Civil Liberties

Who is afraid of APDR? in Human Rights — by Nisha Biswas  https://countercurrents.org/2021/10/who-is-afraid-of-apdr/ — 28/10/2021

In 1936, Jawaharlal Nehru felt the need of a non-political and broad based civil liberties organisation for the purpose of collecting and disseminating information and educating the masses that culminated into the founding of the Indian Civil Liberties Union (ICLU). Union units were formed at Bombay, Madras, Calcutta and Punjab with Rabindranath Tagore the first Honorary President and Sarojini Naidu the President of ICLU. Booklets, articles and pamphlets written by Rammanohar Lohia, M Venkatarangaiah, S Pratap Reddy were instrumental in popularising of the concept of civil liberties. With the beginning of electoral democracy in 1952 and formation of Congress governments the first stage of civil liberties movement come to a close.

The second chapter of the civil liberties movement began after 20 years. The idea to form a rights organisation in West Bengal seeded in 1968 amid the “orgy of slaughter and brutal repression” resulting in formation of APDR in 1972 followed by the formation of Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC) in 1974 and Organisation for Protection of Democratic Rights (OPDR) in 1977. Jai Prakash Narayan launched the People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Democratic Rights (PUCLDR) in 1976 which later split into People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR). Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (CPDR) and Lokshahi Haq Sangathan too were formed in Bombay in 1977 and 1979 respectively. Formation of APDR in 1972, was a significant moment marking the resurgence of civil liberties movement.

It is APDR that survived two years ban and imprisonment of many of its stalwarts during emergency by Indira Gandhi between 1975 – 77. It is also APDR that paid a heavy price in 1974 when its publication, ভারতীয় গণতন্ত্রের স্বরুপ (translated in English as The True Face of Indian Democracy) was proscribed, its members were harassed and the printing press was raided.

Undeterred by several oppressions APDR, for the last 50 years, has persistently demanded accountability from the state through demonstrations, petitions, fact-finding reports and legal battles seeking punishment and compensation in the cases of torture, custodial deaths, custodial rape and other state excesses. APDR from its very beginning has focused on state repression and the issues of political prisoners. It has all through demanded recognition of the category and rights of political prisoners along with the demand of unconditional release of political prisoners.

Personal Liberty and the Indian Courts People's Union for Civil Liberties - PUCL https://www.facebook.com/peoples.union.for.civil.liberties/videos/2257352334437053 

Personal Liberty and the Indian Courts
Speakers:
• Senior Advocate Mihir Desai
• Advocate Gautam Bhatia
The one hour 45 mins discussion examines the recent three judgements relating to
•The denial of bail of Jyoti Jagtap by the Bombay High Court in the Bhima Koregaon Conspiracy case.
• The stay on the Bombay High Court judgement of acquittal/discharge of Dr. GN Saibaba and others by the Supreme Court
• The denial of bail by the Delhi High Court of Umar Khalid in the Conspiracy case of the Delhi Riots of 2020.
Advocate Mohammed Danish gave an update on the delay in the release of Siddique Kappan.
The discussion was moderated by PUCL General Secretary, V Suresh

Section 377

Personal Liberty- Merely Because An Arrest Can Be Made Lawfully, It Does Not Mandate That Arrest Must Be Made : Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-personal-liberty-arrest-need-not-be-made-because-lawful-179873  

the trial court, in this case has taken a view that unless the person is taken into custody the chargesheet will not be taken on record in view of Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On this aspect, it held that Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet.

Personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made.',

Observations in Joginder Kumar case:  

"No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do".

guildelines: 

1.An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have one friend, relative or other person who is known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.
2.The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right.

3. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest. These protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly. It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that these requirements have been complied with.

The above requirements shall be followed in all cases of arrest till legal provisions are made in this behalf. These requirements shall be in addition to the rights of the arrested persons found in the various police manuals. These requirements are not exhaustive. The Directors General of Police of all the States in India shall issue necessary instructions requiring due observance of these requirements. In addition, departmental instruction shall also be issued that a police officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary, the reasons for making the arrest.