slogans of a koodam kulam boy with MRW activists at Trivandrum

Lawyers attacked — on the streets, in police stations, inside courtrooms

A 65-year-old lawyer in Ujjain was beaten inside the courtroom in front of the judge. In Indore, an advocate found out that his junior for three months was actually a policeman. The police in Thiruvananthapuram arrested a 43-year-old lawyer. The common thread in the stories of all these lawyers is that they represent Muslim men accused of being terrorists or members of SIMI. It’s not just the system that has turned their back on them, even the legal defence of a terror suspect is seen as a betrayal of the nation — with lawyers facing hostility and attacks on the streets, in police stations and inside courtrooms.

NOOR MOHAMMAD, UJJAIN

In 2008, Noor Mohammad went to Dhar district in 2008 to represent a few alleged SIMI activists. “The bar association there had passed a resolution saying they would neither allow any lawyer from their bar to represent these suspects nor let anybody come from outside.” He was at the entrance of the court, Mohammad says, when a group of BJP, VHP and Bajrang Dal activists started beating him. “I somehow ran inside the court. I told the magistrate about the attack. He did not say anything. By then, lawyers inside the courtroom started kicking and pushing me. The magistrate did ask them to stop. But they didn’t and the magistrate sahib didn’t take any action.”

Three months later, Mohammad says, he went to Dhar again to pursue the bail application of his clients because the prosecution had not filed government sanction within the stipulated time. “The prosecution submitted the sanction as soon as they saw me and our bail plea was rejected. As I was leaving, a large group of Sangh activists beat me up. They hit me on my head and I fell unconscious... At the hospital, the police offered to take me home to Ujjain under their protection. They said Sangh activists would come and attack me inside the hospital as well,’’ he said. “I went to the police station and wrote a complaint. The police filed an FIR. I don’t know whether anybody was arrested or not. They (police) didn’t tell me anything.”

Because it was impossible for him to go to Dhar, he sought transfer of the case. A year later, the case was transferred to Indore. “When the people who assassinated Indira and Rajiv Gandhi have a right to defend themselves, why not these boys? The police have no evidence against them and they know their concocted stories will fall flat, that’s why they hate to see a defence lawyer,” Noor Mohammad says.

He gives the example of a case regarding an alleged training camp at Unhel in which five men are in jail. “The police arrested these men in September 2008 saying they were running an arms training camp at Unhel. They said it was happening at three in the night. They even claimed to have recovered an air gun allegedly used to give arms training. There was a huge hue and cry because the place where the police had claimed that the camp existed is a field with roads around it and with constant public movement. Realising that the story could not stick for too long, the police came up with another place. They said the training camp was being held in a narrow alley near the mosque. These men were given five-year imprisonment,” Mohammad says.

Then something very “interesting” happened, he adds. The MP government released them after serving half of their term as amnesty for good conduct on Republic Day last year. “The government came under so much pressure from the Sangh Parivar that within days of their release, they (government) issued another circular saying that people arrested for SIMI links were barred from such amnesty. They were re-arrested. We petitioned before the high court. This appeal is pending for the past year and a half years and these five men have almost completed their terms,” the advocate says.

A lawyer in Ujjain since 1973, Noor Mohammad admits “consistent pressure” to stay away from such cases. “Even my family has been asking me to leave these cases. But I know these Muslim boys are being constantly booked in fictitious cases. I am sure if legal processes are followed, not a single case can stand the scrutiny of the courts.”

WAJID ALI, INDORE

Noting that anybody representing those accused of SIMI links is seen with suspicion, 61-year-old Ali tells the story of his junior who turned out to be a policeman. “I had this junior who was working with me for three months. One day, a relative of mine, who is a policeman, came to see me. He told me that my junior is a policeman working in the Crime Branch. I was shocked and angry. Later, I received a phone call from this junior and he admitted that he was sent to keep tabs on me and my clients.” Ali said he didn’t complain to the authorities. “It wouldn’t have served any purpose. I was happy that I found it out,’’ he said.

KUTTICHAL SHAHNAWAS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

A 43-year-old Thiruvananthapuram-based lawyer, Shahnawas has represented several Muslim men arrested for alleged SIMI links, including in the Hubli case of 2007. “I had gone to represent them in the Hubli case, where 16 Muslim men were held from different parts of the country for their alleged SIMI and terror links. This is when the police and the government started accusing me of representing anti-national cases,’’ he says. The cases in which he has represented Muslim youngsters before the UAPA tribunal include the Panayikulam one involving an alleged secret meeting of SIMI activists at Panayikulam near Aluva, Kerala (August 15, 2006), and the Vagamon training centre case (a secret training camp near Idukki allegedly held in 2007).

Shahnawas’s troubles began when the newspaper Madhayamam carried a report in January this year, exposing how the Kerala Police had put the email accounts of 258 citizens under surveillance, 250 among them prominent Muslims with no previous criminal record. “These email accounts that were put under surveillance included my account as well. The report led to a political storm,” he says. But instead of investigating the surveillance, the government ordered an inquiry into how the list was leaked. On April 30 this year, he was picked up from his home and remanded in police custody. The police accused Shahnawas of masterminding the “theft” of the surveillance list and leaking it to a senior journalist of Madhyamam.

“It was a strange accusation. My own email accounts were part of the surveillance list. I am a victim of this illegal surveillance. But they arrested me. They didn’t ask the journalist who had written the story,” says Shahnawas. What was even stranger, he says, was that while he was in custody, the police did not mention the email account surveillance case. “They only kept asking me to stay away from cases against Muslim men booked in alleged terror cases,” he says.

Shahnawas got out on bail nine days later. “I told the magistrate everything — that I had been framed because the police didn’t want me to represent my clients. He listened but didn’t say anything.”

Crime Branch SP Jolly Cherian, who led the probe, refuted the advocate’s allegation that the police repeatedly asked him to keep away from appearing for Muslims accused in terror cases. “It is totally baseless. Why should police place such a demand before an advocate? It is his right to appear for accused in any case. For us, he was an accused in the email case.’’ Cherian says Shanavas was only assisting other advocates from North India in the terror and SIMI related case. He was one of the advocates involved in such cases. In such a situation, why should police project him as a key figure by making such a demand, Cherian says.

PREM KISHEN SHARMA, JAIPUR

In 2008, the Jaipur High Court Bar passed a resolution against representing any terror suspect. The situation, however, changed when two top lawyers decided to oppose the resolution. Advocate Prem Kishen Sharma, who has been practising since 1958, termed it wrong.

“Everybody has a right to a legal defence and I made it clear that I don’t agree with the boycott,’’ he says. When a top Jaipur advocate, Ajay Jain, agreed to take up a case, it helped. Sharma hasn’t faced any hostility in the court, though. “Many of these younger lawyers have a mob mentality. How can a lawyer question another lawyer’s right to do his professional work?”

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/427804

intervew / NEWZFIRST

If giving legal opinion is a crime then all lawyers will be in jail: Shanvas By Sayed Isthiyakh5/11/12 You can be jailed for your legal opinion. This is the legal opinion now of human rights lawyer S. Shanvas of Thiruvananthapuram, who is accused of abetting an exposé against Kerala Police. He was arrested on May 1 and charged with conspiracy in the publication of Malayalam newspaper, Madhyamam’s scoop of January 21 reporting police surveillance of email IDs of 260 prominent people, about 250 of them Muslims. All Shanvas did was give his legal opinion to the newspaper reporter on his legal rights in publishing the story. Shanvas spoke to Sayed Isthiyakh of Newzfirst after his release from prison on bail. What is the case against you? This must be the first time in India’s history that a lawyer has been jailed for tendering his legal opinion in a case as per the law of land. Actually, it is the police who have violated the law – committing no less than 269 emails. The police illegally hacked the emails mostly of Muslims. But they have painted me as a conspirator only because I gave legal advice to a journalist friend. What did you argue in the court? I stressed before the magistrate that giving legal advice is part of our profession. If advocates are held responsible for giving legal opinion and then the profession itself will become illegal and everybody will be jailed by the police. What is your opinion of the police hacking of the emails? If the police hack an email ID, then isn’t it possible for them to send emails from that ID to anyone they want and then claim that they were sent by the ID’s owner? That is why cyber laws have clearly identified hacking as unlawful. What happens next in the case? I will file a case against the police for harassing me and causing damaging my reputation. I will seek action against the police for forcing me to part with the passwords for the three email accounts I operate. Being an advocate how did you feel to be in jail? Merely by being sent in police or judicial custody does not make one an offender. There is little awareness of this. As for being in the jail, I could see that anyone who lands in jail accidentally would be vulnerable to being influenced by the professional criminals there instead of being reformed there

Sunday, May 20, 2012 Last Update: 10:34 AM IST

Home » Channels » Cities » Thiruvananthapuram

‘Falsely indicted in e-mail case’

Advocate S. Shanavaz, who was held in the police intelligence communiqué leak case, said before the Chief Judicial Magistrate court here on Thursday that he was falsely indicted in the case.

He also said he had earlier lodged a petition with the police cyber cell alleging that his e-mail was hacked by the police.

Shanavaz was remanded to police custody till May 9 for further investigation. The police team submitted before the court that Shanavaz needs to be taken to Kozhikode for further probe.

Meanwhile, advocate Mobin Akhtar, who appeared for the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) before the justice V.K. Shali tribunal reviewing the ban on SIMI at its sitting here, said the arrest of Shanavaz in connection with the e-mail leak cases was suspected to be part of a plan to weaken SIMI’s panel.

“Shanavaz was supposed to assist me during the tribunal sitting and his absence is affecting our works. The arrest is suspected to be part of an attempt to weaken our side,” he said.

Shanavaz said before the court that he came to know from a journalist friend that his e-mail was hacked. Subsequently, he lodged a petition with the police cyber cell.

This has now provoked the police to make baseless charges against him.

Human rights activists condemn arrest

Today's Paper » NATIONAL » KERALA

Published: May 4, 2012 00:00 IST | Updated: May 4, 2012 04:34 IST

Human rights activists condemn arrest of lawyer

Special Correspondent

Human rights activists in the national capital have condemned the arrest of S. Shanavas, lawyer and human rights activist in the State, in connection with the e-mail snooping case.

In a joint statement issued in New Delhi and released for publication here on Thursday, they said that Mr. Shanavas' arrest on May 1, on the eve of the SIMI Tribunal sitting in the Kerala capital, could not be lost sight of. Mr. Shanavas had been assisting SIMI lawyers in the tribunal for the past many years and was due to assist it again. “He had been a thorn in the eye of the Kerala police ever since he successfully argued against the continuation of the ban on SIMI in the tribunal headed by Geeta Mittal,” they said.

They pointed out that Shanavas' arrest had come after Ghalib's verses were blamed for instigating members of the banned SIMI and a children's magazine Umang , published by the Delhi Urdu Akademi, was cited as an incriminating material in an affidavit seeking extension of the ban on SIMI. Mr. Shanavas' arrest was an attack on the very process of law and an attempt to stifle the voice of dissent. “Targeting and implicating lawyers in spurious cases encroaches upon the right to access legal aid without fear. It is a clear attempt to also demoralise and intimidate Shanavas' clients — many of them victims of a communal witch-hunt. We demand that he be released immediately and all his files and work-related documents be returned without any conditions,” they said. The signatories to the statement Abu Zafar, Ajit Sahi, journalists; Anil Tharayath Varghese, Delhi Solidarity Group; B.T. Venketesh, advocate; Feroze Khan Ghazi, South Asian Minorities Law Association (SAMLA); Gauhar Iqbal, social activist; Hany Babu, Delhi University; Imran Ali, advocate; Jawahar Raja, advocate; Kashif-ul-Huda, Editor, TwoCircles.net; Kavita Srivastava, PUCL; Mahtab Alam, human rights activist and journalist; Mansi Sharma, activist; Mayur Suresh, advocate; N.D. Pancholi, advocate; Savad Rahman, journalist; Shabnam Hashmi, ANHAD; Shankar Gopalakrishnan, Campaign for Survival and Dignity; Seema Mustafa, journalist; and others.

Lifting ban on SIMI, Solution to stop targeting Muslim Youths: Says National Convention

New Delhi: Making a strong protest against "targeting" of Muslim youth, a convention here on Saturday demanded repeal of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and lifting of ban on Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). The convention also demanded compensation for all persons acquitted of terrorism charges, prosecution of official responsible for their prosecution and a comprehensive review of all pending terrorism cases by a sitting Supreme Court judge.

The convention entitled "national convention on protection of Muslim youth" was organised by All India Milli Council and supported by all major Muslim organisations including All India Muslim Majlis Mashawarat, Jamaate Islami, Welfare Party, Coordination Committee for Indian Muslims, and Markazi Jamiat Ulema.

Inaugurating the convention, Justice Rajinder Singh Sachchar, former chief justice of Delhi High Court, termed UAPA and sedition laws undemocratic and demanded their repeal.

"No democratic country should have UAPA and sedition laws which hit at the basic freedoms of life, liberty, expression and association. Repeated ban on SIMI is a direct assault on freedom of association", he said.

Recalling Maulana Azad, Justice Sachchar said that he prided in being a Muslim and an Indian. "Muslims are equal citizens of this great country and their patriotism cannot be questioned. They are entitled to have pride in being Muslims and Indians and cannot be subjected to any suspicion or explanation", he said.

Opposing the continued ban on SIMI, Ejaz Ahmad Aslam, Secretary, Jamaate Islami Hind said that it was completely unjustified and illegal. He said, "Appeals against the ban on SIMI are pending in the Supreme Court for more than 10 years now. In the circumstances, continued ban on SIMI was atrocious as the government has not shown any interest in getting the appeals heard by the Supreme Court".

Ravi Nair, Executive Director, South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, demanded that intelligence agencies, especially Intelligence Bureau, must be organised by a statute clearly stating their mandate accountability for ensuring rule of law.

He said, "Intelligence Bureau should be governed by a statute ensuring parliamentary control and their accounts should be subjected to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (India)"

Terming UAPA a blot bigger than TADA and POTA on the country's reputation, Dr. Mohammad Manzoor Alam demanded its repeal. He said that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2011, currently pending in the parliament, should be withdrawn "as the first step".

Demanding that SIMI be allowed to function within constitutional and democratic framework of the country, the resolution adopted at the convention said," The continuous ban on the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) since 2001 is unjustified, illegal and unconstitutional. Similarly, the declaration of SIMI as “terrorist organization” is also without basis. The ban on SIMI must be lifted immediately and its name should be removed from the schedule of “terrorist organisations” of the UAPA."

Many victims narrated their stories in the conventions. They said that police in such cases files extraordinarily bulky chargesheets and cites hundreds of witnesses and make every effort to delay trial in these cases. They also alleged that police implicates such persons in multiple case so that such persons are not able come out of jail for years together.

All India Milli Council released an around 500-page report entitled “Scapegoats” documenting stories of people who were acquitted by courts. Milli Council also realeased a list of 300 cases where Muslim youth have been implicated.

Mohammad Aamir Khan, who was framed in 1998 in 21 blasts by Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana police, said that police deliberately frames innocent persons in multiple cases with a design.

He said, “Police implicated me in 21 bomb blasts which was more than the number of years of my age. I was only 18 and I had to remain in jail for 14 years before my acquittal in 18 cases while my appeals against 2 cases are still pending in Delhi High Court.”

Decrying police and intelligence agencies for launching witch-hunt and foisting false cases on innocent Muslim youth, the convention demanded that hearing in terrorist offences must be held on day-to-day basis. The resolution demanded stopping of “harassment, illegal detention and torture of innocent Muslim youth” and punishment for guilty police officials. The resolution also opposed arresting powers to the proposed National Counter Terrorism Centre.

Resolution

1. This national convention condemns systematic campaign aimed at demoralizing Muslim youth and others. This national convention resolves to ensure protection of Muslim youth and those belonging to other minorities and weaker sections as a whole---socially, morally, economically, legally etc as enshrined in the Constitution of India.

2. All unjust and undemocratic laws impinging upon right to life, liberty, expression and association must be repealed forthwith. Laws on sedition must be repealed immediately.

3. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is a black law. Its presence in the statute book is blot on the country- bigger than TADA and POTA. Its draconian provisions and their abuse against Muslims, Tribals and other weaker sections of society has attained menacing proportions. UAPA must be repealed immediately.

The Convention calls upon the government to withdraw Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Bill, 2011, immediately, as the first step.

The Convention emphasizes that all anti-terror and other drastic legislations should only be emergency legislations and should not be put on the statute books permanently. They must be subjected to periodic review.

4. The continuous ban on the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) since 2001 is unjustified, illegal and unconstitutional. Similarly, the declaration of SIMI as “terrorist organization” is also without basis. The ban on SIMI must be lifted immediately and its name should be removed from the schedule of “terrorist organisations” of the UAPA. SIMI must be allowed to function within the constitutional and democratic framework of the country.

5. Harassment, illegal detention and torture of innocent Muslim youth and those belonging to other communities in the name of fighting terrorism must be stopped. All police and intelligence officials involved in foisting false cases must be prosecuted and punished expeditiously.

6. Intelligence agencies must have a statutory act ensuring parliamentary control and accountability including audit control by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). Further, no intelligence agency, including proposed National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), should be given powers to arrest.

7. All pending cases involving alleged terrorist offences must be subjected to a comprehensive review by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court. The commission should also include cases of harassment, illegal detention and false implication.

8. Prosecution of all cases under now-defunct TADA and POTA must be closed.

9. All pending cases involving alleged terrorist offences must be expeditiously disposed of by ordering their hearing on day-to-day basis.

10. Compensation should be awarded mandatorily to all persons acquitted of terrorist offences.

11. A comprehensive law providing for reparation for victims and punishment for wrongful prosecutions must be enacted.

This convention decides to launch a campaign named “Movement for Justice” for taking forward the above demands and to secure justice, social, political and economic, for all.

Confuse and deceive – Email interception in Kerala and the formula for political survival: Yaseen Ashraf

Guest post by YASEEN ASHRAF, associate editor of the Malayalam weekly, Madhyamam

An article by Viju V Nair in Madhyamam Weekly (issue 727, 23 January 2011) has raised the hackles of the Kerala Government and its political allies. Strange, because the report was about the excesses of the police intelligence, something which can be – and should be – investigated and corrected. The investigative report claimed that 268 email accounts were ordered by the Kerala state intelligence to be tapped, out of which a huge majority belong to Muslims. None of these persons has any previous criminal history. So it is not clear why they are put under the cyber scanner.The Weekly further stated: irrespective of their social status, the Government is peeping into the personal lives of around 258 citizens including politicians, parliamentarians, journalists, professionals, eminent personalities and students – an authoritarian surveillance breaching the barriers of privacy and civil rights. The letter sent from Special Branch CID of Kerala to the Hi-tech Cell said: “Please find enclosed a copy of the email IDs of the individuals who have connection with SIMI activities…” These “suspects” under cyber snooping include eminent a former Muslim League MP, social service organisations and journalists. Oommen Chandy, Congress leader and Kerala Chief Minister, is handling home affairs.
It was on 3 November 2011 that the Special Branch issued a letter asking to check the personal ID’s of these selected people and to collect their login details. As the special branch lacks the facility to do so, the order reached the Hi-Tech Crime Enquiry Cell, along with a list of the IDs, 159 of them from gmail, 63 yahoo mail, 22 hotmail, and 23 company mails. Though this investigation was ordered as part of probing connections with SIMI (an organisation that was banned a decade ago), there has been no case or incident or suspicion to warrant this.
When the expose caused a flutter among ruling circles Chief Minister Oommen Chandy ordered a police enquiry and came out with his counter, duly approved by the State cabinet. His response can be summarised as follows:
- The report that emails have been invaded is wrong. The Special Branch CID had gathered these email IDs from a person questioned by them, and wanted to verify whether these really belonged to genuine persons. There was no intention to open any email account and breach privacy.- This was part of their routine work, and there was no targeting of any particular community.- The Weekly had manipulated the list of email IDs by omitting some which apparently belonged to non-Muslims. This was deliberately done to validate their claim that the Special Branch order targeted the Muslim community. Such a move is malicious and unfortunate.Madhyamam responded to the accusation by publishing the omitted email IDs. It could well have done so the first time, because by omitting them it unwittingly handed the Government a stick to beat it with, even in the face of the strong proof of politically sensitive snooping. The inclusion of those omitted IDs would not have affected the arguments of Madhyamam. The main points made by it are:1. There has been a suspicious move to gather information on several people including journalists and public figures by tapping their email.2. A request to this effect had gone to service providers in November 2011. Since these activities come under the Home Ministry which is under the direct charge of the Chief Minister, there is a lot here for the CM to explain.3. Apart from this general charge of email snooping there is also the disturbing aspect of a community being targeted.The list published by Madhyamam has not been denied by the Government. Indeed, it confirmed the list while also pointing out the existence of ten more IDs. So the snooping charge stands. This list apparently contains IDs of politicians, journalists working in various establishments, social activists and others. What characterises this list is the preponderance of Muslims. That is the single commonality that binds a vast majority of IDs on the list. Obviously this lays it open to the charge of communal targeting too.
At first, different officers came up with conflicting arguments. A coordinated response was later formulated at a meeting of top officials called by the CM. But the Government’s argument that no mail has been tapped cannot be taken at face value because through a confidential message it had asked the mail service providers to give the “registration and login details” of the mails in the list. They obliged, and all this vast information has been collected by the Hi-Tech Cell in a 7 gigabyte CD (See the follow-up report by Viju V Nair, Madhyamam Weekly, Issue 728; 30 January 2012). This would mean more than mere examination of the genuineness; indeed, it suggests that a lot of information has already been gathered by snooping. The desperation of the Government was evident in the initial explanation given by the Director General of Police Jacob Punnoose. He said it was no snooping, but a mere check on the genuineness, and that such examination will in fact help protect genuine ID holders. The obvious question then is, who asked you to? Why pick these for such unwarranted “protection” when there has been no complaint on that score from anyone? Such ridiculous explanation can only corroborate the suspicion of foul play. Take the entire probe list including the IDs excluded by the Weekly in its first report, and this concern of targeting is inescapable.
There is also the claim going round, ignored by the authorities so far, that all these mails were picked from the group contacted by one mail ID from Kodungallur. If true, this effectively refutes the Government claim that emails have not been opened and read, and that the list came from a person interrogated. Disclosure has also emerged from at least one who figured in the email list—that in December a group of policemen from Special Branch went to a town in Malappuram district and in an intimidating manner questioned some about several phone numbers.
The response from the Chief Minister too has served to add to the suspicion. He has been talking of suing Madhyamam. The charge? Communal polarisation, when in actual fact the accused is the Government! But though the Editor welcomed the move for enquiry and litigation, the CM is wavering. And, unbecomingly for a CM, he has been spreading malicious propaganda against Madhyamam, saying it manipulated the email list to bring about communal polarisation. Here, the CM is being less than honest. The Madhyamam expose does not target any community; instead it only points to a possible victimisation of a community by the Government. Here the two adversaries are Madhyamam, the accuser, and the Government, the accused. No other community has been vilified or even mentioned.
On the fact that the move to probe emails was part of investigating “SIMI connections”, the Chief Minister says it was a mistake on the part of the Government. This actually raises more doubts than it explains. If intelligence gathering is done in such casual and irresponsible manner, who can be safe from snooping or framing by motivated bureaucrats or politicians or agencies? Did the CM ask for an explanation about the “mistake” which is serious and capable of being used for communal targeting? Did he take any action on this count? If not, why?
The CM talks of suing Madhyamam for communal polarisation. Let us pause a bit here and compare the two recent social interventions on the part of the media. One was the “love jihad” propaganda undertaken by a group of newspapers like Malayala Manorama, Deepika, Mangalam, Kerala Kaumudi, Mathrubhumi and so on. The other is the present email issue. The reaction of the Government to these two is a study in opportunism and motivated targeting;
“Love Jihad”
(1)The sensational reports that ran for several months in various newspapers and periodicals were eventually found to be baseless by the police and the judiciary. It was also seen as communally divisive.
(2) A community was the (wrongly) accused. The reportage was rabidly communal and victimised a community. It was several media against one community. If anything could be termed communally polarising, this was, because it created an atmosphere of widespread persecution of Muslims by elements from other communities. That was indeed the way Gujarat had travelled before the infamous racist genocide.
(3) The Kerala Government was not concerned at all about this communal polarising and irresponsible reporting; it did not sue, or even talk of suing, any of these papers.
E-mail Controversy
(1) The report carried by Madhyamam Weekly has by and large been confirmed by the police and the Government. The Government has taken exception only to the omission of a few IDs belonging to non-Muslims, an omission which was of course unnecessary and does not in any substantive way change the suspicion of snooping and targeting.
(2) The Government is the (rightly) accused. It is a case of a weekly against the Government over a question of civil liberties, the right to privacy and journalistic freedom.
(3) The Government deliberately twists the issue to communalise it, and then charges Madhyamam of this communalisation. Instead of setting his house in order the Chief Minister makes insinuations against the media and threatens to sue it for whistle-blowing.
The issue of email snooping by the Kerala Special Branch CID has been distorted out of its true meaning by Chief Minister Oommen Chandy and his Government. The Government is now playing the good old trick of “confuse and deceive”. This may be necessary to insulate the present regime against the well-founded charge of snooping and communal targeting, but it accentuates the feeling of insecurity among the people. There have been examples galore from north India of intelligence agencies and police forces targeting innocent people, and of communal targeting of minorities. No amount of threatening postures can change the fact that emails were sought to be tapped. And no amount of contrived indignation can change the fact that the recent move smacked of communal targeting. It is for the Government to clear the doubts and come clean on a question that directly concerns civil rights and citizens’ right to privacy—and security from selective targeting.

Open Letter by the Victims of Police Surveillance in Kerala

We, the following citizens of India are shocked to understand our e-mail ids have been included in an official letter (dated November 3, 2011), SENT BY THE Special Branch Superintendent of Police, K..K. Jaya Mohan, on behalf of A.D.G.P. Of Kerala Police, A. Hemacahndran, to the Asst. Commander of High -tech Crime Enquiry Cell. The letter says `Please find enclosed a copy of the e-mail IDs of individuals who have connection with SIMI activities. You are directed to identify the individuals behind the e-mail IDs contained in the list by verifying the registration and log in details with concerned email Service providers and forward the names and addresses of the individuals who own the email IDs, and furnish the report to this office urgently.‘ We also came to know from the various newspapers that the authorities have demanded the service providers of these IDs to provide the login details of the IDs which we have been using. We express our deep horror and dissent to note that the State Government is keeping a sceptical eye on us.
The Government elected by people like us has a duty to protect the privacy of the citizens of this country. We are shocked to see that the same Government is in reality infringing upon our privacy through such a move. We consider this as an open violation of one of our basic human rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
This official action violates a number of basic rights of the citizens guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India including Articles 14, 15, 17, 19 and 21 viz., the Rights to equality, dignity, privacy, expression and the right not to be discriminated against.
The Chief Minister of Kerala has openly admitted that the SIMI connection in the above letter issued by K.K. Jaya Mohan, was a `mistake’. However, no action on this police officer has yet been taken. We demand an immediate action against the police officials involved this encroachment of privacy of citizens.
This unfortunate incident has affected many of our lives in many ways for being targeted by the Government. We are not yet ready to reshape our own lives for such surveillance by the police for leading `suspicious’ identities. We are also threatened in our day today social, cultural and economic spaces for being included in the `watch list’ of the intelligence department. We demand an open apology from the Chief Minister of Kerala and the Police Department for having played with the lives of innocent citizens. We request the media, social activist organisations and human rights groups to create adequate pressure on the Government for a just intervention on this matter.
Adv. Shanavas (Activist & lawyer)
V.M.Ebrahim (Journalist)
C.Dawood. (Columnist )
N.P.Jishar (Journalist)
Fasal Kathikod (Writer)
S.Kamarudheen (Academician)
A.Sakker Hussain (Journalist)
Riyas .P.A. ( Marketing executive)
Navas.K.A (Activist)
Abdul Rasheed kadampott ( Retired Teacher)
Solidarity Youth Movement, kerala,
Minority Watch (Human Rights organization)
ISA KERALAM (Student organization)
Prabhodhanam Weekly
MIT.Hospital Kodungallor.
Cresecnt Hospital, Aalathoor.
Camal bags (Small scale industry)
Cochin Orchids. ( Designing Centre)
Classy digital ( Designing Centre)
Badaru (P.K.Seal) ( Business)
K.M.Muhammed Mukthar,
Sajeer,