Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09MUMBAI219
2009-05-27 12:07:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Consulate Mumbai
Cable title:  

HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST BINAYAK SEN RELEASED ON BAIL

Tags:  PGOV PHUM PTER 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO3768
RR RUEHAST RUEHCI RUEHDBU RUEHLH RUEHNEH RUEHPW
DE RUEHBI #0219/01 1471207
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 271207Z MAY 09
FM AMCONSUL MUMBAI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7216
INFO RUCNCLS/ALL SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA COLLECTIVE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHINGTON DC
RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI 2426
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MUMBAI 000219 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PTER
SUBJECT: HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST BINAYAK SEN RELEASED ON BAIL

REF: A. 08 MUMBAI 136, 240

B. 08 NEW DELHI 641

MUMBAI 00000219 001.2 OF 002


UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MUMBAI 000219

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PTER
SUBJECT: HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST BINAYAK SEN RELEASED ON BAIL

REF: A. 08 MUMBAI 136, 240

B. 08 NEW DELHI 641

MUMBAI 00000219 001.2 OF 002



1. (U) Summary: Human rights activist Dr. Binayak Sen was
released on bail from a Chhattisgarh jail on May 26 after two
years of imprisonment on charges of abetting the state's Maoist
insurgency. His release was ordered by the Indian Supreme Court
on May 25, after a long legal battle. A longtime critic of
Chhattisgarh's violent anti-insurgency efforts, Sen had been
arrested under strong anti-terrorism laws, which allowed those
arrested to be held without bail. Sen's case had attracted the
attention of foreign and domestic human rights activists, who
had criticized his arrest, the slow pace of the trial, and the
refusal of the Chhattisgarh government to grant him bail.
Civil rights observers noted that the Supreme Court's order
after a very brief hearing may reflect impatience with the slow
judicial process in Chhattisgarh. With the start of his trial
and his release on bail, Sen has fared better than many others
who continue to languish in jails in Western and Central India
awaiting trial under state or federal anti-terrorism laws. End
Summary.



Free on Bail

--------------




2. (U) On May 25, the Indian Supreme Court ordered the
Chhattisgarh government to grant bail to civil rights activist
Dr. Binayak Sen in a very brief oral hearing. The decision was
a dramatic turn of events for Sen, who was arrested May 14,
2007, and charged with "waging war against the state" and
"assisting a banned organization" under the Indian Penal Code's
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 and the
Chhattisgarh Public Security Act, 2005. (Note: In India,
public safety is a state responsibility, and individual states
can enact internal security laws. End note.) The Public
Security Act allows suspects to be held without bail. Sen is
alleged to have couriered letters from a Maoist prisoner to
others and to have aided the Maoist movement (see reftels).
This was Sen's second appeal to the Supreme Court for bail,
which reversed a December 2008 decision of the Chhattisgarh High
Court. In a brief 40-second hearing on Sen's appeal, the court
summarily granted the request without issuing a rationale,
according to Rajendra Sail, the People's Union for Civil
Liberties (PUCL) President for Chhattisgarh and a retired

attorney. Sen was then released on May 26, once the order had
been received in Raipur, Chhattisgarh's capital. (Note:
Renowned for his work as a physician who brought health care to
the rural poor in India, Sen is also the Vice-President of the
Chhattisgarh PUCL. End Note.)




3. (U) As he left the jail in Raipur, Sen told reporters that
he had never been a Naxalite sympathizer. (Note: Naxalite is
another name for Maoist insurgents in India who frequently
resort to violence. End Note.) He said he condemns all
violence - violence by the Naxalites, the state, and the militia
armed by the state of Chhattisgarh to fight the Naxalites, known
as the Salwa Judum. Sen said he would pursue the fight against
deplorable prison conditions. He also told reporters that he
fears a threat to his life by the state government. (Comment:
Whether such fear is well-founded is unknown, but Indian police
have been known to arrange "encounters" in which persons
considered criminals are killed. End Comment.)



Sen's Bail History

--------------




4. (U) Since his arrest in 2007, Sen repeatedly sought bail but
had been denied based upon the Chhattisgarh Public Securities
Act which denies bail for suspected terrorists or those who
support terrorism. (Note: Bail can be granted under the
central government's Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. End
note.) His most recent bail plea included a request that he be
released on medical grounds. Doctors in Chhattisgarh determined
that Sen required cardiac surgery, but the State refused to
grant his request for out-of-state care, contending that
adequate care was available in Chhattisgarh. Sen's wife Ilina
told Congenoff that her husband feared police interference with
medical care afforded to him in Chhattisgarh.



MUMBAI 00000219 002.2 OF 002




5. (U) The Supreme Court, however, did not base its decision on
Sen's medical condition, according to Sail. Sail noted that
Sen's unconditional release upon the furnishing of a personal
bond is a remedy generally reserved only for highly-respected
people. Sen's work as a human rights advocate for the
Chhattisgarh's tribal people has earned him international
acclaim. He was honored with the Jonathan Mann Award for Global
Health and Human Rights in 2008.



Other Prisoners Not So Lucky

--------------




6. (U) Though Sen has been the most prominent person held
under the anti-terrorism laws of late, many others in Western
and Central India remain incarcerated for more than two years
without trial. The Chhattisgarh PUCL reports that 178 people
have been detained under the state's anti-terrorism laws as
alleged Maoists in that state, including businessmen, a tailor,
journalists, NGO workers, and farmers. In Maharashtra, several
high-profile arrests from 2007 under the federal Prevention of
Terrorism Act (POTA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organized
Crime Act (MCOCA) have yet to yield trials: Vernon Gonsalves,
Shreedhar Srinivasan, and Arun Ferreira were arrested in Mumbai
in 2007, allegedly as senior members of the state Maoist
committee, but specific charges have yet to be framed, a
necessary precursor to commencement of any trial. Gonsalves'
wife, attorney Susan Abraham, said she will use the Supreme
Court's decision in Sen's case to seek bail for her husband.




7. (U) In Gujarat, 79 Muslims remain incarcerated under POTA,
awaiting trial since their arrests in 2002 for involvement in
the Godhra train fire that killed 59 Hindu activists, despite a
ruling by the Gujarat High Court in February 2009 that the train
fire did not constitute an act of terrorism. The State's appeal
of the High Court's order is pending in the Supreme Court.



Sen's Trial Continues

--------------




8. (U) Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Dr. Raman Singh told
reporters that Sen's trial would continue despite the issuance
of bail. Sen's trial has proceeded slowly, with a few days of
trial followed by lengthy adjournments, a common pattern in the
Indian judicial system. Prosecutors informed the Supreme Court
the trial would likely conclude within three months, according
to Sail.




9. (U) Comment. The Supreme Court order granting Sen bail
likely reflects impatience with a judicial process that has
dragged on for over two years. However, others charged under
various state and federal anti-terrorism laws sitting in jails
in Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, and Gujarat have yet to have dates
set for their trials, or, in some cases, have charges filed
against them. The mechanism for providing expedited trials in
high profile cases, -- like that currently used in the trial of
Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving gunman from the November 2008
terrorist attacks on Mumbai -- has not been used to try those
charged as Maoist co-conspirators or those charged with the
Godhra train fire, indicating that the states want to avoid a
public trial in these cases. However, delayed trials are the
norm in India; the Indian judicial system is extremely slow,
with few judges, limited court resources, and over-burdened case
dockets and backlogs. These problems continue to afflict those
in the justice system, regardless of the charges against them,
which is not likely to improve soon. End comment.
KAUFFMANEC