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.