NHRC directs Ministry of Defence to compensate victims of army atrocity and initiate proceedings against guilty army personnel
In a land-mark judgement dated 1 November 2000, the National Human Rights Commission has made far-reaching recommendations to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence to compensate farmers of Andhra Pradesh who were victims of army atrocity. Asking the Ministry of Defence to consider initiating proceedings to prosecute the army personnel responsible for violation of human rights for a large number of persons, the Commission has reiterated and emphasised the need to empower the National Human Rights Commission by amending the Protection of Human Rights Act so that it can inquire more effectively into the violations of human rights by Armed Forces.
The Commission, on 19 May 1999, had taken suo-motu cognizance of a media report which had alleged that army men had gone on rampage in Andhra Pradesh and had attacked farmers who had come to sell their wares at Rythu Bazar in Hyderabad. It was stated that about 300 army men went on rampage in a pre-dawn swoop in the Mehtipattnam area of Hyderabad on 12 May 1999. They threatened farmers sleeping in the compound and severely beat up four of them who protested. The loss was estimated by the district administration to be approximately Rs. 12 lakhs. The farmers had occupied sheds set-up at the Bazaar by the State Government on military land with the permission of army authorities. The State Government had condemned the action of the army personnel for taking law into their own hands and had lodged a strong protest with the Defence Minister and the Army Headquarters.
In reply to the Commission’s notice of 19 May 1999, the Ministry of Defence had replied justifying the action of the army men in forcibly evicting the farmers because the State Government had backtracked on its assurance to vacate the area within the specified period for which it had been given by the army. The Ministry denied violation of any human rights by the army.
On the other hand, the report of the Collector of the Ranga Reddy District, who was an eyewitness to the whole incident, said that despite her pleadings, hundreds of military personnel had demolished the property erected at Rythu Bazaar while she and the police personnel could only be silent spectators. Around 80 farmers present at the time of the incident were manhandled and four of them were seriously injured. Vegetables worth Rs. 1.7 lakhs were strewn away and the temporary structures erected were irreparably damaged. The total damage worked out to Rs. 11.26 lakhs. Photographs supported the Collector’s eyewitness report.
The Commission, on considering both these responses, recorded in its proceedings of 20 September 1999 that the two reports from two responsible and highly placed functionaries of Governments were in total variance. It felt that the pertinent question was whether or not the army personnel had committed the high-handed acts. Therefore, it requests the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, to get the entire matter examined including the aspect of propriety of the Ministry in making such sweeping denials of events in the face of ostensibly authentic report of senior officers of the State Government.
The Commission also requested the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh to examine both the responses and give his own report. His report clearly indicate the high-handedness of the army personnel and disclosed the disturbing fact that the role of the Andhra Pradesh Sub-Area Commander in the incident had been questionable and not above-board. The Chief Secretary’s report was also sent to the Ministry of Defence for its response.
The Ministry of Defence, however, reiterated their earlier version and asked the Commission to call the concerned officers of the army and State Government and take a view in the matter. However in the meeting called by the Commission on 6 September 2000, the concerned army officials chose not to come and were represented only by the Civilian Staff Officer, Army Headquarters.
Based on the facts and circumstances, the Commission had to formulate its opinion and consider the allegation of violation of human rights of the victims. There was no hesitation in rejecting the version of the army authorities, which was in direct conflict with the version of the State Government. Certain admitted and circumstances also supported this conclusion of the Commission.
The Commission also learned that the State Government keen for the continuance of the Bazaar in the same location, had already moved for the exchange of this disputed land with some other land of the State Government to enable continuance of the Bazaar. Discussion in this regard was in progress between the State Government and the army and the Sub-Area Commander had been requested to await the final outcome of this discussion. Thus, there was no occasion for the District Collector to tell the Sub-Area Commander to carry out the eviction as had been alleged by the Army. Moreover, the unusual time of early morning chosen for carrying out the surprise action without any prior notice to the occupants or to the District Collector supported the allegation of high-handedness by the Army men and their intention to take even the State Government by surprise.
Rejecting the clandestine and unlawful action of the Army men, the Commission said, "A civilised legal system does not permit even a trespasser with settled possession to be thrown out in this manner without resort to the procedure established by the law".
The Commission has, thus directed the Government of India, Ministry of Defence to pay a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs as compensation for loss to the property, a sum of Rs.10,000/- to each of the four farmers beaten up by the Army men and a sum of Rs. 5000/- to each of the farmers forcibly evicted. The Government of India will pay the above amounts, granted as `immediate interim relief’ under section 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The calculation of the total amount will be made by the Chief Secretary, Andhra Pradesh and intimated to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence within one month. This amount will be paid by the Government of India to the Government of Andhra Pradesh within one month thereafter, for disbursement among those entitled, within one month.
The Government of India should consider initiating proceedings to identifying the Army personnel responsible for the violation of human rights in the above incident and take appropriate action against them. The Ministry of Defence should also formulate necessary guidelines for observance of human rights of the civilian population by the Armed Forces while performing their duties in non-combat areas.
The Commission has asked for compliance by both the Governments within 4 months.
Most importantly, the Commission has emphasised the urgency and need for amendment in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to empower the National Human Rights Commission to inquire more effectively into human rights violations by Armed Forces. Any further delay or inaction is likely eroding the credibility of Government of India in its commitment to respect for human rights.
The Commission, on 19 May 1999, had taken suo-motu cognizance of a media report which had alleged that army men had gone on rampage in Andhra Pradesh and had attacked farmers who had come to sell their wares at Rythu Bazar in Hyderabad. It was stated that about 300 army men went on rampage in a pre-dawn swoop in the Mehtipattnam area of Hyderabad on 12 May 1999. They threatened farmers sleeping in the compound and severely beat up four of them who protested. The loss was estimated by the district administration to be approximately Rs. 12 lakhs. The farmers had occupied sheds set-up at the Bazaar by the State Government on military land with the permission of army authorities. The State Government had condemned the action of the army personnel for taking law into their own hands and had lodged a strong protest with the Defence Minister and the Army Headquarters.
In reply to the Commission’s notice of 19 May 1999, the Ministry of Defence had replied justifying the action of the army men in forcibly evicting the farmers because the State Government had backtracked on its assurance to vacate the area within the specified period for which it had been given by the army. The Ministry denied violation of any human rights by the army.
On the other hand, the report of the Collector of the Ranga Reddy District, who was an eyewitness to the whole incident, said that despite her pleadings, hundreds of military personnel had demolished the property erected at Rythu Bazaar while she and the police personnel could only be silent spectators. Around 80 farmers present at the time of the incident were manhandled and four of them were seriously injured. Vegetables worth Rs. 1.7 lakhs were strewn away and the temporary structures erected were irreparably damaged. The total damage worked out to Rs. 11.26 lakhs. Photographs supported the Collector’s eyewitness report.
The Commission, on considering both these responses, recorded in its proceedings of 20 September 1999 that the two reports from two responsible and highly placed functionaries of Governments were in total variance. It felt that the pertinent question was whether or not the army personnel had committed the high-handed acts. Therefore, it requests the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, to get the entire matter examined including the aspect of propriety of the Ministry in making such sweeping denials of events in the face of ostensibly authentic report of senior officers of the State Government.
The Commission also requested the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh to examine both the responses and give his own report. His report clearly indicate the high-handedness of the army personnel and disclosed the disturbing fact that the role of the Andhra Pradesh Sub-Area Commander in the incident had been questionable and not above-board. The Chief Secretary’s report was also sent to the Ministry of Defence for its response.
The Ministry of Defence, however, reiterated their earlier version and asked the Commission to call the concerned officers of the army and State Government and take a view in the matter. However in the meeting called by the Commission on 6 September 2000, the concerned army officials chose not to come and were represented only by the Civilian Staff Officer, Army Headquarters.
Based on the facts and circumstances, the Commission had to formulate its opinion and consider the allegation of violation of human rights of the victims. There was no hesitation in rejecting the version of the army authorities, which was in direct conflict with the version of the State Government. Certain admitted and circumstances also supported this conclusion of the Commission.
The Commission also learned that the State Government keen for the continuance of the Bazaar in the same location, had already moved for the exchange of this disputed land with some other land of the State Government to enable continuance of the Bazaar. Discussion in this regard was in progress between the State Government and the army and the Sub-Area Commander had been requested to await the final outcome of this discussion. Thus, there was no occasion for the District Collector to tell the Sub-Area Commander to carry out the eviction as had been alleged by the Army. Moreover, the unusual time of early morning chosen for carrying out the surprise action without any prior notice to the occupants or to the District Collector supported the allegation of high-handedness by the Army men and their intention to take even the State Government by surprise.
Rejecting the clandestine and unlawful action of the Army men, the Commission said, "A civilised legal system does not permit even a trespasser with settled possession to be thrown out in this manner without resort to the procedure established by the law".
The Commission has, thus directed the Government of India, Ministry of Defence to pay a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs as compensation for loss to the property, a sum of Rs.10,000/- to each of the four farmers beaten up by the Army men and a sum of Rs. 5000/- to each of the farmers forcibly evicted. The Government of India will pay the above amounts, granted as `immediate interim relief’ under section 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The calculation of the total amount will be made by the Chief Secretary, Andhra Pradesh and intimated to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence within one month. This amount will be paid by the Government of India to the Government of Andhra Pradesh within one month thereafter, for disbursement among those entitled, within one month.
The Government of India should consider initiating proceedings to identifying the Army personnel responsible for the violation of human rights in the above incident and take appropriate action against them. The Ministry of Defence should also formulate necessary guidelines for observance of human rights of the civilian population by the Armed Forces while performing their duties in non-combat areas.
The Commission has asked for compliance by both the Governments within 4 months.
Most importantly, the Commission has emphasised the urgency and need for amendment in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to empower the National Human Rights Commission to inquire more effectively into human rights violations by Armed Forces. Any further delay or inaction is likely eroding the credibility of Government of India in its commitment to respect for human rights.