Environment Support Group ®
S-3, Rajashree Apartments,
18/57, 1st Main Road, S. R. K. Gardens,
Jayanagar, Bannerghatta
Road, Bangalore 560 041. INDIA
Telefax: 91-80-6341977 Fax:
91-80-6723926 (PP)
Email: esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in
Website: http://www.altindia.net/esg/index.htm
Mr. R. T. Malekar
Asst. Registrat (Law)
National Human Rights
Commission
Sardar Patel Bhavan
Sansad Marg
New Delhi 110 001
Tel: 91-11-336 1175
Fax: 91-11-3340016
Email: nhrc@ren02.nic.in or
jrlawnhrc@hub.nic.in
17 May 2001
Reg.: In continuation of my correspondence dated
05 April 2001 with regard to your letter dated 13 March 2001 in response to my
complaint No. 242/10/2000-2001 lodged with NHRC on 14 July 2000
Dear Sir,
I write in continuation of
my letter to you dated 05 April 2001 along with interim rejoinder to the
response filed by the Commissioner of Police (dated 07 Nov 2000, but copy
supplied to me by NHRC only with letter of 13 March 2001) with regard to the
aforementioned matter. As I was
travelling then, I was constrained to write from my camp base in Univ. of
Maryland, USA. On return, I have called
your office and confirmed that you have received the courier with my 5th April
letter on 07 April 2001.
Presently I am filing a more
detailed rejoinder to the Police Response and producing as evidence an approx.
80 min. video documentation in VHS format that covers the events in the
Environmental Public Hearing dated 05 July 2000 in Bangalore. The video is visual proof of the correctness
of the facts stated in my petition, substantiates my rebuttal of the police
charges against me, whilst also exposing the duplicity of the Police’s
response.
I do hope to be of any
further assistance in disposing the matter justly.
Thanking you,
Yours truly,
Leo F. Saldanha
Coordinator/Trustee
Environment Support Group
Environment Support Group ®
S-3, Rajashree Apartments,
18/57, 1st Main Road, S. R. K. Gardens,
Jayanagar, Bannerghatta
Road, Bangalore 560 041. INDIA
Telefax: 91-80-6341977 Fax:
91-80-6723926 (PP)
Email: esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in
Website: http://www.altindia.net/esg/index.htm
National Human Rights
Commission
Sardar Patel Bhavan
Sansad Marg
New Delhi 110 001
Tel: 91-11-336 1175
Fax: 91-11-3340016
Email: nhrc@ren02.nic.in or
jrlawnhrc@hub.nic.in
17 May 2001
Reg.: Additional Grounds and
Documentation to Interim Rejoinder filed by Complainant on 05 April 2001,
contesting Response filed by Office of the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore
City, dated 23 October 2000 in response to my complaint lodged with NHRC No.
242/10/2000-2001
Dear Sir or Madam:
1. I submit herewith an 80 min. (approx.) video documentation of
the 5th July 2000 Environmental Public Hearing held by Mr. Sanaulla, IAS,
District Commissioner, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as DC) on the
Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (hereinafter BMIC), per the
Environment Impact Assessment Notification of the Ministry of Environment and
Forests. This video documentation
substantiates all the facts I have stated in my original complaint dated 14
July 2000 and subsequent correspondence on the matter.
2. In specific the video documentation provides visual proof of
the fact that:
a) The DC ordered selective arrests of only those citizens who
were demanding that the Environmental Public Hearing should be held after
public domain information on the Project was supplied to the public, per the
DC’s commitment to that effect in an earlier Hearing held during March 2000.
b) I protested the DC’s intention of continuing the Hearing
without providing the information (and this despite repeated attempts by
various individuals and groups prior to the July Hearing), only in a manner
that was clearly civil.
c) At no time was I a party to any action that could be termed
violative of Sections 143,
147, 332, 186 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as so charged per Cr. No.
642/2000 at Ulsoorgate Police Station, Bangalore.
d) The DC completely spared those amongst the gathering abusing
various eminent citizens,
including noted Gandhian Shri. H. S. Doreswamy, whilst progressive citizens
were debating with the DC the need to be transparent and democratic in conducting
this crucial decision making process.
e) Some women who were demanding their Right to Information on
the
Project were abused and even
molested by some drunken elements and yet no action whatsoever was initiated
against the rowdy crowd.
f) I was physically lifted out of the Venue in a brutal manner
and
dragged down the stairs by
the Police. Legal medical examination
was
provided only a long protest
outside the venue.
g) The Media was a witness to this whole episode and reported
the same prominently.
h) The Panel was a mute witness to this blatant abuse of Human
Rights.
3. A brief checklist of the major events in the Video
Documentation is supplied at Annexure 1 along with the video counter readings
for reference.
4. Having so stated, I submit to the Commission that the very
purpose of calling a Public Hearing is to listen to people’s views on a
project. When a project is as enormous as the BMIC
Project, wherein over 21,000 acres of agricultural, forest and farmlands are
under acquisition, involving the potential displacement of people from at least
143 villages (per project claims), the issues contained are bound to be complex
and contentious. This particularly when
five massive new towns are proposed to be developed displacing hundreds of
thousands of farmers. Heavy demands are placed on water and energy to support
lavish lifestyles that include landscaped townships, recreation malls,
championship golf courses, corporate entertainment centres, tourism facilities
for NRIs and foreigners, etc. The real estate value so created, is claimed to
support the public purpose of the project, i.e. building an Expressway.
5. This when two Highways already exist with ample scope for
further development and for which funds have been committed based on World Bank
loans. And especially when there exists
the clear and affordable alternative of developing the existing railway
corridor between Bangalore and Mysore to provide safe, affordable and
environmentally sustainable public transport.
The total expenditure on all these alternatives combined will not be
more than Rs. 800 crores (as stated by Government commissioned expert reports),
requires no major land acquisition, and is accessible by all. The proposed Expressway, on the contrary, is
toll based and accessible only to those who live in the proposed expensive
townships, or those in Bangalore and Mysore who can afford to commute by car
daily to work and back. The farming
community on either side of the Expressway and walled townships, will be
effectively cut off from each other, potentially
resulting in serious
socio-economic repercussions, in addition to the
normally expected serious
environmental impacts of such developments.
6. It is the duty of the Government when supporting or proposing
such projects to demonstrate to the Public that it has formed a decision based
on a process of transparent review and that the project is clearly in the
public interest. The best manner of
demonstrating the Government’s transparency is to share the documents on the
project that relate to the social, environmental and economic impacts of the
project. Contrary to this desired
approach, the Government of Karnataka has been absolutely secretive about all
aspects of the project. This is best
evidenced by a letter from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, dated
22 June 2000, wherein it is clearly stated that all the requested relevant
public domain information on the project is “confidential”. Not because any law of the land terms them
as such, but because the developer, M/s Nandi Infrastructure Corridor
Enterprise, has termed them so. This
letter along with its English translation is annexed at Annexure 2.
7. It was such reasoning that caused deep consternation amongst
all citizens, and progressive groups and individuals took up the important task
of demanding a reversal of this retrograde stand in the Environmental Public
Hearing. This when the DC had
previously decided to furnish all the requested information in a previous
Hearing on the project held on 09 March 2000 at Yavanika, Bangalore, and on
this basis subsequent Hearings for Mandya and Mysore districts were adjourned
as well. Such a position was in clear
conformity of earlier decisions of the Government to share project information,
a precedent that was set during June 1998 in the Environmental Public Hearings
on the Bangalore Mangalore Multi-fuel Petroleum Pipeline. A letter from KSPCB to the Environment
Support Group, dated 28 May 1998, is evidence to this fact and is annexed at
Annexure.3.
8. During the 5th July 2000 Hearing, I brought it to the notice
of the DC that there then existed a Public Interest Writ Petition No. 22063 of
2000 filed by Shri. H. S. Doreswamy, against the KSPCB decision. At the time of the Public Hearing, the
Hon’ble High Court had reserved judgement on the matter leaving it to citizens
to press further for information on the project during the Public Hearing. The actions of the DC in ordering arrests
selectively of only those asserting their Right to Information were thus
clearly arbitrary and excessive, especially when sparing those who were clearly
involved even in molesting some women participating in the Hearing process.
This especially when the Environmental Public Hearings are Statutory processes
to which people come with the hope that fairness and
justice are regarded, not
hooliganism and abuse of power.
9. Soon after this incident, I had filed official complaints
against the arbitrary and excessive actions of the DC and brutal arrests
undertaken by the police with the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore. This letter is annexed at Annexure 4. Rather than act on this complaint, the
police started acting on the copy of a Press Release that had been made prior
to the July 5th Hearing. This was a
copy supplied to the Director General of Police (DGP) by me when I met him
prior to the Hearing, as a documentation of shameful defense by the Government
of abusive actions by “pro-project” hooligans during the Hearing held in Mysore
on 30 June 2000. Fearing the same may
recur in the subsequent Hearings of 3rd July (Mandya) and 5th July (Bangalore),
I urged the DGP for protection of civil participation by citizens, especially
those demanding transparency in project decision making. The same is enclosed at Annexure 5.
10. It was only on 10th March 2001 that I
received confirmation from Ulsoor Gate Police Station that the complaint
against the DC’s action had been investigated, but under the same charges as
those filed against the Complainant! A
copy of this letter is annexed at Annexure 6.
11. In response to hundreds of protest letters that had been received
from across India and the world, the Chief Minister of Karnataka confirmed that
he had directed the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore to conduct an enquiry
into the matter. A copy of the Chief
Minister’s email directive, along with a sample of the protest letters is
enclosed at Annexure 7. Absolutely no action has proceeded on this front.
12. It may thus be seen that despite
assurances from the highest rungs of the Karnataka Government’s governance
mechanism, no effective action has followed to cause action against the
arbitrary and excessive action of the DC and the Police. Instead the KSPCB has proceeded to accord No
Objection Certificate (NOC) to the project, but clearly expunging all remarks
and tens of written submissions that have been critical of the project whilst
filing the report of the Public Hearings that form basis of the NOC. Best evidence to this fact is the video
documentation, wherein the critical submissions of Mr. S. Sridhar of Wetland
International, seen towards the end of the video, are not at all reflected in
the Public Hearing report. A copy of
this report along with the NOC extended is annexed at Annexure 8.
13. Finally, the Police response attempts to
ridicule me presenting me to have been a “member of the unlawful assembly
having indulged in unruly activities causing obstruction of the lawful
functioning of the public servant”.
Contrary to this averment, the video documentation substantiates clearly
that I acted at all times in a civil manner and was clearly conforming with
parliamentary behaviour. To have
brutally arrested me for fear of what I would have to say, and this after I had
passed my name to the DC for turn to speak, is a clear demonstration of the
lack of truth in the Police Response.
Framing charges such as u/s of 143, 147, 332, 186 r/w 149 of Indian
Penal Code, without any possibility of substantiating the same, demonstrates
the Government’s willingness to abuse the law to thwart progressive citizens’
cry for participatory and transparent governance. By terming my participation in a Statutory Public Hearing as
“unlawful”, the Police have exposed their lack of application of mind on the
relevant law. This also substantiates
my charge that grave injustice has been caused by abusing my Human Rights, and
denying me the Right to involve meaningfully in the decision making process as
mandated by law.
14. I am a law-abiding citizen and have
caused action on various issues of public interest concern. As Coordinator of Environment Support Group,
a non-profit public interest research training and advocacy organisation, a
Profile of which is annexed at Annexure 9, I am aware of the risks of
progressive action on controversial issues such as the BMIC Project. I have been amongst the foremost advocates
of fair process in Public Hearings, and am constantly invited as a resource
person to various Government, academic and non-governmental consultations; a
more recent initiative is annexed at Annexure 10. It thus seems very distressing that such bogus and heavy charges
are framed against citizens acting progressively in the wider public interest.
Such abuse of power leaves little hope for good administration in the country,
if not contained.
15. I therefore appeal to that Commission
that the Human Rights abuses in the said Environmental Public Hearing must not
be condoned. Hinging on this decision
rests the hopes of hundreds of thousands of people across the length and
breadth of this country who look upon public involvement avenues as
Environmental Public Hearings as their small chinks of access to the highly
in-transparent administration of the country.
This is an appeal to ensure people’s Right to Information is
acknowledged. All actions, including by
the highest levels of governance, that demonstrate intolerance and resort to
abuse of power to thwart such democratic demands, must be denounced.
16. The Complainant thereby prays to the NHRC
to:
a) Direct the Government of Karnataka to share the public domain
information on the project
and cause such action as it deems fit to ensure all Environmental Public
Hearings in the country are held only after the public domain social,
environment and economic information on projects is fully shared.
b) Cause action cancelling the Environmental Public Hearings
held on the BMIC project, as the same have been held in blatant abuse of Human
Rights, especially citizens right to meaningfully and peacefully
participate in an informed
manner in statutory processes.
c) Direct the Government of Karnataka to hold fresh statutory
Environmental Public
Hearings on the project after providing the public
domain information as
committed during the March 2000 Hearings.
d) Cause such action as the Commission deems fit against the DC
for abusing responsible power and causing excessive use of force during the
aforesaid Hearings. Similarly, cause
action against such of the police personnel, as identified in the original
Complaint, who were violent against me.
Thank you for your
cooperation and support.
Yours truly,
Leo F. Saldanha
Coordinator
Environment Support Group
Environment Support Group
(R)
S-3, Rajashree Apartments
18/57, 1st Main, S. R. K.
Gardens
Jayanagar, Bannerghatta Road
Bangalore 560 041. INDIA
Telefax: 91-80-6341977
Fax: 91-80-6723926 (PP)
Email: esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in