Human rights activist Binayak Sen’s frequent meetings with jailed Maoist leader, Narayan Sanyal, with regard to his health and medical care were construed as conspiracy that led to the activist’s conviction for life sentence on charge of sedition.
Human rights activist Binayak Sen’s frequent meetings with jailed Maoist leader, Narayan Sanyal, with regard to his health and medical care were construed as conspiracy that led to the activist’s conviction for life sentence on charge of sedition.
Sen had 33 meetings in 17 months with Sanyal. The activist did not conceal his allegiance to PUCL, a civil liberties and rights organisation, founded by Sarvodaya leader Jayprakash Narayan.
Sen used the PUCL letterhead for applications to the jail administration. He was allowed to meet Sanyal among other prisoners.
These visits were duly permitted by the jail officials and whatever transpired between Sen and Sanyal was in full view of the administration.
Raipur additional district and session judge BP Verma, however, held that phone calls between Sanyal’s sister-in-law, Bula Sanyal, and Sen proved a conspiratorial relationship existed.
The prosecution failed to produce a single jail official or eye witness to testify to any letter or message, oral or written, being passed by Sanyal to Sen during the meetings.
The controversial judgment, passed on December 24, read a lot in certain jail entries where Sen was referred to as Sanyal’s relative.
The court ignored the activist’s contention that these entries were filled in by the jail officials and not by either the visited or visitor.
Moreover, the verdict which has come under severe criticism held Sen had a close relationship with CPI(Maoist) as it sought to establish this ruling with the aid of unsubstantiated testimonies of police officials claiming that Sen and his wife Ilina had assisted alleged “hard core” Maoists Shankar Singh and Amita Srivastava.
Sen contended Shankar was employed by Rupantar - an NGO founded by his wife Ilina. He didn’t dispute that he and Ilina knew Amita Srivastava whom the latter had helped find a job in a school.
Verma accepted the police’s word without any other testimony or material evidence whatsoever that Shankar and Amita were Maoists.
The judgment which Dr Sen’s lawyer in the Supreme Court, Colin Gonsalves, said is “shocking” somewhat ignores a previous apex court ruling that held that the provision of sedition in the IPC must be interpreted consistent with the fundamental freedom of speech and expression.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}