The Wire: New Delhi: Wednesday, June 14, 2017.
Senior rights
activist Nikhil Dey and four others were convicted of trespass and simple hurt
under sections 323 and 451 of the IPC by a Kishangarh court in Ajmer on
Tuesday, June 13. The case, filed 19 years ago on May 16, 1998, pertains to a
dispute with Pyarelal, the then sarpanch of Harmada, who had been accused by
the activists of widespread corruption.
Reacting to
the development, the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and noted activist
Aruna Roy said they were “shocked and dismayed” at the judgment and termed the
case as “yet another reminder of the backlash and attack that RTI activists
consistently face when challenging entrenched centers of power.” They also
claimed that it was the village head who had actually assaulted the activists.
Sarpanch
accused of faking contractual payments
A statement
issued by Roy and MKSS stated that the decision of the court pertained to an
incident which occurred when the RTI activists made a demand for information
from Pyarelal in response to a large number of complaints of corruption in
development works in Harmara panchayat.
The group
said the allegations against the sarpanch, who was a liquor contractor of the
village, pertained to payments related to toilets, Indira Awas Yojana houses
and for labour for development works, that had not been made to the
beneficiaries.
Yet, they
said, instead of proceeding against the village head, the authorities booked
the RTI activists for violence. Recalling the circumstances leading to the
registration of the case, the group said: “On May 6, 1998, the activists went
to ask for information from the sarpanch of Harmara, carrying with them a
letter from the BDO (block development officer). Since his office was usually
closed during working hours, the activists went to his house to deliver the
letter from the BDO. It is then that the sarpanch came out of his house and
physically assaulted the activists present.”
‘Despite
being attacked, MKSS activists had not filed complaint’
Roy and MKSS
said despite this violence, the Sangathan activists decided not to file an FIR,
thinking that right to information cannot depend on police cases, and that it
had to depend on dialogue with the village head and the exercise of a legal
right under the Panchayat Raj Act. The group said that on the same day, Roy
had, however, written to the collector noting the incident and asking the
official to ensure that information sought was provided by the village head.
However, on
May 8, they said that Pyarelal had filed an FIR accusing the activists of
assaulting him. On the same day Naurti an MKSS activist who has been convicted
along with Ram Karan, Babu Lal and Chotu Lal disturbed by the village headman’s
slurs and violence towards her, had also filed a case against him under the
SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
Case
closed in 1998, revived three years later
The MKSS said
the case filed by the sarpanch was closed on June 30, 1998, and for several
years nothing happened. However, it was revived on July 5, 2001, and thereafter
Pyarelal kept “producing false witness, after false witness”.
The group
claimed that on May 6, 1998, when its activists were assaulted, there was no
one there apart from them and the sarpanch and his immediate family members.
The FIR lodged by his brother Om Prakash claimed that he (Om Prakash) was not
present at the spot.
The MKSS and
Roy said the conviction had taken place “in an utterly false case filed by the
a corrupt, powerful sarpanch who misused his influence and power and who had
himself physically assaulted them for demanding information in a case where the
activists were fighting for the rights of the poor through means that were
completely within the ambit of the law.”
They said the
final decision was therefore “a body blow to the effort of citizens to fight
corruption and stand up for the rights of the citizen” was also a “clear case
of miscarriage of justice”.
Sentence
suspended pending appeal
The group,
however, added that the sentence has been suspended pending an appeal to be
filed by the four activists in the court of the additional district judge in
Kishangarh. The MKSS vowed to “bring out the whole truth of this case”. It said
it would not allow “vested interests to misuse the law to suppress the voice of
people demanding transparency, and demands for justice by the poor”.
.JPG)
.JPG)
