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 

(Regd. Post/Acknowledgement Due/Email)

 

The National Human Rights Commission,

Sardar Patel Bhavan,

Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001.
tel (011) 3348478 fax (011)3340016

Email: nhrc@ren02.nic.in

 

                                                                                                                        14 July 2000

 

Reg.:  Assault on my person and arbitrary denial of my fundamental rights whilst participating in the statutory "Environmental Public Hearing" on the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor on 05 July 2000 at Yavanika, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore.

 

Dear Sir or Madam:

 

1.      I am Coordinator and Trustee of Environment Support Group (ESG), a non-profit public interest research, training and advocacy NGO, registered under the Indian Trusts Act.  ESG works in promoting environmental and social justice of poor and affected communities, and has taken a leading role in various public interest campaigns on environmental law and policy issues.

 

2.      As part of the environmental clearance cycle, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board is required to conduct "Environmental Public Hearings" for a schedule list of projects. The Rs. 2,000 crore Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) involving acquisition of over 20,000 acres of land and dislocation of about 150 villages qualified for these Hearings and the same were first held on 9th March 2000 in Bangalore and subsequently in Mandya and Mysore districts. 

 

3.      I participated in the Bangalore Hearing on March 9th, and together with other members of the public, had urged the Government, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, to make available several public domain documents on the project.  I had stated that the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board had in the past provided documents pertaining to environmental, social and economic impacts of other projects prior to hearings and the same could be done for the BMIC project as well.  Convinced by this deposition and in response to this request, the DC in consultation with the Members of the Public Hearing Panel ordered that the documents would be made available for public inspection in two weeks and adjourned the Hearings.  Consequently, the Hearings in Mandya and Mysore were similarly postponed at that time. (Enclosed are Press Reports on this decision at Annexure 1)

 

4.      The list of documents that the DC had directed on March 9th 2000 to be made available to the public, especially in the local languages, is enclosed herewith: 

 

(a)   Environment Impact Assessment with Socio-economic components

(b)   Rehabilitation and Resettlement Report

(c)   Environmental Risk Assessment Report

(d)   Techno-economic Feasibility Report

(e)   Memorandum of Understanding between the State and the company

(f)     Project Report detailing type of scheme envisaged

(g)   Frame Work Agreement - 1997 between the State and the company

(h)   NICE (Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd.) - KIADB (Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board) Agreement relating to extent and type of land to be acquired and the purpose for which acquired

(i)     NICE-BWSSB (Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board) Agreement relating to the amount of water committed to be supplied

(j)      NICE-KPTCL (Karnataka Power Corporation Transmission Limited) Agreement relating to the amount of power committed to be supplied

(k)   1999 October Supplementary Agreement an amendment to the aforementioned framework agreement

(l)      All Government Orders pertaining to the Project

 

5.      Subsequently, despite repeated requests from the public, the documents were never made public as assured.  Instead the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board issued advertisements in the Times of India dated 28 May, 01 June and 03 June 2000 announcing the decision to hold Hearings for  Mysore (30th June), Mandya (3rd July) and Bangalore (5th July), respectively (copies of the advertisements are enclosed at Annexure 2).  This even as the Board wrote in a letter dated 22 June 2000 responding to queries of Karnataka Vimochana Ranga on access to documents stating that the information sought was not being shared with the public as the company, M/s Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. (NICE), had classified them as "confidential".  The response of KSPCB is enclosed at Annexure 3.

 

6.      There was widespread public outrage given this extremely questionable position taken by the Board.  The response of the Government should have been to come clean on the project details and its impacts.  Quite the contrary was the situation, for the Hearings held recently were marked more by the Government's willingness to use force against peaceful citizens and on democratic processes employed by people demanding information.  When I learnt that the Mysore Public Hearing held on 30 June 2000 was disorderly and heavy police presence, including the presence of a Deputy Commissioner of Police on the dais, was used to threaten peaceful citizens from presenting their views, I approached the Director General of Police on 1st July 2000 requesting his intervention to ensure that the Mandya and Bangalore hearings were held in an amenable manner and not in a climate of terror.  I also provided the DGP a copy of a Press Release we had made in this regard, enclosed at Annexure 4.  Despite taking such precautions, my Rights were totally abused during the  Bangalore Hearing.

 

7.      At the Bangalore Hearing held at Yavanika from about 11 a.m. of 05 July 2000, I was particularly targeted, with police personnel assaulting me, and dragging me out of the statutory hearing process in full view of the public and the media.  This was a wholly arbitrary decision, vindictive in nature and employed in denying me of my fundamental rights by the Deputy Commissioner, District Magistrate and Chairman of the Public Hearing, Mr. Mohammed Sanaulla.  This especially when I had in no manner whatsoever, acted to "obstruct" the proceedings of this Statutory Hearing.  The details of the assault are as follows.

 

8.      The Deputy Commissioner, being the Chairperson of the Hearing, introduced the Panel members to the public, and began the Hearing.  He informed that only a maximum of 3 minutes would be given for each presentation, even as he said adequate time would be given to present views as many as there were on this complex issue.  These statements were inherently contradictory. 

 

9.      At this time several members of the public stood up enquiring how the Hearings could be held when the direction of the DC in the previous hearing to provide project information to the public had not been complied with.  This particularly when the DC and the Panel had been completely convinced of the need to share this information for any meaningful dialogue to continue.  The DC did not respond to this query, even when a fervent appeal was made by Mr. H. S. Doreswamy, a Senior Citizen and Gandhian.  Mr.  Doreswamy then informed the DC that when he had approached the High Court with a Public Interest Litigation seeking direction from the Court to make the documents public, the Court had urged citizens to present their views on the need for the information during the Hearing.  He thus urged the DC to consider the implications of the judicial direction with all the responsibility and care demanded.  Once more there was no response.  As the non-committal attitude of the DC amounted to proceeding with the Hearing in an irrational and unjust manner, I presented to the DC and the Panel a report of the proceedings of the March 9th Public Hearing (enclosed at Annexure 5), hoping this would enlighten the DC of his own assurances, and thus prevail upon his conscience to respond to people's just demands for project information.

 

10. About this time there was much rabble rousing from a drunk group of hecklers who started shouting pro-project slogans.  The DC did not constrain them in any manner.  He instead began to call some members from the audience to present their views, in a rather arbitrary manner.  At which point about 20-30 members of the Karnataka Vimochana Ranga and Anti-Imperialist Forum, groups that have waged a relentless struggle for public access to project information, began to raise their protests demanding project information vocally and in chorus.  This continued for a while, and about this time the police, who were present in very large numbers, especially from the Rapid Striking Forces, surrounded them and began dragging them out of the premises.  Only those who demanded information were being targeted by such "arrests". It must also be pointed out here that several women who were demanding access to information on the project were physically handled by police men, and some were molested by the mob shouting in favour of the project. 

 

11. I found this whole action a blatant abuse of human rights and protested with the DC against such selective "arrests".  Several others also took similar steps, protesting the high-handedness of the DC and the police.  But again the DC did not correct and check his arbitrary use of power. The Panel also remained completely silent during this entire process.

 

12. I then waited for my turn to speak.  At this time the atmosphere at the venue was calm. Suddenly a posse of policemen surrounded me at around 12.30 p.m. and lifted me out of the Yavanika Hall, without in any manner informing me that I was being "arrested".  They then dragged me on the staircase, resulting in several bruises on my person.  During this time one of those who lifted me, a person in a red shirt, apparently a plainclothes policeman (who is identified in the enclosed photograph at Annexure 6), shouted in Kannada "Kick him! Push him down!".  I was immediately pushed down the staircase, head down first, even as other policemen kicked me.  This caused severe aching in my neck and back, and even as I screamed in pain, I was carried out of the building and thrown in the vehicle parking lot (enclosed copy of Udayavani report dated 06 July 2000 along with other press reports on the incident at Annexure 7).

 

13. Thereafter, on insisting that I should be medically examined, I was taken to the Victoria Hospital, where doctors examined and recorded my bruises, ordered an X-ray examination, and thankfully ruled out any fractures (copy of medical report of Victoria Hospital No. 340921 dated 5/7/2000 enclosed at Annexure 8). 

 

14. I was then taken to the Viveknagar Police Station from where I was released, along with the others arrested during the Hearing, only around 5.30 p.m. in the evening.

 

15. Primarily I hold Mr. Sanaulla responsible for the series of events in which he conspired to deny me my Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19),  Right to Equality before Law (Article 14) and Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21) in the statutory Environmental Public Hearing, held per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification.  Further, as the Presiding Officer of a Constitutionally empowered Public Hearing process, his action of ordering my removal from the Hearing in the most inhumane manner and in full view of over 400 citizens and the Press, was most arbitrary, reprehensible, and vindictive.  I had in no manner whatsoever acted to "obstruct" the proceedings of the process, a fact I am most willing to verify with the video footage made available of the happenings by the Press.

 

16. What shocks me is that those who came drunk and indulged in jeering citizens demanding information and slogan shouting in favour of the Project, apparently at the behest of the Project Developer, M/S Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise, were completely allowed to behave in this manner and  let off altogether by the DC and the police.  This even when they hurled choicest abuses against widely respected Senior Citizen, Freedom Fighter and Gandhian, Mr. H. S. Doreswamy, who demanded, on his turn, that the Public Hearing would only be meaningful if and only if the Public Domain information which the DC had assured in the previous Public Hearing held on March 9, 2000, would be made accessible to the public.  A video recording of this testifies to this selective abuse of power by the DC, Mr. Sanaulla, and will be produced as evidence when required.

 

17. It must also be pointed out here that several women who were demanding access to information on the project were physically handled by police men, and some were molested by the mob shouting in favour of the project.

 

18. Considering that Mr. Sanaulla, DC, was Presiding Officer of the Hearing in his capacity as District Commissioner and as well District Magistrate, he should have acted in a responsible and judicious manner.  To have used his police powers vindictively, selectively, arbitrarily, harshfully and irresponsibly, especially against the undersigned who had in no way acted to "obstruct" the proceedings, is an act which must be viewed sternly and punished in accordance with the law.

 

19. Consequently, I am lodging this complaint with you for necessary action at the very earliest.  I also request you to initiate action against those particular policemen who handled me brutally.  I am enclosing for your reference, a copy of the complaints I have lodged with the City Police Commissioner, the Director General of Police and the Chief Secretary of Karnataka in this regard, enclosed at Annexure 9.  

 

20. I approach the National Human Rights Commission confident that the most appropriate and immediate action is taken in this regard against those guilty of abuse of human rights in a statutory process of Public Hearings.  Considering that absolutely no action is being initiated at the State level, your affirmative action will not only ensure that the State does not threaten or abuse the Rights of the people, but will also protect crucial processes such as the "Environmental Public Hearings" which the Government has conscientiously vilified in the present instance.

 

Thanking you in anticipation for your cooperation, support and corrective action in this regard.

 

I remain,

 

Yours truly,

 

 

Leo F. Saldanha

Coordinator/Trustee

 

Encl.: As above.