Time For Parliament to Drop the Privilege Notices Against Kiran Bedi.


30th August 2011 – Redraft Enclosing Additional Chronology. First version has already been received by yourselves.

Mr. Frank La Rue
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
Fax: +41 22 917 9006
Email: freedex@ohchr.org


Dear Sir,

RE: URGENT APPEAL/ FORMAL COMPLAINT
CONDUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
ALLEGATION – VIOLATION OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. ARTICLE 19
VICTIMS - MR ANNA HAZAREhttp://www.annahazare.org/ AND INDIA AGAINST CORRUPTION http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/ ‘s TEAM.
CURRENT SITUATION – MR HAZARE and his team were arrested at 0730 16th August 2011 by the Indian State Police. They have been held without charge.


FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Allegations regarding the Indian Government and its Prime Minister M Singh http://pmindia.nic.in/

a. Failure to maintain Mr Hazare’ and his Team’s constitutional right to protest against government policy
b. Draconian arrest of the Mr Anna Hazare and his Team who were held without charge.
c. Placing the interests of his government’s welfare over the welfare and will of the Indian people.

2. Background of Team Anna

Mr Hazare is an individual who believes in non violence. He is a social activist who appears to speak for the people. Through his achievements, he has gained the support of the Indian people. It is abundantly clear that the people of India stated that they do not accept corruption that has caused disintegration in the infrastructure of their country.

India Against Corruption is a movement that seeks to improve the legislative framework in India so there is some accountability. Their website cites as follows:-

“India Against Corruption movement is an expression of collective anger of people of India against corruption. We have all come together to force/request/persuade/pressurize the Government to enact the Jan Lokpal Bill. We feel that if this Bill were enacted it would create an effective deterrence against corruption. The following eminent personalities started this movement:”

Recently, Mr Hazare decided to conduct a peaceful protest involving a fast. You will no doubt be aware of the traditional Gandhian principles of non violence. A dispute commenced between Hazare and the Indian Government due to the severe sanctions placed on Mr Hazare wish to conduct a peaceful protest. This included limitations in time as well as numbers of people allowed to attend. The government has subsequently attacked the integrity of this social activist without sufficient evidence or reasoning.

3. Results

Mr Hazare and his Team were under arrest and denied their liberty. This is contrary to the UN Declaration of Human Rights [ Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontier] . It is clear that there is state interference without due justification. This decision was made by the government, unilaterally and without consultation with the opposition parties. It was also a decision made against India’s own constitutional rights.

Following protests and receipt of the first version of this letter to yourselves, the Indian government released Mr Anna Hazare and his colleagues – Kiran Bedi et al.
3. Subsequent Events.

a. Mr Hazare was subsequently allowed to fast on his terms.
b. He was successful in relation to matters concerning legislation to combat corruption.
c. 30th August 2011. Kiran Bedi [ associate to Mr Hazare] is currently facing a “breach of privilege notice” in Parliament for her controversial remarks against MPs. Similar notices have been issued against Om Puri, a actor who was severely critical of politicians. Presumably these notices are designed to curb reporting and suppress freedom of expression. At present, I am not aware of the exact procedure, criteria or protocols used by Parliament to breach the civil rights of a civilian in this manner. The comments made by both individuals were tame and did not place the work of parliament at risk. Moreover, the comments were not a matter of national safety. They were merely comments that described some parliamentarians as incompetent. There is no legal justification for these notices. Moreover, the direction on freedom of expression was provided by Sedley LJ in Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 732 which is persuasive in all jurisdictions "Mr. Kealy was prepared to accept that blame could not attach for a breach of the peace to a speaker so long as what she said was inoffensive. This will not do. Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers’ Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear. From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas. A central purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights has been to set close limits to any such assumed power. We in this country continue to owe a debt to the jury which in 1670 refused to convict the Quakers William Penn and William Mead for preaching ideas which offended against state orthodoxy"
It is therefore abundantly clear that the parliamentarians are currently abusing their power to suppress criticism of them. This essentially means that Parliament is currently streamlining information that can be available to the public. This is essentially equivalent to a dictatorship.

Request

1. My colleagues and I therefore request urgent intervention from yourselves to investigate the current breaches of civil liberties by the Indian Government especially in relation to Article 19.

2. Mr Hazare and his team will fall under the UN auspices of a Human Rights Defender. As such, it is important that he and his team are not subjected to state interference for raising justified concerns about the state of corruption in India.

3. Please impress upon the Indian Parliament and the Indian Government that Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 19 must be respected. Moreover, the powers of Parliament cannot be abused in this manner to suppress free speech.

4. The Indian Government must lift the privilege notices immediately and the use and subsequent abuse of these nebulous notices must be reviewed by yourselves.


We hope you will consider our urgent request.


Regards


Dr Rita Pal
Supporter of India Against Corruption.

CONTACT DETAILS

India Against Corruption, A-119,
First Floor, Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh:
201010, Phone Number: 09718500606,
Email: indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com



Signatories

Reply · Report Post