The National Human Rights Commission has directed the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to pay ‘immediate interim relief’ of Rs. 3.00 lakhs to a woman from Manipur, whose husband had disappeared while in custody of armed forces and has not been seen thereafter.

Smt. Meena Khatoon, a resident of Manipur, had filed a complaint to the Manipur State Human Rights Commission alleging that on 25 July 1999, her husband Mohd. Tayab Ali was picked up by uniformed army personnel while he was going from his village towards Imphal on a two-wheeler. Both he and his moped were put inside a van without a number-plate and carried inside the Battalion Headquarters of the 17 Assam Rifles. Local acquaintances of Mohd. Tayab Ali, who had been traveling in a taxi, had followed the van and later informed the victim’s family. All efforts to find the whereabouts of Shri Ali by his relatives and village-elders were resisted by the security personnel at the Headquarters. Since then the whereabouts of Shri Ali remain unknown.

The Manipur State Human Rights Commission considered the complaint and examined in detail the five witnesses. Pursuant to a notice issued by the State Human Rights Commission to the Inspector General of Police (Law & Order), Manipur, the Commission was informed that the DGP, Imphal had issued messages to all concerned police authorities in Manipur to find out the whereabouts of Mohd. Tayab Ali. The police had also taken up the matter with the Assam Rifles but were told that no individual by the name of Mohd. Tayab Ali picked by any Assam Rifles Unit. The State Commission then, referred the case to the NHRC as it related to the “armed forces”.

Under Section 19 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the NHRC, then, called for a report from the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

The report submitted by the Ministry of Defence stated that the Assam Rifles had received information that some insurgents, after firing on CRPF personnel were fleeing towards Dimarpur. A team of 17 Assam Rifles had established a mobile check-post to apprehend them. This team had tried to stop a speeding vehicle upon which there had been exchange of fire and one person had died. The driver managed to escape in the vehicle. The dead body was later identified to be that of Mohd. Tayab Ali and handed over to the local police.

Thus the Defence Ministry’s report concluded that Mohd. Tayab Ali had died in a retaliatory fire by the armed forces and hence no cognizance could be taken of Smt. Meena Khatoon’s complaint. This stand of the Ministry was totally different and inconsistent with the earlier report of DGP, Manipur in which the Assam Rifles had reportedly denied picking up any person by the name of Mohd. Tayab Ali.

The Defence authorities further reported to the Commission that local police had not made any effort to identify the body, which had later been disposed of unidentified. The NHRC, therefore, by its order dated 13 December 2000, directed that the photograph of the person killed in the encounter be shown to the complainant to ascertain whether it was of the victim. On 15 January 2001, the DGP, Manipur wrote to the Commission informing that the complainant and the family members of Mohd. Tayab Ali had denied that the photograph was that of the victim’s – proving that the person killed in the encounter was not Mohd. Tayab Ali.

Hence, the Commission held that the facts clearly indicated that Shri Ali had been picked up by some personnel of the 17 Assam Rifles and taken to the Headquarters. There was unrebutted testimony of several witnesses who had been seen him being taken. Mohd. Ali has been missing since that day. It thus rejected the stand taken by the Defence authorities and concluded that the 17 Assam Rifles, in whose custody Mohd. Ali was last seen, had failed to account for him, thereafter.

Extensively quoting the Supreme Court’s Judgements in similar cases, and the powers given to the NHRC under Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission stated that “as soon as it is proved or admitted that the victim was in the custody of someone, the burden is on that person to prove how he dealt with the detainee, nd unless it can be satisfactorily shown that the custodian is not responsible for the harm or disappearance from the custody, the initial presumption of accountability remains unrebutted.”

In this case, the Commission held that the complainant had lost her husband at a young age. At the time of her husband’s disappearance, she was pregnant and had five small children. The loss of sole breadwinner rendered the family destitute. Since the violation of human rights was done by the members of the armed forces, the Commission, in exercise of its powers under Section 19 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, recommended that it would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case to award ‘immediate interim relief’ of Rs. 3.00 lakhs to the complainant and her children.

The Commission has asked the Ministry of Defence and Home Affairs to communicate the compliance and the action taken to the Commission by the first week of September 2002.