It’s the first step towards justice,says Sen Release Committee

Dr Abhay Shukla and Dr Anant Phadke of the Jan Arogya Abhiyan,part of the Committee comprising many social organisations,also felt the bail had reinstated faith of people in the judiciary,which the Committee says was eroded by the punishment handed out to Sen by the Raipur Sessions Court “without a shred of incriminating evidence”.

They felt the lower court judgement had instilled fear in anyone who legitimately questions the trampling of human rights by the police or other government agencies and great injustice was done by the Raipur Sessions Court and the Chhattisgarh High Court,which had rejected his bail plea,to the democratic fabric of the country.

The Committee which had been campaigning for Sen,stated that there was no material on record to prove that Sen had committed any offence under the purview of sedition,and not a single document seized qualifies to be linked with sedition charges,besides,after the Supreme Court judgement in Kedarnath Singh versus State of Bihar 1962,it has been established that sedition charges were applicable only when there is a direct incitement to violence,or an attempt to lead to public disorder. It is pretty clear that there is no question,any evidence whatsoever of any such thing being committed by Sen,said Phadke.

“In view of widespread criticism of the ridiculous charges against Dr Sen,we demand that the charges against him be withdrawn,” the Committee has demanded.

The Committee states that Binayak Sen’s ‘crime’ was criticising the ‘Salwa Judum’s’ (anti-Naxal movement) violent activities in Dantewada in Chhattisgarh and the immediate cause was Binayak and his PUCL exposing the gunning down of 12 adivasi youths in Santoshpur by the Chhattisgarh Police on March 31,2007. PUCL has also been demanding the withdrawal of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act (CSPSA) under which Sen had been charged.

Various political parties,peoples’ organisations,journalists’ associations and both national and international human rights organizations had pointed out the unconstitutional and repressive features of this Act,the Committee members say. Among its arbitrary and dangerous features are the vague definitions of “illegal” and “unlawful” activities and the definitions are such that even peaceful forms of democratic protest and ordinary civil disobedience can be brought under its purview and declared “unlawful activity” and any protesting group can be declared “unlawful”.