Security laws affect human rights activists in India: Margaret
Source: Hueiyen News Service

Imphal, January 21, 2011: Arbitrary application of security laws at the national and state levels directly affects the work of human rights defenders, said the assessment report of Margaret Sekaggya, UN Special Rapporteur, who had carried out a fact-finding mission to assess the situation of human rights defenders in India from January 10 till today.

Margaret Sekaggya travelled to New Delhi, Bhubaneshwor (Orissa), Kolkata (West Bengal, Guwahati (Assam), Ahmedabad (Gujarat), Jammu and Srinagar (Jammu and Kashmir) to assess the situation of the human rights defenders during her visit in the country.

"While I acknowledge the security challenges faced by the country (India), I am deeply concerned about the arbitrary application of security laws at the national and state levels (in Jammu and Kashmir and in the North-East of India), most notably the Public Security Act and the Armed Forces (Special) Powers Act, the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, which direly affects the work of human rights defenders," her assessment report observed.

She also expressed worry of the troubles faced by human rights defenders who are branded and stigmatised by labelling them as "naxalites (Maoists), "terrorists", "militants", "insurgents", and "members of the underground".

Defenders of rights including journalists are often targeted by both sides in a conflict, she observed adding that freedom of movement of defenders has also been restricted under the security laws.

For instance, applications of passport or renewal have been denied, as well as access for defenders to victims in some areas, she added.

Illegitimate restrictions to freedom of peaceful assembly were brought to her attention Margaret alleged, citing that she was informed of instances where supporters of a human rights defender in detention which were not permitted to take part in protests.

She also expressed concern about the amendment to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act which provides that non-governmental organisations must re-apply every five years for review of their status by the Ministry of Home Affairs in order to receive foreign funding.

Such a provision may be used to censor non-governmental organisations which are critical of government policies, her assessment suggested.

Although the judiciary is the primary avenue for legal redress, she observed that its functioning is hampered by backlog and significant delays in administering cases of human rights violations.

In such a situation the National Human Rights Commission and the existing State Human Rights Commissions is an important additional avenue where human rights defenders can seek redress, she further suggested.

Observing the points, Margaret recommended that the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretaries should publicly acknowledge the importance and legitimacy of the work of human rights defenders.

She also recommended the GoI to give security forces clear instructions to respect the work and the rights and fundamental freedoms of human rights defenders, especially human rights defenders who face particular risks; to impart sensitization training to security forces on the role and activities of human rights defenders with technical advice and taking assistance from relevant UN entities, non-governmental organisations and other parties.

She further recommended for repeal of the Armed Forces (Special) Power Act and the Public Security Act and review of application of other security laws which adversely affect the work and safety of human rights defenders.

Comment