Rights – Page 2

Two encounters and a democracy

April 9, 2015 by Nasheman

by Samar

The world’s largest democracy witnessed its police force killing 25 of its citizens in two encounters in Andhra Pradesh. “Encounters”, for the uninitiated, are a euphemism for killing unarmed civilians in staged gun battles. The police version of both the alleged encounters is such that it could be laughed-off had they not been about the deaths of civilians.

The police version of the first encounter is that newly formed Red-sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force spotted footprints of the “smugglers” and came across around 100 of them felling trees in the Seshachalam Forest at the foot of the Tirumala Hills. Members of the Task Force challenged them to surrender, but the woodcutters responded by pelting stones. The Task Force in turn responded to the raining stones by firing randomly at the woodcutters, which led to death of 20 of them; the rest ran away. “We fired random shots in self-defence”, a taskforce member told the national daily The Hindu on condition of anonymity.

Logs and slippers neatly arranged!

Yes, you have read it right. A “random firing” in response to stone pelting has resulted in the death of 20 woodcutters. One wonders what could have been the toll had the Force targeted the woodcutters in self-defense. Let us forget how disproportionate it is to use bullets for stones, even if the stones were “raining” down. The alleged encounter took place in a jungle after all and trees could have given ample protection till the Task Force was able to gather itself. But then, Indian law enforcers are used to responding to stones with bullets, for instance in Kashmir in 2010, where 112 people were killed. This included many teenagers and an 11-year-old boy. An uncanny question about this encounter is why the Task Force did not arrest a single person from amongst the remaining 80 or so smugglers. So, not even “dead or alive”, the motto seems to have been “dead or nothing” or “take no prisoners”.

If one finds this one strange, wait till you catch up on the details of the second encounter. This one took place in a jail van, where 17 security force members were taking 5 undertrials from Warangal Jail to a Hyderabad court 150 km away. Yes, you read this right too. This encounter happened inside a jail van with all of the undertrials killed, while unarmed and handcuffed to their seats. The police claims, as per a news channel NDTV that Vikaruddin Ahmed, one of the undertrials, asked to be released in order for him to answer nature’s call. Upon his return he tried to snatch a weapon. The police opened fire when other undertrials allegedly tried to snatch weapons too and this led to all of them getting killed!

How could Vikaruddin Ahmed attempt to snatch a weapon from the security personnel, as undertrials are never let-off alone, not even to use the toilet? As standard operating procedure, security personnel always escort undertrials. Furthermore, even if he did attempt to snatch weaponry, how come a 17-member security force failed to overpower him without firing? Were not remaining four, as per their own claims, still handcuffed and unarmed? Finally, while it is impossible to believe this uncanny and highly improbable story, why exactly did the police need to kill the other four undertrials?

The answers to all these questions are rather simple. The victims in the first case were poor tribal youth caught not only in between lucrative offers of easy money but also interstate (and interlingua) rivalries between the neighbouring states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. That they were not real smugglers but merely coolies for the smuggling mafia that enjoys state patronage on both sides of the border is something immaterial for the police, which could shoot them with impunity but will never dare to touch real smugglers. What should be really bothersome, however, is the way almost all of the Indian media carried the story, parroting the police version, including calling those dead smugglers. Most media houses did not bat an eyelid to ask the obvious: why fire on people pelting stones and how come the Force could not arrest a single person.

Victims of the second encounter came from another persecuted minority of India. They were accused of being members of a local terror outfit Tehreek-Ghalba-e-Islam and were suspected of various attacks on the police in Hyderabad, as well as plotting the murder of Narendra Modi, now Prime Minister of India. They were in jail since 2010. In this case too, the media did the same. A few of reports went to the extent of claiming that the gunning down had foiled a terror plot against Mr. Modi. Only later did the skeletons come tumbling out of the closet. The pictures showing the “terrorists” slain while still being handcuffed to their seats make it nearly impossible for the media to keep parroting the police version.

Security forces eliminating people in custody or with impunity in “encounters” is one of the worst kept secrets of India. The Supreme Court, in its order in Criminal Appeal No.1255 OF 1999, has called such killings nothing less than “state sponsored terrorism”. The Court had done so despite recognising the fact that policemen are indeed required to “take to take drastic action against criminals to protect life and property of the people and to protect themselves against attack.” And yet, it set stringent guidelines to be followed as standard operating procedure in cases of encounters. The guidelines begin from the point of a tip off that can lead to such encounters to video-graphing the post-mortem of individuals that happen to die in the process of police work.

What, however, is a Supreme Court order worth that carries no weight for the police. Let us forget the second encounter, as it is simply too frivolous to be true, and check the facts of the first one. Did the Task Force record the tip-off in any diary? Did it file the mandatory FIR following the encounter and forward it to the court under Section 157 of the Code without any delay? Were any of the guidelines fulfilled so that an independent inquiry could reveal facts about the deaths? One of the guidelines requires an investigation by the Crime Investigation Department or a different police station by an officer at least one rank above the involved officer does not make much sense as officers from whatever stations but same police force investigating an encounter is like asking the accused to investigate himself.

The efficacy of a magisterial inquiry, another guideline set by the Court order, is exposed by the one that was conducted in the custodial killing of Thangjam Manorama, a Manipuri village girl, in 2004. The report of the judicial inquiry commission, led by C. Upendra Singh, retired District and Sessions Judge, Manipur, was submitted in December the same year and was never made public until November 2014. The report indicted personnel of 17 Assam Rifles for “brutal and merciless torture” of Ms. Manorama. Yet this has not resulted in the prosecution of any of the accused and the compensation to the family of the victim. Going by the evidence available, the fate of magisterial enquiries, even those that have fulfilled their mandate, cannot be drastically different in other such cases.

This begets another question: are Indian citizens cursed to live with the danger of getting killed by someone obligated to protect their person and property? They may fear more if they come from vulnerable sections of the society. But should they fear less even if they do not?

Till someone takes the responsibility of reforming the criminal justice system of the country all Indians are in danger. A cruel, violent, and unjust system harbouring criminals in uniform will hurt one and all. The Executive is not interested in any such reform as this system serves its interests well. Will the Judiciary take onus to enforce its orders? And, will the civil society of India understand that having good laws and court orders is not real protection for the marginalized or even the mainstream population in such a criminal justice system?

The author is a Programme Coordinator, Right to Food, AHRC, Hong Kong.

Chittoor encounter 'survivor' surfaces, cops come under fire

April 8, 2015 by Nasheman

Chittoor: A rights group said on Wednesday it has traced a “survivor” from a group of loggers shot dead by Andhra Pradesh police in an incident dubbed as a “massacre” of wood-cutters from neighbouring Tamil Nadu.

On Tuesday, Andhra Pradesh police had claimed to have shot dead 20 illegal red sandalwood smugglers in a forest close to the temple town of Tirupati, sparking violent protests in the neighbouring state which continued on Wednesday.

Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee member Kranthi Chaitanya, in the forefront of a demand for a judicial enquiry into the encounter, said the organisation has “managed to establish contact with the survivor through relatives of the deceased who have come here (Chittoor) from Tamil Nadu.

“He is being kept at a safe place. We will produce him before the National Human Rights Commission,” he added.

The NHRC has already taken suo moto cognizance of the incident and asked for reports from the Andhra Pradesh chief secretary and police chief.

Family-members of a few of the slain “smugglers” arrived at the government mortuary in Chittoor also said the “survivor” was among of 8 wood-cutters hired by red sanders smugglers in Andhra.

The identity of the “survivor”, said to be from Arjuna Puram village in Thiruvanamalai district of Tamil Nadu, was not given.

They quoted him as saying that seven of his group were pulled out of a bus on Monday by police during a search at Nagari on the inter-state border.

“They were traveling in a bus from Thiruvanamalai to Chitoor on Monday afternoon. The bus was stopped by police and seven of the eight men were arrested. He was sitting separately and managed to slip away quietly,” said Raja Babu (38), a relative of one of those killed in the encounter.

The survivor is said to have returned to village on Tuesday morning, around the time news of the encounter broke on TV.

Media reports said that right group Amnesty International has also called for a fair probe into the incident.

Meanwhile, protests continued in Tamil Nadu with incidents of stone-pelting on buses originating in Andhra.

Police said four persons have been arrested over the attacks on buses. Several outfits organised protests in some parts of Tamil Nadu condemning the incident.

Tamil Nadu chief minister O Panneerselvam had written to the Andhra government, demanding a probe into what he called a massacre of innocent Tamils.

Union home minister Rajnath Singh also called up Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu over the incident.

(Agencies)

Judge orders US government to stop suppressing evidence of torture and abuse

March 23, 2015 by Nasheman

Ruling on Friday is latest development in years-long legal battle, in which the ACLU has argued the photos ‘are crucial to the public record’

“Indefinite Detention” (Photo: Justin Norman/flickr/cc)

by Sarah Lazare, Common Dreams

A federal judge on Friday ordered the U.S. government to release more than 2,000 photographs showing abuse and torture of people detained by the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The decision is the latest development in a more than 10-year-long legal battle, in which the American Civil Liberties Unions has argued that disclosure of the records is critical for public debate and government accountability.

Many of the concealed photographs were taken by U.S. military service members and collected during more than 200 military investigations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some could be on par with, or worse than, those released from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

U.S. district judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled (pdf) that the government “is required to disclose each and all of the photographs” in response to a Freedom of Information Act Request from the ACLU. In the order, Hellerstein argued that the government did not adequately prove that “disclosure would endanger Americans.”

The decision gives the Solicitor General two months to decide whether to appeal.

The ACLU has pressed for the release of records relating to torture and extrajudicial killings of prisoners in U.S. custody around the world since 2003.

The administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have vigorously fought to keep these photographs suppressed, and in 2009, the White House collaborated with Congress to secretly change FOIA law to enable the concealment of the images, arguing it is necessary to protect national security.

However, ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer argued in response to Friday’s ruling, “To allow the government to suppress any image that might provoke someone, somewhere, to violence would be to give the government sweeping power to suppress evidence of its own agents’ misconduct. Giving the government that kind of censorial power would have implications far beyond this specific context.”

“The photos are crucial to the public record,” Jaffer continued. “They’re the best evidence of what took place in the military’s detention centers, and their disclosure would help the public better understand the implications of some of the Bush administration’s policies. And the Obama administration’s rationale for suppressing the photos is both illegitimate and dangerous.”

Pioneering fighter Swaminathan who was in the forefront of the struggle to force the giant Coca Cola to quit Kerala is no more

March 17, 2015 by Nasheman

by K.P. Sasi

Veloor Swaminathan is no more. He left Plachimada forever on March 14, 2015. Swaminathan along with Mylamma were the initial foundations of the historic struggle of Plachimada in Kerala. The struggle initiated by a small group of these Adivasis with Dalits and farmers forced one of the largest corporate powers in the world, Coca Cola to bend down and quit Plachimada. If anybody asks, how did such a small force of marginalised people achieve such a herculean task, I would say, study Mylamma and Swaminathan, for any strategy for any people’s movement raising issues of marginalisation.

They welcomed all shades of people with dissent against Coca Cola and made them comfortable under the shades of the struggle, in front of the Coca Cola plant. Thus, people belonging to diverse political parties, NGOs, religious groups, radical left groups, Gandhians, Lohiaites, environmental groups of different shades, representations from other people’s movements, middle class activists, film makers, journalists, intellectuals, researchers from India and abroad flowed to Plachimada in support of the struggle. But both Mylamma and Swaminathan were sitting there protesting against the plant along with villagers for hundreds of days. Looking back, one can rightly say that it is this `inclusive’ character of the movement for which both Mylamma and Swaminathan deserve major credits, which brought the tentative success of the struggle, inspiring many people’s movements and activists all over the world.

Veloor Swaminathan had an innate and organic political and intellectual search. He had strong convictions on Adivasi identity as well as rights. He was open for discussions on all these areas. With strong convictions on Adivasi identity, he spoke in Malappuram when activists organised a public programme in memory of film maker Sarat Chandran, soon after Sarat died. He said: `We Adivasis never felt that Sarat Chandran was from an outside community. We always felt that he was an Adivasi like us.’

I have listened to many people speaking in public about Sarat Chandran, who along with P. Baburaj made a number of documentary films on people’s movements and screened them widely. But I had never heard something like this coming from an Adivasi who had strong convictions on Adivasi identity. When he was speaking these words about our dear friend Sarat, Swaminathan was cryng in front of the mike. For the long standing work of film activism and by being part of many people’s movements, this was Sarat Chandran’s life time achievement award, for no Adivasi will normally tell that in public, about anyone who belonged to an outside community. No film maker in India has received this historical award as per my knowledge. And ultimately, Adivasis like Swaminathan, Sarat Chandran and Mylamma reached their destination.

Swaminathan had a small workshop in Plachimaada. His wife and two children were supported from meagre earnings from this small workshop. As far as I understand, during the later stages of his life, he was extremely bothered about the ill health of his elder child and the expenses for treatment. These freedom fighters do not get any pension for their survival, unlike the freedom fighters of the earlier times. Therefore I guess, compassion from those who relate with the sufferings of those who struggle, is the need of the hour.

The people of Plachimada are still struggling, with the support of the crystal clear foot prints of many who left us. These footprints must not be rubbed by history. These footprints must be preserved for the new generations who try to learn to walk on the roads of struggles for justice. It is from such footprints that new roads will emerge.

I request all my friends to preserve these foot prints, for the sake of the unborn and newly born children, who are yet to confront the pains and pleasures of walking.

In memory, respect and solidarity with the foot prints of Swaminathan.

K.P Sasi is an award winning film director and a political activist. He is also an Associate Editor of Countercurrents.org. He can be reached at kpsasi36@gmail.com

ACLU targets Obama with new lawsuit over drone wars, 'Kill List'

March 16, 2015 by Nasheman

‘Public should know who the government is killing, and why it’s killing them,’ says legal director Jameel Jaffer

President Barack Obama working with senior staff on Air Force One in this file image. (AFP/File)

by Jon Queally, Common Dreams

The American Civil Liberties Union will file a new lawsuit against the Obama administration over continued secrecy surrounding its controversial use of armed drones to carry out lethal strikes and assassinations across the globe, the Guardian reports on Monday.

According to journalist Spencer Ackerman, who was given advance notice of the suit, the ACLU is seeking disclosure from the White House of legal documents and internal memos relating to Obama’s use of drones, with specific attention to how individuals end up on what has become known as the president’s “kill list.”

Though the ACLU has filed previous lawsuits and requests for disclosures regarding the administration’s drone program—operated largely by the CIA but also the military’s Joint Special Operations Command—the latest effort to obtain legal justification for the program follows continued secrecy and ongoing “stonewalling” by White House lawyers and other agencies.

“Over the last few years, the US government has used armed drones to kill thousands of people, including hundreds of civilians. The public should know who the government is killing, and why it’s killing them,” Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for the ACLU, told the Guardian.

The new lawsuit, reports Ackerman, describes how numerous agencies under Obama’s authority—including the State and Justice Departments, the Pentagon, as well as the CIA—have been stonewalling the ACLU for nearly 18 months.

While lawyers for the Obama administration have argued that national security prevents further disclosures and President Obama has said that internal changes have enhanced the safeguards surrounding the selection of targets and the execution of drone strikes, the ACLU argues the level of secrecy around a program of such profound importance is simply unacceptable in a representative democracy.

Jaffer told the Guardian there could be no “legitimate justification” for persistent official stonewalling on civilian casualties and the procedures by which people, including U.S. citizens, can find themselves on a secret government “kill list.”

“The categorical secrecy surrounding the drone program doesn’t serve any legitimate security interest,” Jaffer told the Guardian. “It serves only to skew public debate, to obscure the human costs of the program, and to shield decision-makers from accountability.”

Delhi HC quashes look out circular against Greenpeace campaigner Priya Pillai

March 12, 2015 by Nasheman

Priya Pillai, Campaigner Greenpeace India.

New Delhi: Exactly two months after Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai was stopped from boarding a flight to London to speak to British MPs, the Delhi High Court has asked the government to quash and set aside the lookout circular against her.

The court has also directed the government to expunge the passport entry where it has been stamped as “offload”.

The court told the government that democracy cannot be muzzled in a democracy and that citizens can have different opinions of development policies.

“I’m feeling very happy because this reposes our faith in the Indian judiciary. Big win for people who dare to have a different dream of development which may not coincide with the dream of the government… Big vindication of our work,” Ms Pillai said after the court order.

Ms Pillai, who was offloaded from the aircraft by immigration officials on January 11, was scheduled to visit London to make a presentation before British MPs regarding alleged human rights violation at Mahan in Madhya Pradesh where a proposed coal mining project was threatening to uproot the lives of the local communities.

Ms Pillai said her offloading was “illegal and arbitrary” and she had a valid business visa for six months to visit London where she was scheduled to address British parliamentarians on January 14.

Her name will now also be removed from any government database that prevents her from travelling abroad.

(Agencies)

NHRC issues notice to Kerala government on the arrest of human rights defenders

March 4, 2015 by Nasheman

New Delhi: The National Human Rights Commission has taken suo motu cognizance of a media report that the Kerala Government was targeting human rights defenders and rights activists by labeling them as ‘Maoists sympathizers’.

Human rights defenders and advocates Tushar Nirmal Sarathy and Jaison C. Cooper had been arrested under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in Kerala and were in jail since the 30th January, 2015. While Jaison was arrested from Cochin on the 29th January, 2015, Tushar was arrested after a press conference in Kozhikode on the same day.

The Commission has observed that the contents of the press report, if true, raise a serious issue of violation of human rights of human rights defenders. It has issued a notice to the Director General of Police, Kerala calling for a report within two weeks.

Reportedly, both Tushar and Jaison were actively engaged in peasants’ struggles against land acquisition, illegal rock quarrying, forcible evictions, and the violation of labour rights of migrant workers in Kerala as well as struggles against various polluting industries.

Palestine to lodge ICC case against Israel in April

March 3, 2015 by Nasheman

A Palestinian boy climbs through the rubble of a house after it was hit in an Israeli air strike in Gaza City, Aug. 25, 2014. (Photo: Wissam Nassar / The New York Times)

by RT

Palestine’s first complaint against Israel’s alleged war crimes will be filed at the International Criminal Court in April, according to a senior Palestinian official. The issue will reportedly be related to the 2014 war in Gaza.

“One of the first important steps will be filing a complaint against Israel at the ICC on April 1 over the [2014] Gaza war and settlement activity,” Mohammed Shtayyeh, a member of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) told AP on Monday.

The Palestinians will be able to take legal action at the court based in The Hague, Netherlands, after the nation moved to join the international authority formally in January. According to the court’s procedures, “the statute will enter into force for the State of Palestine on April 1.”

Israel’s foreign ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nachshon expressed his country’s refusal to react to the declaration, describing it as“speculative and hypothetical,” as quoted by AP. The Israeli administration has for decades consistently opposed Palestine’s legal power to sue Israel for war crimes.

After Palestine’s move to join the ICC was confirmed by the UN in January, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country “will not let Israel Defence Forces (IDF) soldiers and officers be dragged” to The Hague. Following the announcement in January, Israel froze the transfer of half a billion shekels ($125 million) in tax revenue to the Palestinian Authority.

The ICC, with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, announced a preliminary examination into Israel’s 2014 actions in Gaza. Around 2,200 Palestinians were killed in that conflict,with over 60 percent of the victims being civilians. Israel’s losses included 66 soldiers and 6 civilians, according to an investigation, carried out by AP earlier this month.

After Palestine officially joins the Court in April, it also plans to sue Israel over its policy of settlement building on land occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. Under international law, all Israeli construction on land seized during the war is considered illegal.

Amnesty's report details 'devastating year of mass violence'

February 27, 2015 by Nasheman

The human rights of men, women and children are being trampled upon according to Amnesty. Photo: UNICEF/Alessio Romenzi

by Mike Wooldridge, BBC

Amnesty International’s newly published annual report makes for decidedly sober reading.

But that’s to be expected given the atrocities committed in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Central African Republic and other countries.

“This has been a devastating year for those seeking to stand up for human rights and for those caught up in the suffering of war zones,” the secretary general of Amnesty International, Salil Shetty, wrote in the foreword.

And the human rights campaigning group strongly criticises governments.

“In the year marking the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, politicians repeatedly trampled on the rules protecting civilians, or looked away from the deadly violations of these rules committed by others,” Mr Shetty said.

“The United Nations was established 70 years ago to ensure that we would never again see the horrors witnessed in the Second World War.

“We are now seeing violence on a mass scale and an enormous refugee crisis caused by that violence.

“There has been a singular failure to find workable solutions to the most pressing needs of our time.”

‘Powerful signal’

One such workable solution, Amnesty International suggests, would be for the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the United States, China, Russia, France and Britain – to agree not to use their right of veto to block action in response to situations of genocide and other mass atrocities.

Salil Shetty takes the view that this would be a “game changer” for the international community and the tools it has at its disposal to help protect civilian lives,

He also believed it would send a powerful signal to perpetrators that the world would not sit idly by while mass atrocities took place.

The idea that the five powers would voluntarily renounce their veto rights in such circumstances has been around for some time.

Indeed the French government has been at the forefront of such an initiative, and it seems to have been gathering momentum.

Amnesty says it intends to get the weight and influence of its seven million supporters and activists behind it.

It argues that if the use of the veto in the Security Council had already been restrained in this way then it could have prevented Russia using its veto repeatedly to block UN action over the violence in Syria.

This might have resulted in President Bashar al-Assad being referred to the International Criminal Court, in achieving greater access for badly needed humanitarian aid and in further ways of helping civilians.

The British government has not yet made a specific commitment in favour of the voluntary renunciation of the veto.

But the Foreign Office said in response to the Amnesty report: “The proposal put forward by France offers an important contribution to the wider debate on reform of the Security Council.

“The United Kingdom wholeheartedly supports the principle that the Security Council must act to stop mass atrocities and crimes against humanity.

“We cannot envisage circumstances where we would use our veto to block such action.”

Amnesty International fears that 2015 could be another bleak year for human rights.

It predicts that more civilian populations will be forced to live under the quasi-state control of brutal armed groups.

There will be deepening threats to freedom of expression and other rights including violations caused by new draconian anti-terror laws and unjustified mass surveillance.

It also says and there will be a worsening humanitarian and refugee crisis.

But Amnesty says its aim is to get governments to “stop pretending that the protection of civilians is beyond their power”.

Cycle of violence

It acknowledges that the coming into force last year of the Arms Trade Treaty was a success. But it wants much more to be done to tackle what it calls “the bloody legacy of the flooding of weapons into countries where they are used for grave abuses by states and armed groups”.

Anna Neistat, Amnesty’s senior director for research, said: “Huge arms shipments were delivered to Iraq, Israel, South Sudan and Syria in 2014 despite the very high likelihood that these weapons would be used against civilian populations trapped in conflict.

“When IS took control of large parts of Iraq it found large arsenals, ripe for the picking.”

The human rights group also argues that further restrictions on the use of explosive weapons, which cannot be precisely targeted or which otherwise have wide effect in populated areas, could have helped to save thousands of lives lost in recent conflicts.

If Amnesty is robust in its challenge to governments, the British government maintains that it is an exaggeration to accuse the international community of paralysis.

The Foreign Office said the Security Council had acted effectively on a number of issues over the past year for example, 100,000 peacekeepers were deployed globally, to address conflicts and help states build peaceful societies.

“The underlying drivers of abuse are discrimination, impunity and inequality,” said Mr Shetty.

“If we do not stop these, all we will have is a cycle of violence.”

Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai approaches HC against her 'offloading'

January 28, 2015 by Nasheman

Priya Pillai, Campaigner Greenpeace India.

New Delhi: Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai, who was “offloaded” from a flight at the Delhi airport on instructions of Intelligence Bureau, approached the Delhi high court on Tuesday.

Terming the January 11 move by immigration officials as violation of her basic rights, Pillai has also challenged the home ministry guidelines that allow agencies to deboard citizens without court summons.

She was on her way to London to make a presentation before British MPs regarding alleged human rights violation at Mahan in Madhya Pradesh where a proposed coal mining project was threatening to uproot the lives of the local communities.

Greenpeace in a statement said that the activist has claimed that her being denied permission to travel abroad by government agencies was illegal and a violation of her basic right to personal liberty and freedom of speech. It is also “deliberate attempt to malign her reputation”, the organization has claimed.

Pillai’s petition argues that debarring her from going abroad is an illegal act by overzealous government agencies on the basis of a flawed circular issued by MHA. “The circular has no legal basis as Pillai neither has any conviction against her, nor has she ever evaded arrest or trial in any case,” it says.

In 2014, the MHA had decided to block foreign funds received by Greenpeace India which the NGO had received from Greenpeace International and Climate Works Foundation. The NGO had then challenged the government’s action in the Delhi high court, which last week ruled that the funds must be released. HC directed the MHA to transfer the blocked the funds to Greenpeace India’s account calling the ministry’s action, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

(TNN)