing fully well that they were not involved in the
offence. This is a serious abuse of power and authority by the police officials with serious consequences for if
the death penalty had been confirmed they would have had to face the gallows. Yet the Division Bench of the
Patna High Court which threw out the Laxmanpur Bathe case did not consider it necessary to hold the police
officials responsible for such gross subversion of the law!
Why did the Division Bench not Order Re-investigation in Laxmanpur Bathe massacres?
One of the key requirements of criminal justice system is to so as to ensure that the investigation may lead to
establishing culpability of persons who have truly committed the crime in court during trial. This is to be achieved
by maintaining the balance between strictly following the prescribed procedures for gathering evidence while
also taking all efforts to ensure that all aspects of investigation are covered by due diligence.
The Laxmanpur Bathe carnage is by no stretch an ordinary case of multiple murders. There is sufficient
evidence before the court which indicates pre-meditated conspiracy and plan to attack the dalit habitation in the
dead of night to kill as many of the dalits as possible. Eventually this led to indiscriminately savage attacks
including killing several one-year old infants in the most horrifying fashion.
Having come to a conclusion that the case of the prosecution had to be thrown out, it remains a relevant
question as to why the High Court did not think the Laxmanpur Bathe case, considering its magnitude, was a fit
and appropriate case to order re-investigation.
Conclusion of Guilt: Does Caste Bias colour appreciation of evidence?
One of the most critical issues arising from an analysis of the Division Bench ruling is the question of the extent
to which `caste or community bias or prejudice’ may have influenced the judges while evaluating the evidence
brought before court. There is no denying the fact that for an average Indian, caste, community and other
cultural identities do play an important role in influencing our intellectual and behavioural responses to action of
`others’. The challenge in the judicial sphere is to ensure that during the process of evaluating evidence on
issues before the court, these biases or prejudged notions, stereotyped mindsets and prejudices do not colour
the judicial appreciation of the evidence.
The Supreme Court discussed this as follows:
“We also notice that while Judges tend to be extremely harsh in dealing with murders committed on account of
religious factors they tend to become more conservative and almost apologetic in the case of murders
arising out of caste on the premise (as in this very case) that society should be given time so that the
necessary change comes about in the normal course. Has this hands off approach led to the creation of the
casteless utopia or even a perceptible movement in that direction? The answer is an emphatic no as would be
clear from mushrooming caste based organizations controlled and manipulated by self appointed Commissars
who have arrogated to themselves the right to be the sole arbiters and defenders of their castes with the license
to kill and maim to enforce their diktats and bring in line those who dare to deviate. Resultantly the idyllic
situation that we perceive is as distant as ever. In this background is it appropriate that we throw up our hands in
despair waiting ad infinitum or optimistically a millennium or two for the day when good sense would prevail by a
normal evolutionary process or is it our duty to help out by a push and a prod through the criminal justice
system? We feel that there can be only one answer to this question..” (emphasis ours).
.. Maya Kaur vs State of Maharashtra, 2007(12) SCC 654, para 26.
The difficulty is in establishing that bias has clouded appreciation of evidence in the process of arriving at a
conclusion about the prosecution case. The only way to establish this is by a rigorous analysis of the judgments
of the same bench of judges and the manner of treatment of similar fact situations, as for example in cases
where there are delays in FIRs, both in registration or in the FIR reaching the Judicial magistrate’s court.
Thus while it is a moot issue as to whether caste bias influenced the appreciation of evidence in the Laxmanpur
Bathe appeal case, there are a few similarities to be found in the judgments of the Patna High Court while
dealing with other cases of mass dalit massacres. It is interesting to note that in the last 2 years (2012-13), the
Patna High Court has acquitted all the upper caste accused in 3 other cases of mass Dalit murders in Bihar. As
the following table shows, there is an intriguing congruence of common reasons for disbelieving the prosecution
case including, (i) delay in FIR reaching court and hence FIR cannot be believed; and (ii) not believing the eye
witness testimonies due to infirmities or contradictions in their testimonies; (iii) non recording the statements of
eye witnesses at the earliest point in time even though they were available thereby making their testimony of
participation of specifically named accused doubtful.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court in `Arumugam Servai vs State of Tamil Nadu’ (2011(6) SCC 405)
pointed out that it is “not a universal rule that once FIR is found with discrepancy the whole prosecution case, as
a rule, has to be thrown out. Such can never be the law”. In the present case of Laxmanpur bathe, the issue of
delay in sending the FIR to the CJM court will have to be considered keeping in mind the remoteness and
inaccessibility of the region, the fact that 58 persons were killed, the acute sense of fear amongst the dalits who
survived and the immediacy of restoring sense of confidence amongst the victims. In fact the Trial Court
considered and discussed the issues of delayed FIR reaching the CJM, Jehanabad’s court and recording of
witness statement before arriving at its conclusion holding 26 persons guilty. “The IO had a hectic schedule in
view of the magnitude of the crime” was the way in which the Trial Court considered the same issues which the
High Court found in favor of the accused.
The following table highlights how in cases of mass murders issues of delay in FIR have consistently been the
key issue for the appellate court to disbelieve the prosecution case against the upper caste assailants.
Caste Massacres of Dalits Where Upper Caste / Ranvir Sena Accused were Acquitted by Patna High Court, 2012-13
| Case: Occurrence of massacre | Bench of the Patna High Court | Reasons for acquittal (as stated by the HC) |
| Lakshmanpur –Bathe
(Death reference 5 of 2010) 45 accused, 26 Convicted (16-Death Penalty and 10 Rigorous Life Imprisonment.) All 26 acquitted. |
V N Sinha,
A K Lal (Judgment delivered on Oct 9, 2013) |
1. Delay in FIR dated 2.12.1997 reaching CJM, Jehanabad court only on 4.12.1997.
2. The first FIR filed didn’t name the accused. The names were subsequently added. No acceptable reason as to why the names weren’t mentioned initially. Hence, not reliable. (para 65-71) 3. Eyewitness testimonies doubted due to discrepancies in police diary and oral testimony. 4. Once the 26 convicts were arrested, investigations stopped. Shows intent of police to frame. (Para 71-72) 5. Labour dispute between accused and deceased as reason for killings not accepted as no concrete evidence has been provided to prove the same. (Para 75) Note: Government Counsel sought prosecution of IOs u/s 182 and 195A IPC for defective investigation but no order passed. |
| Mianpur
(Govt Appeal No. 11 of 2008) 11 accused, 9 convicted (All received life imprisonment) 8 /9 accused acquitted. |
V N Sinha &
A K Lal (Judgment delivered on 3rd July 2013) |
1. Rejection of eye-witness accounts.
This occurred during the night time, only moon light and no other source of light. Witnesses were hiding from the accused. Therefore, could not have seen them. 2. Unexplained two-day delay in the dispatch of FIR to Court. Possibility that the FIR was tampered with cannot be ruled out. Note: Demand by Prosecutor for action against IO for poor investigation. No action |
| Nagri Bazar
(death reference no. 10 of 2010) 16 accused, 11 convicted (3 – Death Penalty 8 – Life Imprisonment) All 11 acquitted by HC. |
VN Sinha
AK Lal (Judgment delivered on 1st March 2013) |
1. Eye witness testimonies rejected
The killings happened in the night. Therefore, when there is no light and the eye-witnesses themselves are in hiding, they could not have clearly seen the individuals to identify them. Hence, the testimonies are rejected. 2. Delay of 36 hours in filing of FIR and sending FIR to Court suggests the possibility of doctoring. This possibility has not been disproven by the Prosecution. |
| Bathani Tola
(Death reference No. 7 of 2010). 68 accused, 23 convictions (3- Death Penalty, 20 – Life Imprisonment) All 23 accused acquitted. |
NP Singh
AK Singh (Judgment delivered on 30th March 2012) |
1. Delay of 12 hours in filing of FIR.
2. Eye- witness testimonies unreliable. Discrepancies in description of injuries suffered was reason for rejection of testimony. 3. Delay in filing could be because they wanted to frame the accused. No information to disprove this line of thought given. |
Source: NS Tanvi: Study of Recent Judgments of Patna High Court in caste murders. (2013, work in progress)
Caste bias or shoddy investigations? Caution before diluting evidentiary principles
What could explain the acquittals of upper caste accused convicted by trial courts of being involved in mass murders of large number of dalits? Could it be due to caste bias or prejudice influencing the assessment of evidence by the judges? Or could it be that the quality of investigation was so shoddy and defective that the evidence gathered cannot be considered at all. In such a scenario, seeking conviction on the ground of scale of murders alone, cannot be the yard stick. It will be necessary for the court, once it comes to a conclusion that the investigation was shoddy and compromised to then examine the conduct of the IOs to determine whether the errors were errors due to (a) incompetence on the part of the investigating authorities or (b) were due to deliberate attempts to subvert fair and independent investigation by making procedural mistakes as would compromise the quality and nature of evidence gathered and / or (c) there were external pressures brought on to the investigating authorities
A curious twist which makes the task of examining patterns in judicial appreciation of facts in caste conflicts in Bihar difficult is that in cases involving dalits convicted for attacks on upper caste people, the appellate court invariably has confirmed the convictions awarded to the dalit accused. For example in the Bhadasi murder case in which Police and workers clashed or the Bodhani Soda case where dalits were implicated in the mass deaths of upper castes, conviction awarded by trial courts of the dalit accused were confirmed.
While in criminal law, it is an axiomatic principle that while no two criminal cases are alike and at best may only share similarities of fact situations, it nevertheless is intriguing to explain different types of police investigation in cases where dalits are victims from those in which they are named accused. So can it be said that the police act efficiently when upper caste people are victims of retaliatory or aggressive attacks by dalits or working class organisations while they are lackadaisical when the victims are dalits and the aggressors the upper caste or their militia arm, the Ranvir Sena?
Viewed thus, it is clear that it is difficult to brush aside the charge that the police are partial when it comes to investigating cases when dalits are victims and the aggressors or assailant are upper caste from those when the dalits are named as the accused.
It is in this context that we need to exercise caution before demanding reversal of time tested principles guiding evaluation of evidence on grounds alone of the large number of death caused in the mass murders or massacres. This translates into the following legal question: in the context of evidence indicating shoddy investigation by the IO, what should be the rules governing assessment of evidence gathered and presented to court? Under what circumstances should the court order reinvestigation? How should liability of the IO and the entire chain of command of police officials monitoring investigation be fixed?
There are no quick fix solutions to the larger malaise of bad governance and compromised administration that exists in large parts of India today. While we should concentrate on improving the manner of governance functionaries, we should be chary of demanding changes in laws.
References:
HRW, 1999, `Broken People: Caste Violence against India’s “Untouchables”’, Human Rights Watch, Washington, USA.
Ravindra Singh Vs. State of Bihar, decided by the patna High Court on 9th October, 2013 available at http://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/27569281/?formInput=laxmanpur%20bathe (accessed on 5th December, 2013).
[1] Subsequent to the incident, districts were reconstituted and now Laxmanpur Bathe comes in Arwal district.
Dr. V. Suresh, National General Secretary, PUCL – People’s Union for Civil Liberties