Citatiot~ l'he Sixteenth PUCL

'.J Oll I'naliSlll for IIlillIan I~ights'A,vard, 1996

TIle Forgotten Decade:

Arcl13113 Glll13 C~lSC

- SUBIIAS GANGULY

&

March 23, 1997 AIIMI~I)AI~AI)

PUCL 'JOURNALISM FOR IIUMAN RIGI-ITS' AWARDof Rs.20,OOO/-, Citation, and a Plaque

The Award was instituted in 1981

This year's Award is XVI in the series

Reports on human rights situation in tJle country, published in tJle calendar year 1996 inany language, in any newspaper, magazine, or journal, etc., in India were eligible. Essays,books, Letters to the Editor, etc., are not considered.

REPORTS PUBLISHED IN A LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISHMUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION STATINGTHE DATE AND NAME OF T1IE PAPER, JOURNAL, ETC.

GUIDELINES:

(1) The award is for Journalism for Human Rights, hence:(a) The topic may be wider than mere civil liberties; (b) reports should be aboutthe human rights situation and not about the human conditions in general; (c)while violations of human rights by the State are the OIles that are most ofteninvestigated, violations by private groups of the rights of their members or othersare also relevant.

(2) The problem the investigation focuses on should be of general significance.(3) Weight is also given to follow-up.(4) Although the eventual impact of the story is often outside the control

of the author, it is kept in mind.(5) The risk that the writer has borne by doing that kind of story and the

field-work that has to be done are also taken into aCCOllnt.

(6) The record of the writer over a longer period is also important.(7) Entries should be accompanied by a short professional data of the

author.

THE JURY MAY NOT LIMIT ITSELF MERELY TO THE ENTRIESRECEIVED, MEMBERS MAY MAKE THEIR SUGGESTIONS.

MEMBERS OF THE JURY:

Amrik SinghB.B. SarkarChaman Lal

Narendra SharmaS. Sahay

Born in J(umilla district of the present day Bangladesh just before India's

partition, S/ui Subhas Ganguly is a science graduate from Presidency College,Calcutta. As a political aclil,ist he suffered imprisollment. Ilis association with themovement for civil liberties alld /llllllan rights dates back to 1972 when someactivists, illcllldillK him, fOllnded thc Associatioll for thc Protcction of DcmocraticRights (APDR) ill tllc mid 1972 at Calcutta. His frce-lancc jourrlOlistic career sawhim working as a pamphleteer, an activist of popular science cducation, etc. lie hasespouscd thc casc (~rtlw ,vo'-/wrs (~rsick illdllstrh's ami lite 1IIIOI'aigas tragcdysuJJcrcrs. lIc has bccll associatcd, ill L1lisway, witlt thc rights lIWl'cmcllt ill "VestBengal and Madhya Pradesh maillly tllHntgh his writillgs for l'arious journals.

One of his major publications was a book in Bengali, titled BhartiyaGantantrer Swarup (the real face of Indiml democracy), a documentation onpolitical repressio/l from late sixtees to mid sevente(~s. Initially it was fIublished asunder ground literature during the internal Emergency as the APDR at that time hadbeen declared OIl unlawful organisation. 171isanonymous publicaliofl was broughtout again aJ~erthe lifting of the ban 011 the Al'DR. He has also published Bengalitranslations of Romi/a 17lO1'ar'sbook, Ashoka and the decline of the Mauryas. It isto be published shortly by tlte Indian CAJcrzg;e~~Lof Historical Research.

The present article is about tl,e notorioltS case of arrest and torture of tlzree womenby the Calcutta police Oil 18th .Tilly 1974. lilvoll'ed ill the arrest were Rm~;it (AliasRUllu) Gulla Neogy, a jJolice oJficer and ,')'allfosllJJey, a conslable. It was suspectedthat there was one more accused but his existellce was never accepted.

The three women who were arrested werc Archalla GllllO, the Ileal! Mistress of aJunior High School, Latika Guha, her sister in law, and Gaurie Chatterjee, anotheryoung relative froJll tlteir residellcc ill a suburb of llorth-eastern Calculla. 11zeywereillegally detained for more than 24 hours before being taken to the Court. Beforethey were confilled to police custody for 21 days they were never physically producedbefore the Magistrate and the effect of tlte most cruel, in/millan, and degradingtorture was never seen by the magistrate. The torture led to complele paralysis of thelower limbs of Archana. Later, milch later, the medical group of AmnestyInternational in Dcnmark got Arc/wlla (rea(ed medically 01 lite CopenhagenRellllbilila(ioll Celllre Jl)r 10r(lIrevictims.

It is to recognise his tenacity in following nineteen years long history of the case thatthe jury selected him for tlte Sixteenth PUCL '.'ournalism for Illll11anRights' A wardfor 1996.

Alunedabad

March 23, 1997

People's Union for Civil Liberties

[(. G. [(allllabirallPresident

ARCI-IANA GUI-IA CASE

Subhas Ganguly

The usually half-empty court-room was jam­packed with expectant, silent onlookers whoseimpatience to hear the judgement amId hardly becontained. Unlike the gorgeous amrt-rooms, inthe glossy colouri'ul Hindi Iilms, where lawyerson both sides of a criminal case pace up anddown and enact their dramatics, this court room,

like most other in this state, was small, dingy,leaving hardly any elbow-room for both lawyersand laity and a generally musty gloomy look.lIardly a sellin,~ (ill' a hisloric Irial, thejudgement of which was now awaited. Creakinglawyers' chairs were full. Lay viewers weremostly on their legs waiting now for one hour.Out in the courtyards, milling crowd, I~troutnumbering the t(Htunate early comers inside,were being prevented by pol icemen fromapproaching any nearer than the small staircaseleading to the court room. There were someangry exchanges with the policemen on thataccount. Policemen were extremely civil. Theyexpressed their helplessness under judicial order.An angry woman court employee rushed outfrom inside, trying, in a loud voice, to silencethe crowd and threatening a particularly stuhbornshriek ing woman protester. Police-men gentl ypushed the crowd further. Lastly, Latika Guhaherself came out and requested the crowd forsilence because din outside was preventing thehonourable magistrate from reading uut thejudgement. It worked. The crowd, thoughunhappy, fell silent. The date 5th June. 1996.

flme 12-30 noon. The -,-rial magistrate SurjenduBiswas of 7th Metropolitan Magistrate's court(popularly known as Bankshall amrt, Calcutta,began to read his judgement in the now famous(particularly in West Uengal and thanks toAmnesty International and Rehabilitation Centrefor Torture Victims Abroad) 'Archana GuhaCase' against Ranjit alias Runu Guha Neogy andSct!1losh Dey, a pol ice officer and a constahlerespectively of Calcutta Police. There were threeother accused earlier, two or whom (ArllnBanerjee and Aditya I<almaker) wele said tohave died during 19-year long judicial processand tlle defense, i.e., police denied the existence

of the third (Kamal Das) from the beginning.

The policemen were all accused of brutalcustodial violence in Lalbazar lock-up (the policehead quarters of Culcutta police) on ArchanaGuha and two other women prisoners LatikaGuha (sister-in-law of Archana) and muchyounger Goude Chatterjee, who though not arelative hut still was a part of their family, backin 1974 during Congress regime both at center(under lndira Gandhi) and at the state (underSidd;lIlha SauL,,· Hay). The 1011llle led tocomplete paralysis of lower limhs of Archana,from which she later rea)vered throughprolonged treatment f(lr years in Denmark underthe aegis or Danish Medical Group of AmncstyInternational at University Hospital ofCopenhegn which was followed up byRehahilitation Centre f(J[ Torture Victims

(RCT), a rare opportunity, she being the onlyIndian prisoner so far to have received suchtreatment, thanks to relentless effort of heryounger hrother Saumen, who was also hercounsel in the last one year of the trial. Unlikemost cases under Cr PI' Code the prosecutionside here was not the state hut a private party,viz., the Complainant Archana Guha.

The g9-page judgement was not read fully

due to limitations of ,time. Still the readingamtinued t<Jr above oile hour. And then the

news came out-victory at last! There was wildjubilation outside. A thin haldheaded oldgcntleman rushed out from inside and began toweep and shout - "victory to Archana Guha,victory to Saumen and Latika Guha !" Thecrowd rushed to him and hugged one another. Ayoung activist Tapash, who had been runningaround 1(Jr the case for last two years and used tocall himself self-deprecatingly the Muhuri ofSaumen broke down with tears on shoulder of an

older sympathizer. Uijaya, another youngperson, herseIr a law student who had also beenclrrying innumerahle err(Ulds in connection withthe case was 1Il00e controlled in her expression.Soon, alung with the crowd inside came out

memhers or the Guha lilmily -- Saumen, his wireLatika, and sister, the complainant, Archana.

Meanwhile, the accuscd pol icemcn RlInuand Santosh, now convicted, remained inside,

heavily guarded by their fellow policemen. Noneof the crowd was heing allowed insidc any morc.Ultimately Runu and Santosh ohtained hail Ii"

one month so that they might go into appcal

against the judgemcnt in the higher court. Theythus escaped immediatc dctention. After about

one and a half hour more, surrounded by a few

rows of policemen openly displaying theirobeisancc to the convicted, Runu, trying to wear

a bravc smile, was whisked away in a police car.No member of the public or journalists waitingto have his 'Darshan' was allowed to approach

him. l.crt 1:lOnl (;ovcllllnent or thc state is yctto explain since when they have decided to ollerprotection at the cost of state exchequer to

private citizens (Runu is now a retired policepersonnel) convicted of serious crimes.

Next day the incident made banner headlines

in almost ~" IH:wspapers with appropriatephotographs Guha falllil y alllJ Runu. Saulllen

Guha became overnight one of the most soughtafter person for the press for the next few days.Lctters expressing sat isfilction at the conv iet ion

of Runu Guha continued to pour forth in

newspaper columns f'(Jr weeks, showing the most

widespread public awareness and sympathy thecase enjoyed. Due to the perhaps quitesensational nature of the way the case started 19

years ago on 20th August '77 when crippledArch:tna (;lIha was carried on a stretcher 10

lodge her complaint bcf()[e the Chicf

Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, the press tookimmediate interest and the news accompaniedwith photograph of emacialed Archan:t in a lying

posilion and her bruther standing by her splashedacross the newspapers. As the case dragged oninterest somewhat trailed off. But even 1 hen at

certain turning points press continued to takeinternlittent interest. Besides, many other

individuals and organizations also spread the

message of the case rrom time to time. Ahroad,due to the interest t.aken by Amnesty

International from the very beginning, and as thefirst case of cure of torture victim throughAmnesty in Dcnmark, the name or Arehana

Guha hecame an internationally known one,

which in t.urn also influenced the local press.

The immediate and newfound interest. of

press in Saurnen Guha was for his new role as aprosecution counsel, whose argument for sixlong days led to this judicial victory.

Alleg'ltions, Arguments, and JudgementBy now widely known to newspaper rcaders

in West Ikngal, the allegations in outline are asf()llows:

On 18th July 1974 (i.e. 22 years ago) there

was a midnight knock (at about 1-30 hours) atthe door of a small rented house at 7, JawpurRoad, a poor and lower middle--dass arca· inNorth easlelll sllhmh of ('alclllla called Dum

Dum. When the doors were opcned, the room

was ransacked without presence of anyindependent witness amI the policc obtainedsignatures of the owner on blank paper and thethree women named ahove were arrested. Of

thcm, Archana was a htAldmist.ress in a juniorschool, I ~llika, a college lecflller and Gomie, ashop cmployee. They were detaincd illcgally nlr

more than 24 hours before being taken to courtand even then at all subsequent court dates

throughollt t heir detent ion period they wcrenever physically produced bcl()re the magistrate

but would simply be confined to court lock-up.

Thus the magistrate could never see the physicalstate of the prisoners. They were then confined

to police custody for 27 days and during thattime were subjected to most cruel, inhuman, anddegrading torlure, humiliation and insult at

Lalbazar. This was done by accused policemen

at the hehest and with full participation of Runu

Guha Neogy, the accused No. I in this case. Thispatently illegal physical and mcntal violence onthe unarmed women prisoners with the clearpurpose of breaking their spirit was inflicted on

their alleged Naxalite links and on thewhereabouts of the then CPI(M L) activist

Saumen Guha, the younger brother of Archanaand husband of Latika. Many of the important

details of this torture and particularly itsaftermat.h did not properly cOllie out in t.he

evidence (the main officially available documenton this heinous act) of Archana and Latika,

because as both of them alleged to thiscorrcspondent questions put to them f<Jr

At no stage of this torture any medicaltreatment was olIerred though every police lockup l.'Ustomarily has a medical unit for treating theprisoners. Within one or two days, gasping,bleeding Archana, unable to walk, would bedragged from torture chamber (a special roomattached to the ofllce of special cell under RUllll.where these tortures were committed) andthrown into the lock-up every day often at night.

A particularly specialised form of torture,liked by the uniformed torturer world over for

@) (!.«O-c.r it" serious long tern\i>detectable external injury to\-k,~\.<t kOM'1WhichArchana was"subiected is called 'Kachua0-.11\,\ l.o1\ cr\t·..,.. , J

Dholai' here and Falanga ahroad. Here thevictim's body is doubled up with her two handsand folded feet bound together by a thick rope.Then she is hung upside down between twochairs 'with the help of a pole passing through thefold of her legs and resting on two handles of

, two chairs on both sides of the body. It is allextremely painful position. In fact it was tried onGourie once and she immediately fainted.Moreover with legs hared upto almost thigh amiAnchal of the sari removed and wound round the

waist, it was a cruel affront to the dignity of awoman in pre.."ence of males. Then the prisoner(here Archana) is clubbed on the sole for longperiods. The victim feels being hit inside his/hersl.'U11. Treating with lighted cigarettes andkicking by Runu would continue at the sametime. Archana was subjected to this form oftorture repeatedly sometimes with the gap ofonly a few hours.

o·J

recording their evidence by the professional

. lawyers on their own side did not allow thelll:. "cnol\gh scope to elaborate sufl1ciently on thet'l .

matter. 'Still what came out was chilling enough.. Some examples: merciless beating, slapping,

kicking, pre..'lsing lighted cigarette/cigar ends todifferent parts of the body (Runu used to takespecial intere..'it in doing it himself, though othersalso did it under his instruction), lashing on thehcad n;plAlledly hy specially Iealher-hound endof a thick. rope giving out a sound of crackingdry coconut shell, uprooting bunches of hair,thrashing the head against wall while holding onto a bunch of hair using the latter as a kind ofrope handle to pull the head away from the wall,to thrash it again, trampling the naked foot onthe Iloor under hlAlVYpolice bool. elc. elc.

This savagery over body and mind would beaccompanied hy foul ahllse and filthy derogatory.address as well as ohscene gestures.

At one stage they were threatened of beingraped by letting lose on them the 'H industaniSepoys' standing outside. On another occasion,they were threatened of being ellt into pieces andthrown into the Ganges while three other womenwould he. so lhey threalcm;d. produced ill theirname and none would know.

In this atlIlosphere of unceasing terror,torture. and humiliation they spent 27 days. It iscompletely another matter that even then therespirit could not he hroken. The three womengave cmol iOllal SllppOrt to olle allot hcr.Particularly Latika, less sevcrely tortured stoodlike a rock by the side of other two ignoring herown lIl~unes.

During these days they were taken to severalcourts and a number of false cases were filed

against them, on the basis of a seizure list whichwas shown to he fahricated hy the prosecutioncouncil Saumen Guha during argument. Actuallythe three women were forced to sign on blankform, which was then filled lip hy a list ofmaterials which wCle supposed to have hccnrecovered from their residence at the time of

arre.."t. The court accepted the contention of theprosecution counsel. This same illegallymanufactured document was used for detainingthem under MISA, later on after withdrawl offalse cases.

While in jail after 27-day journey throughliving nightmare, physical condition of Archanadeteriorated sharply and ultimately she had to hetransferred to outside hospital, first for a shortperiod and then again in a very critical conditionfor about a year. She was under heavy policeguard throughout. Doctors, nurses, and ayas didtheir best, skillfully avoiding or sometimesdefying various stupid and cruel iI~unctions onfood, etc., as Archana reminisced gratefully tothis correspondent. She was completely bed­ridden and depemlenl on the loving care ofolhers. Once ill lhe middle of night her mol her attheir Jawpur road residence was informed of herdaughter's grave condition. The old lady rushedto her elder daughter's house in a distraught

condition, who calmed her and went to hospitalherself. But police would not allow her to seeArchana because only their mother had thepermission to meet her. Ultimately she wasallowed a peep and saw that Archana was aliveand was laid on ice. Fearful of furtller

deterioration Archana was released on parole.Ultimately lower part of her body becameparalysed and she lost the capacity of movement.

The accused were tried for the offenses

committed under sections 166 (Public ServantDisobeying Law with intent to cause injury toany person), 348 (wrongful confmement toextort confession), 324 (voluntraily causing hurtby dangerous weapon or means), 330(voluntarilycausing hurt to extort confession), 509(word,gesture or act intended to insult the modcsty of awoman) of Indian Penal Code. Of thcse thesection 330 provided for the maximumpunishment of 7 years.

In the judgement crimes under all thesections were proved to have heen committed.But in case of one crime, viz., illegalconfinement beyond 24 hours without producingthem in court, whieh comes under the purviewof stx-1ion 166 and 348 the culprit was declaredto be the Investigation Officcr (10), who WdS notmade an aecused in this case, thanks to earlier

professional prosecution counsels. On all othercounts the accused in the present case waspronounced guilty without any mitigating fac'torto lessen the gravity of crime. The honourablemagistrate comments " ... the offense caused bythem should he severly dealt with as such type ofoffense should not occur in future".

Text of the judgements makes interestingreading. Using prosecution counsel SaumenGuha 1 s argument and citation from judgementsof High Court and Supn.:me Court, thejudgement demol ishcs one after another each ofthe defense argumen~except in one, as alreadymentioned, where though guilt was proved theguilty turned out to be one who was not includedamong the accused in the original complaintprepared by earlier prosecution counsel. Hereare a few examples in brief:

In establishing the allegation of torturecorroboration of statement of first prosecution

witness (PW I) Archana Guha by that of (PW 2)Latika Guha has been given special importance.Defense counsel's argument that supposeddiscrepancies in the two statements are indicativeof unreliability of their evidence has beenrejected primarily on the strength ofprosecution's several citations from SupremeCourt judgement which say in essence that underthe horrible condition of tortures some errors of

observation and consequent discrepancies areonly normal.

Another defense argument questioning thereliability of PW 2's evidence because she wasan "interested party" ran against anotherSupreme Court orderaB cited by prosecution.The order says among other things," ... Ordinarily a close relative would be the lastperson to screen the real culprit and falselyimplicate an innocent person".

Against the defense argument that if thestory of torture were true then the tortured ladieseould 22 years ago, complain either to themagistrate or jail authorities during their periodof detemion, Magistrate Surjendu Biswasaccepted and cited the prosecution witness 1 and2 that they were never presented physicallybefore the court and a magistrate in a busy court" .. , may overlook about produc1ion of theaccused" and that they complained to the jailauthorities but were not given any heed. As towhy they did not complain to authorities atLalbazar, basing himself on the evidence of PW1 and the 2 the honourable Magistratecommemed that prisoners who "are under themercy of police" could not know aboutavailability of doc10rs and they complained toofficials in vain and had no opportunity to reach

higher officials. Obviously all these points wereargued at length by the prosecution counsel andwere found acceptahle hy the honourahlemagistrate in the light of recorded evidence.

The defense counsel argued that non­examination by prosecution of GourieChatterjee, an eye-witness of alleged torture wasdue to her unwillingness to "depose falsely". Theprosecution countered that in that case, thedefense could examine her and judgementaccepted the logic. Based on evidence of PW 1& 2 as pointed out by prosecution, the

o

magistrate comments "... it cannot be expectedthat a married woman will depose against fivepolice personnel and accordingly I think thatthere is sufficient rcason of not tendering Gouricas witness in this case". Also the judgementrefers to Supreme court decision that"prosecution is not bound to produce all thewitnesses". It is his choice as to whom orwhether he will examine or not.

Two Defense Witnesses (both policepersonnel) described the allegation of torture as"false". The prosecution counsel Saumen Guhadid not cross-examind( them. This implied,argued the defense coun~l, that prosC(.."Utioncouncil accepted the same. The judgement quotesthe citation from Supreme Court that "failure tocross-examine will not always amount to anacceptance of the witness's testimony". Thenfollows "Moreover Ld counsel for theprosecution argued that DW I and DW2 areaccomplices as they participated in thecommission of the same crime by takingsignatures of PWI, and PW2 and Gowrieforcibly while they were in police custody". Anddefense argument was rejccted.

Five doctors, who attended Archana Guhawhile she had been at hospitals during detentionwere examined as PW3 to 7. Basing itself on theeye-witness account (PWI and PW2) combinedwith doctors's opinion as experts the judgementconcluded that paralysis of Archana Guha wasdue to torture by aCL"Used,though no dO<...'tordirectly said so. In rejecting· defense argument .the judgement quotes this interesting citationfrom Supreme court by prosecution, "Ordinarily

the value of medical evidence is onlycorroborative. It proves that the injuries couldhave been caused in the manner alleged andnothing morc. Thc use which thc defense canmake of the medical evidence is to prove that theinjuries could not possibly have been caused inthe manner alleged and thereby discredit theeyewitness. unless, however, the medicalevidence in its turn goes so far that it completelyrules out all possibilities whatsoever· of injuriestaking place in the manner alleged byeyewitnesses, the testimony of eyewitnessescannot be thrown out on the ground of allegedinconsistency between it and the medicalevidences". The judgement described a cluster of(five in number) citations by defense as "notapplicable in the instant case" .

It may be of interest to note that inconnection with charge of outrage of modesty,the prosec"Ution's citation from Supreme Court,which the judgement quotes, is in connectionwith recently concluded Roopam Bajaj vs.K.P.S. Gill case where Gill the D.G. of Punjabpolice has been convicted in the court of C.J.M.,Chandigarh. The citation is "The ultimate testfor ascertaining whether modesty has beenoutraged in the action of the offender, such ascould be perceived as one which is capable ofshocking the sense of decency of a woman". It isa landmark judgement, though not so harsh, inthe history of trial court in West Bengal againstcustodial violence, sending appropriate messageto future perpetrators of the crime. It is bound tohave very wholesome effect on future judicialredress against this most cowardly of all formsof violence.

- FRONTIER, CalcuttaSept. 21, 1996

There was nothing unique about torture. Theincident, revealed through evidence, was not anexception but the rule in the days of '70's whenprisoners both men and women met with fate

which was much worse than Archana's. Manywere maimed for life or even went insane andnever recovered. A white hot state terror

enveloped the whole of West Bengal and a fewmore states when the cold blooded murder of

unarmed prisoners in the name of "encounter"and jail killings were the order of the day. Thedeserved wide publicity the case received, mostof the time, failed to underscore this pointsulliciently and so a wrong unhistoriGl1perspective gained ground particularly amongthose who were either too young or were not inWest Bengal during 70's.

From this not so unique character of thecase stems its first uniqueness. This is the onlycase where some from among the unilimnedblood thirsty "draculas" let loose by the thenCongress bosses Indira Gandhi and SiddharthaShankar Roy in 70s had met with their judicialnemesis, though, admiuedly the process is notyet complete, because disposal of appeal by theconvicted policemen against the judgement ispending before the City sessions court. In twoother known incidents of similar nature, where,like the Guha families here, victims and thefamilies of the victims concerned dared seek

judicial redress, the cases got lost rathermysteriously before the proper completion ofjudicial process. In one case complainant wasBinoy Chakraborty, elder brother of two victimsof so called death in "encounter". The murdered

persons were Ranjit Chakraborty and SamirChakraborty. The accused were the then DC(North) of Calculla police alld two otherpolicemen. In the second case the victim UariUdBaran Sarkar alias Kanu who allegedly attemptedto be shot dead himself was the complainant.Accused in this case was the selfsame Runu

Guha Neogy. It so happens in both the cases thecounsel on behalf of the complainant was ArunPrakash Chauerji, the Chief counsel lilr ArchanaGuha during the first 18 years of the case afterwhich he was replaced by Saumen Guha.

II\NV

Recently an interview, published in a vernacular~magazine (Janmat, 16/6/96) he shilled. theresponsibility onto the loop holes of law, ofwhich the accused took advantage. Theexplanation would have been acceptable ifjudicial avenues were explored to the 1~lrthestpossible extent. On 8 June, '96 in a gathering tocelebrate the victory in Archana Guha Case atMahabodhi Society Hall, Calcutta, the twocomplainants told their tales of woe andfrustration in connection with their respectivecases with deep agony and anger.

The second unique feature of the case is thatthis is for the first time in the memorable historyof the trial courts in West Bengal that anordinary citizen without any professional trainingin law has been allowed by the court (orderdated 6th July, '95) to plead on behalf of anotherperson, here Archana Guha. Saurnen Guha, thisnon-prolCssional counsel argued ahout one and ahalf hour before the magistrate Sri Nanda DulalGoin of 7th court of Metropolitan Magistrate f(lrgelling the necessary permission. In the ordergiving the permission the Magistrate presentedthe following reasons of the petitioner forseeking the permission: " ... the petitioner andhis family had initially engaged several learnedAdvocates but the Petitioner and his family havegot enormous frustrating experience. Also thePetitioner cannot any further sustain theenormous expenses, time, and energy necessaryfor having their case conducted through anyprofessional lawyer.. ."

The permission was not unconditional, asthe following quotation from the order indicates" . __the petitioner is permitted to conduct thiscase ... on condition that if he proves unworthythe permission will he withdrawn". So thecounsel Saumen Guha was under constant

vigilance of court on his capability and conductas counsel. The fact that Saumell Guha's six daylong argument led to the victory shows howjustitied lhe honourable magistrate was in takingnp this extra hurden or vigilance and creatingnew precedent in judicial history or WestBengal. This precedent opens a completely new

Q

vista for civil rights activists and any othercitizen who would want to be free from abjectdependence on professional lawyer even whenthe latter becomes undependable.

Thirdly, the non-professional counselSaumen duha happens to be the younger (by 8years) brother of tlle complainant. Thus it is inthe most beautiful tradition of brother squaringthe account, on behalf of his sister, with hermolester.

fourthly, the counsel Saumen Guha himselfwas a victim of torture as much as his eldersister was at the hands of same Runu Guha

Neogy. He was also savagely tortured by policein Bankura, where he was arrested within a veryshort time of arrest of tl1e three womenassociated with this case.

It was a kind of poetic justice that accuserand accused changed places. Victim of the yesteryear stood before the tribune to seek justicef"dising his finger against his tormentor but noton behalf of himself but on behalf of his sister

another victim. During his 6-day long argumentthis brother without the benefit of anyinstitutional training in law in his maidenargument against the seasoned professionals onthe side of the accused, exposed in the mostcalm, civilized manner and incisive language,without indulging in any of hyperbole, thecowardly attack "shaming the darkness of night"on his sister and won justice for her. It was amoving human drama of a law court in this state.Those who were fortunate enough to be presentduring the arguments saw judicial history beingmade.

Delayed JusticeFrom the day (20th August, 1977) the

complaint by Archana Guha was lodged at thecourt of CMM to the day (5th June, 1996) whenthe judgement was delivered by the 7th MM ofthe same court it was a stretch of long 19 years,as already mentioned. Why justice had to wait solong? Because Runu Guha Neogy and hisaccomplices were not ready to face the trial. Theconviction shows that their fear was well­

founded. Besides, this exchange of role betweenthe accuser and the aQllsed must have been

shocking with a strong element of unpleasant

surprise for them. After all, it is on rarest of rareoccasion that what they think of their absolutepower over the body of their prisoners, or evenover latter's life and death (never mind the lawsof the land) is questioned before a court of law.It must have been particularly galling for a

person like Runu, who ~rned quite a name for ® .~his cowardly notoreity~edal as a reward and 10'.0 t-o\ahdused to enjoy more power than what his official \-Juri

post enjoined, to be put on dock. It was likely to {ty"sLclc.n~'I.l

have been madenning for him to contemplate thatwhile his other contemporaries spread overdifferent police stations of We.';t Bengal in '70sgot scot free in spite of committing the samedeeds why it should be his lot to be caught in themesh? Why indeed? Simply because of Guhafamily, who dared knock at the door of justiceand had the necessary grit, courage, anddetermination as well as competence to pullthrough 19 odd years, braving all obstacles onthe way.

How did they manage to defer the ultimateday of judicial reckoning? From the verybeginning they went into appeal to one courtafter another to get the proceedings at the trialcourt stalled, which meant in effect thecomplainant and the first witness Archana Guhacould not complete her evidence till after 18years, due to repeated interruption. This wasdone in one pretext after another. On anyparticular pretext, when they failed in one courtthey moved to next higher court and so on tillthe highest court i.e. the Supreme Court was

reached. When the move was defeated ther~ ~othen another pretext was found and the sameprocess was repeated and so it went. Many atime when the appeal on any pretext moved inthe name of one accused was dismissed, thesame move was made in the name of another

accused and the same process repeated. Thusbefore the trial could start without any furtherinterruption the case moved through sessionscourt twice, through high court (Calcutta) eighttimes, and through Supreme Court five times.What were the pretexts used? There were five inall:

- 1. The allegation of torture, etc., in thepetition of complaint were such they wereinherently improbable, unprovable and thus noprima fade bases exist for holding the trial and

ifbdd \l\ould he tantamount to h4rdssing honestfJU~ico.ttJcials for doing their duty.

- 2. The senior adv(XAte Arun Prdkash

Chatterjee (Chief Prosecution Counsel till middleof '95, when he was replaced by Saumen Guha)was not entitled to act as prosecution counselagainst public officials (i.e. Runu & Co.)because he was the then standing counsel for thestate government.

- 3. Proceedings were sought to beinfluenced against the defense extra-judiciallythrough demonstration against Runu GuhaNeogy at court gate and through submittingpetition to CM M to speed up trial, by a numberof organisations like APDR, Nari NirjatanProtirodh Manch, etc. So the trial needed to betransferred to a newer court.

- 4. The whole trial proceedings should bedropped hecause of extrd-ordinary delay of overten years.

- 5. Trial should be dropped under section245(3) of Cr.P.C. (an amendment introduced bythe state government in '88, as if to put intoRunu's hand a new legal weapon) according towhich judge can do th4t if evidence is notcomplete within four years of commital.

The first pretext, the only pretext havingany kind of relation with the allegations as such,was used only once and dismissed within firstthree years by a judgement of High Courtdelivered on 13.3.80 by division benchcomprising Justice Barua and Justice Maitra.However, section 331 (voluntarily causinggrievous hurt to extort confession), part ofinitially frdmed ch4rge WdS set aside. So, thecase, for the time being was no longer sessiontriable. The judgement ordered speedy trial.

The second pretext was first advanced andrejC(.1ed within first two years of filing thecomplaiDt and then again repeated in the name ofdifferel1t accused and in different courts for

about seven years between '81 and '87 till it wasfinally dismissed in Supreme Court. It is ofinterest to note tbat in '84 Runu surreptiouslymanaged to -get an ex-party stay order from.supreme Court on the false plea that Sri

Chatterjee was a counsel for the staregovernment.

When after the gap of seven years, evidenceof Archana Guha was to be again taken on 17thJuly, '87, third pretext was used to get the casetransferred from 5th court of MM where the trial

had been taking place to 7th court of MM whereultimately trial was held in '95-'96. This killedone more year pushing the case forward to itseleventh year paving the way for next twopn~-texts mentioned above.

Evidence was to be taken on nnd March

'88 again. The appeal on the basis of 4th pretextwas made at the trial court. In a memorable

judgement delivered on 29th March '88, the thentrial magistrate D.S. Roy showed through a neattable that while Runu and his accomplices wereresponsible for delay of 9 years one month, thedelay of only one year one month could beascribed to Archana. It may be added here thatArchana 'a absence was mainly due to the factthat from '81 onwards she had to remain in

Denmark because of treatment and marriage to aDanish citizen.

Runu immediately moved to High Court andthe darkest episode in the history of the casetook place. In addition to the above 4th groundthere were a mixture of 1st and 3rd grounds.And in a judgement delivered on 15th July,Justice Ajit Sengupta of Calcutta High Courtquashed the proceedings. Thus 11 years of toilstood aborted. But Guha fdmily did not relent.Appeal was made against the judgement. In ajudgement on 5th March, '90, a division benchof Calcutta High Court comprising M.N. Royand S.K. Guin JJ the judgement of justiceSengupta was set aside and a speedy trial­ordered.

Before evidence at the 7th court of MM

could be taken on 11th June they made their nextmove to drop the trial using the iot\ih pretext inone court after another in the name of different

accused, ultimately rcaching the Supreme Court.Meanwhile appeal against the order of MN Royand SK Guin was also made in the supremecourt. In a land mark judgement delivered on3rd February '94 Supreme court rejected all suchappeals and finally cleared the path for

unintcrruptcd trial. Its order clear!y slalcd lhaltrial would not stop through any further judicialintcrvcntion.

Begining from 'R I, rom yqrs after 10d,~il1'~III(" COlllpL,ill( III(" Iulluwillg J+i::t\l;\Il"S al II i;1Icourt, spread over 14 years will give at a glance,the gaps between consecutive dates on which

incomplete cvidence of Archana Guha could hetakcn. Pretcxt numhcrs (as givcn ahove) whichexplain the corresponding gaps are also givcn.The first liJllr years were laken filr compktin,!Ihl" illlli;1I Iq',;11 pIUU'SSl'S like dn:idillg 011plilllatacie basis of trial etc.

®

Dates of Evidence

51h Novemher, 1981.

17th July, 1987

2211(1March, 1988

11th June, 1989

18th April, 1994

Gap No.

II

III

IV

Lel/gtll of Gap

5 years 8 months

9 months

2 years3 mOllths

3 years 10 montllS

Pretext No.

2

3

4

5

From 18th April onward there could he nogap due to any ohstructive move hy Runu asalready explained. On each of the other datesabove, Archana would come all the way fromDenmark at huge expense of her Danish husbandand evidence would he taken hardly lilr a fewminutes, when ohject ion on one ground or theother would come from defense counsel and

evidence would be suspended. Besides she alsohad to come on many other court dates inbctween (once every year on an average) whenno evidenee could be taken at all. Archana would

wait for months and then go back to Denmarktill the time comes for another fruitless journeyto Calcutta. Apart from the expenses it was aserious strain to her family life back in Denmarkwhere her husband is a man of very humbleprofession.

COUNSELS - Professional and NOIl­Prorcssion~1

Arun Prakash Chaueljee was the seniormost professional counsel till Saumen Guha tookthe charge. As a counsel he received the kind ofhelp from his client Saumen Guha, that is notusually available. It is actually Saumen Guhawho collected all the necessary documents andpapers for him. Again it is through Saumen thathe got the hcnefit of consultation with arespected senior doctor, who really looked afterthe mcdical side of the case, which was veryimportant hcre and provided necessary hooks.

From '87 onwards it was Saumen who prepareddraft or all petitions.

Besides Sri Chatteljc'e, there were two otherlawyers, Amiya Chakravorty and Suhhasis Roy.When trial finally hcgan. it was AmiyaChakravorty who examined the witncsscs of theprosL'Cution. During that period, often therewould be some verbal duel between Subhasis

Roy and trial magistrate leading to cancellationof taking evidence for the day. There wasdifference of opinion between Subhasis Roy andAmiya Chakravorty, Sri Chatterjee would beoften ahsent. Some important piece of evidenceand document could not be got recorded bydoctor witnesses due to his absence though therewas specific talk between him and Saumen onthis matter. On 26th April, '95 there was amecting hetwecn all. the three professionalcounselson the one hand and Saumen Guha and

Archana on the other. This correspondenthappcned lo he present there from the hcginning.Sujato Bhadra, Secretary APDR, came towardsthe cnd. The meeting was taking place at SriChatterjce's chamber at Waterloo Street in theevening. Sri ChatterjL'e proposed that during trialopinion of Senior counsel must prevail. At this,Saumen Guha suggestcd that filr that SriChallerjee must not ahsent himself. SriChalterjee disagreed and said that senior mostCOUIlSelneed not he prescnt. Saumen contentedthat accordillg to Advocates Act Sri Chattcrjee

should all according to client's instruction. SriChatterjee got infuriated and without answeringto the question of legal right of the client madepersonal attack on Saumen. In the end hedeclared his intention not to all as counsel of the

case any more and asked Saumen to leave theroom. Archana Guha also left the room with

Saumen. Amiya Chakravorty also refused to aclas counsel from then on. Sri Subhasis Roycontinued as prosecution counsel for a fewmonths. Intermittent trouble between him and

the magistrate continued. Ultimately Saumenappealed for and got the permission to act asnon-professional counsel, with the writtenconsent of Archana Guha. This in short is the

background of Saumen Guha becoming theprosecution counsel, about which there prevailssome public confusion.

Of the three professional lawyers, AmiyaChakravorty never took a paisa from Guhafdmily. Subhasis Roy, who came into the scenemuch later, was always paid his daily fees. ArunPrakash Chatterjee did not take anything as feesbut as prosecution Counsel in Supreme Court hewas paid to and fro air fair between Culcutta andDelhi, hotel bills for staying in Delhi and alsopocket expenses depending on the duration of his

stay from Rs 2000/- upwards. On these alsothere seems to be some public confusion.

Lastly, there remains a question which willintrigue any dispassionate observer. Why Runu'sstrdtegy to stall the evidence under the pretext ofobjection to participation of Arun PrakashChatterjee as prosecution counsel was allowed tosucceed for long seven years? For, while thematter was being decided in the higher courts,evidence could very well be taken at trial courtthrough some competent junior. After all thatwas how it was done finally as has been shownabove. Saumen Guha suggested as much to ArunPrakash Chatterjee· back in '81 and thenrepeatedly afterwards. If it was done then, thecase would be over by '87 at the latest when SriChatterjee ultimately got the objection rejected atSupreme Court. He could then, conduct tbeargument. Runu would then not have the furtheropportunity to delay the case under the pretextnumber 4 and 5. Thus the case was allowed to

be prolonged at least for nine more years over anon-issue. For participation of Arun Prakash hadgot nothing to do with the allegation of torture assuch. And no democratic principle was involvedhere. Runu's objection was on purely technicalground.

- FRONTIER, CalcuttaSept. 28, 1996

illThe full social and human significance of

this historic battle and victory within theparameters of prevailing judicial system cannotbe appreciated unless this simple fact is takennote of that this was a, what is caIled, 'publicinterest case' fought privately by a family oflower middle class origin having no specialaccess to power df wealth. So, public at largeowe profound gratitude to this family. SaumenGuha's purely accidental role as a prosecutioncounsel in last one year, i.e., at the mostdecisive stage of the trial should not lead anyoneto think wrongly that his role was confined tothis year alone . Sheer common sense suggeststhat it would be a miracle if it were so. It was a

complicated case fought against a powerfulopponent having unlimited access to power,(official and unofficial) and money and they usedtheir resources to the hilt. Nobody, particularly aperson without any professional training, couldjust appear like that from nowhere and win thebattle by a fluke. It required steady devotedthorough work with love for years; and it waspossible because it was he who conceived of thecase in the tirst place even while he was in jail.ActuaIly his dream was wider. He dreamt ofgathering a number of torture victims andcausing a tribunal of sorts to be formed againstcriminals in uniform. Accordingly, after releasehe ran to many victims and their relatives butwithout much response. Understandably, nonewas interested to look back. So the Guha familydecided to launch on their own onto this totaIlyuncharted path. It was then a family of four, ofwhich thrce (Archana, Saumen and Latika) weretorture victims, two (their mother and Archana)were immobilised by paralysis. While Archanahad her lower part of body paralysed by policetorture, her (and Saumen's) mother had a dilatedheart and right side paralyzed after a stroke.Latika, a college teacher was the only earningmember of the family. The paralyzed mother andsister were to be attended to. To save moneySaumen improvised many of props anel devicesto help her sister. In fact, nursing of theircrippled dear ones by the couple became a kindof legend in their locality. The grateful sister

. so. dArchana saId to thIScorrespon ent.f'

The case could be tiled in the name of anyone or all three of them as all of them werevictims of torture by RUllU, and particularlySaumen who was as savagely treated as Archana,still now goes through various discomforts as aresult of torture. They contacted Arun PrakashChatterjee, who readily agreed. Saumenmanaged to get an old fashioned recordingdevice with spool and recorded Archana'sexperience in custody, transcribe it, made a listof salient points and handed it over to ArunPrakash for preparing the petition of complaint.It was filed and made immediate news and

generated wide public sympathy as alreadymentioned. Thus the 'Archana Guha case' was

born. It was another matter all together thatpetition of complaint contained a few seriouserrors of detail from which the defense tried toextract maximum mileage when trial was fmallyheld eighteen years later. At the beginningGuhas had so much blind faith on Arun Prakash

that they did not care to scrutinize it. Then beganthe ordeal, the nitty-gritty of a case which wenton from court to court. Apart from running tothe courts, there were witnesses to be contacted,various medical records from various hospitalshad to be compiled and so forth, and finallymoney had to be arranged. Added to that wasSaumen's continuous efforts to acquaint himselfwith all the legal aspec1s of the case. Within avery short time Saumen clearly perceived thateternal vigilance on every aspC(,1of the case wasabsolutely necessary if the case was to beconducted. There were examples before him inthe cases by Binoy Chakravorty and BaridSarkar (already mentioned) what lack ofappropriate vigilance might lead to. And legalknowledge was necessary for keeping the watch.Many mysterious things were happening aroundthe case, details of which cannot be given at themoment. Suffice is to say that but for Saumen'sever-watchful eye some times assisted byfriendly individuals the case, like the other twoeases already mentioned, might he just one moreexample of effort that failed and forgotten. Allthese went on behind the public gaze. Publicsympathy for the case must have been a greatmoral booster, but that does not lessen the sheer

, 'I

physical and psychological pressure for such along period; and the couple, Saumen and Latika,had to bear the whole brunt. Till '80 Archana

was physically crippled and mentally distressed.From then onwards, she had been to Denmark ­first for treatment and then by marriage. Soexcept to stand in witness box on court dates andarranging some amount of money, she was notin a position.to lend any other kind of help. She

.""

WdS a herJo~e when Runu could not break hermprale through his savagery in custody. But as~.as the case is concerned she was as helpless,as -any of us laymen. In '83 their mother's deathcame as a great shock to Saumen who for a longtime went almost out of his mind. The old lady

w~9 developed heart disease and paralysisthrough unrelieved tension for three years whenher son, daughter, and daughter-in-law were indetention and she had to run around between jailand hospital, was a great source of strength forSaumen. Thus the family of Sallmen and I.•ltikacame almost to the very precipice of physical,psychological, and tinancial disaster. Still theycontinued and the case became almost a life-time

obsession for them and thus only this precedentsetting judicial victory of public interest could hewon.

Of course, they gratefully acknowledge thehelp they received in small and big ways duringthis long journey from individuals known andunknown. There were employees in hospitalswhere Archana was treated who helped Saumento trace the necessary medical records, whichplayed such an important role in this case. Therewere again employees in the court who helpedtrace many mysteriously 'missing' papers of thecase. There were others again who helped themtrace out some important doctor witnesses 20years after Archana was treated. There is thatyoung journalist friend hut for whom Saumenwould have remained untreated during a veryserious illness of lever. The journalist himselfhad to face contempt of court proceeding forarranging puhlicity in newspapers against RunuGuha Neogi. Then there is that young lawyerwhose firm support and advise went a long wayin making the decision by Saumen of taking themantle of prosecution counsel at a very criticllmoment when the case seemed to get stuck.There is that venerated doctor who particularly

, built up the argument of the case from medical

angle and supplied the necessary books whichwere so crucial in demolishing the defens~argument that paralysis of Archana Guha couldnot be ascrihed to torture, and so on. Commonto all these people is their reluctance to advertisetheir own role. It is for Guha family to decidewhen and how they will make theiracknowledgment public. Then, there was somefinancial help too.

Unsavoury AftermathAfter the judgement was delivered, along

with the expression of genuine happiness byinnumerahle people in newspaper columns, therehave been a spate of misleading and tendentiousnews, article, letters, or so called 'open letters'in local press and even a hook-let all having asingle theme, viz., to denigrate the role of thecouple, Saumen Guha and Latika Guha, in thiscase. The first open salvo was fired hy Sri ArunPrakash Chatterjee, former senior lawyer of thiscase. In a three page sel f-congratulatory signedpress statement (13.6.96), which fortunatelyenough did not get press coverage, he, amongother things, commented, "{ would say his(Saumen's) appearance has harmed the case. Forsuch a heinous crime there WdS only one year ofsimple imprisonment, because argument was notdone properly" (English translation of original inBengali). Apart from illegality of such an actionof self-advertising and publiclY attacking theperformance of another counsel, under the rllieof Bar Council, it is interesting to remember thatback in '87, he commented in a newspaperinterview (AAZKAL, 18.8.87) that even if Runuescaped charges under all other se<.'tions, hewould be definitely convicted for illegaldetention beyond 24 hours, which incidentallywould mean three months' imprisonment. So

sien's argument has led to a result which isat st an improvement upon what Arun Prakashe pet.'ted from his own aq,'Ument, had it takenplace. And as the judgement shows, if ArunPrakash's expectation had been fulfilled thenRunu would have gone Sl.'Otfrl.'C,hl.'Causehe wasnot declared guilty of that offense. As to thesmaller length of punishment, the explamtion inthe judgement already mentioned, leaves not theleast scope to think that it was due tounsatisfactory quality of argument. Arun Prakashhimself WdS never present in the days ofSaumen's argument. How he could then

comment on the quality of the argument ifanybody's guess.

This unmistakably mischievous attack wasfollowed by more. Even two, more or less, well­known senior cultural figures (a cartoonist and alitterateur) who were nowhere near this c.tse,

suddenly published lellers viciously attackingSaumen and Latika to the extent of saying thatwhile others did the spade work, Saulllcnsuddenly appeared at the last momcnt and"collected kudos almost doing nothing", thusdisplaying both their ignorance andunexplainable malice. A women's organisationwhich ceased to attend the court from the time of

exit of Arun Prakash because it was no longer apublic interest case but a private interest casewhere a brother had been fighting for a sister hasalso joined this cacophony after the victory.

Most unfortunately, a section of presentleadership of APDR, the organisation formedway back in 1972 when 'draculas' were roamingthe streets of West Bengal, at the initiative of arespec1ed veteran freedom fighter SushilBanerjee ('Dadu' of Bti1ala) and with which afew of the the~O~~ons like me were associated,has cOlllpletdy ~lIisscd thc profcllIlld si'~lIifi(";\lHTof this hurllan drama of a COllllllOller lighlillg filljustice. And instead of upholding this exampleand inspiring the people to be self sufficient theyhave joined this dis-honourable game ofdenigration as well as self-advertisement. In factthis phase began well before the trial was overand from the time Saumen became the

prosecution counsel. Therc was opcn altack inthe newspaper columns alleging Saumen wasgoing to harm the case therehy and makingcertain false claims on behalf of APDR. In other

ways also pressure was sought to be broughtupon him to hand over the case back to ArunPrakash Chatterjee. Numher of people attendingthe court on hcaring dates also went down frolTlthe time Saumen became the prosecution counsel

~ "'-'- \>t-'tt€€et* on the final day when the court room wasbursting at the seams.

It is extremely deplorable, that instead ofcorrecting their earl ier stance, the presentleadership or perhaps a section of it, of APDR,have openly joined the self-promotional activitiesof Sri Arun Prakash Chatterjee and thus soiling

the ideal with which the organisation wasfounded. This is in spite of the fact that track­record of Sri Chatterjee as counsel forcomplainant against police brutalities in '70s isnot only uniformly bleak it is positivelyshrouded in mystery. Two such Glses (ninoyChakravorty and Uarid Uaran Sarkar) havealready been mentioned. In a third case again hedid not go to higher court after he lost at thelower court. Complainant here was SIllt. RamiDUll, a widow mother who lost her only sonProhir DUll, killed hy police, while attending acultural rally organised on the ocGtsion of anti­imperialist day on 20th July, 1974, at CurU)llPark, Esplanade, Calc1Jtta. And while inpublished articles and interviews, Sri ChatterjeeexcLlsed his own failure by blaming judges, andjudicial as well as legal system withoutexplaining why he did not go for appeal in eachof these cases, he blamed Saumen Guha'sargument fl.)r admittedly lighter sentences ofRunu Guha Nc"ogi. Even in connection with thepresent case he expressem:. unambiguously hisfeeling of uncertainty about the possibility ofpunishment of Runu back in 1987 (Pratikhs(m,2nd August, '87). Recently, a book-let (ArchanaGulw Mama/a & APDR Glw{(ma 0 R(d(ma)pllhlishnl in tlJ("nallle or API>R do('s not containevell a hilll or his ahove track recor d. Un the

contrary the book-let tries its be.,t to promoteArun Prakash Chatterjee and debase SaumenGuha Is role as a prosecution counsel basing itselfon heresay, twisted representation of fac1, oreven outright lie. And Arun Prakash himself waspresent and vocal at the press conference wherethe hook -let was relGlsed, though atlC<lst till theother day, he was never a member of APDR. Iremember before the 'formation of APDR I

myself and Sanjay M ilra, another among thefounder-members of APDR went to him with a

reque<;t to join us, which he declined because hisparty CPI(M) would not allow him.

Besides it is elementary that civil rightsbodie<; are not there to further the professionalcarrier of a lawyer but to serve the vic1im ofstate violence. And hack in '70s APDR was also

not formed to serve lawyers against the victims.APDR's stand was always that only thoselawyers were welcome who did not think that hyoffering their services to victims or their familiesthey were doing anybody a favour or that they

------~ ------------------------ -~ ~- ---------~-

I

®could ahuse vic1irn's families if the latter

expressed any gricvanrcs against their counselsor that as they were not paid adequately or notpaid at all, they were not accountahle. It "vasdearly perceived hy liS then that I. lawyers whodid nOI:meet such conditions were not promptedhy civic scnsc and so were llot at ;111 tlllstv,mthyand atleast t\ PUR would nol he il1~;tflIlJlelll;l1in

bringing them in contact 'vvith victims.Incidentally in thc present case, I;l\vycr inquestion \vas not contacted through /\ PDR hutwas directly approached hy Guha hmify, asalready IlIclltioncJ. It defies rC<IS(JIISwhy onearth the name of APDR is being allov,ed to heused to defend the lawyer when those whoappointed him arc expressing thcirdisillusionment aud worse. It cannot hut raise

doubt about bonafiJeof a section of le<ldershipof APDR.

Again it ill-behoves a civil rights body likeAPDR to take a defensive posture like the vote­hunter parliamelltary parties in face of anycriticism and to besmirch the critic, particularly,when the critics happen to he a victim family.Instead of enhancing such stance only diminishesthe credihilily or the organisation. A far morewiser course would have heen to face the

criticism squarely, admit frankly and makeamend for mistakes, if any, without resorting toany clever trick and thus ram the right to pointout any possible mistake or misunderstanding onthe part of critics them sel VCS. After all, civilrights bodies are formed to serve the victims andit is not the other way round. So it is onlynatural that they will be particularly responsiveto victims' sentiments. In any specific case oftorture its job is to place not it.self hut the victimfamily in the centre stage. And in any case inArchana Guha case, filed and solely run by Guhafamily, highest st<lke was theirs and of nohodyelse's. APDR, had not the slightest role insharing the hazards of running the case, notcould that he held against il had it not tried 10

throw it<;c1f in an unsccmly fashion ill thelimelight for the minimum it should have doneand did, viz. spreading the news of this case anddeveloping public awareness against Runu GuhaNeogy. But that by itself has got nothing to dowith either victory or defeat in the case hecausejudicial dc"Cisions, if intluenced by public

OpinIOn, would he simply rejCL1ed at highercourts.

But impression has been sought to becreated Illostl y hy wrong emphasis butsOIllcli!lles even <fileetly (for example in a handbill j~;sucd in the name of Bchala hranch of

APIJI~, is~;w:d aner Ihe judgement) that victoryhas been achieved through so called democraticmovement of the masses. This is tantamount to

spreading wrong notion about the nature ofexisting judicial system here and thus creatingf~llse hopes among people. This can originatefrom either crass ignorance of the so-calledleaders themselves or an undignified craving toshine in reflected glory. I do not know which isthe worse for a civil rights body which was bornsolely to serve the victim and not to indulge inone-upOlanship over the victims. After all issaid, the fac1 remains that if the case was lost

even the most well-meaning supporters of thecase would not have lost anything becausesupporters could do nothing more thancontributing sOllie money and raising slogans orwriting or painting posters or go into one orother fruitless deputation, none of which couldever he so strong as to pressuri7c the politicalexecutive. which unlike judiciary, has to carel«)rpublic opinion for their own survival, to at leastsuspend Hunu Guha Neogy while he was undertrial for criminal offense. Instead of a humble

sOul-sC<lrching about our failure to generate suchmassive movement even around such a gross andcrude violation of human rights, when weindulge in loud-mouthed boasting of liule thatwe did it only shows that if the case was lost atthe very hest we would have held one or moreprotest rail ies where judgement, judge, thejudicial and legal system, and of course, theprosecution counsel Saumen Guha would hecursed with gusto and then we would go homeself-satisfied that a duty has been done and thatwould he the end of it. But it is difficult to

imagine how the family at the end of its tetherover this protracted legal battlc, at the alter ofwhich they sacrificed their everything, wouldsurvive such an eventual ity. The point is that thebattlc is not yet over and all this campaign ofconcerted vilification of tired and exhausted

fighter of a historical legal hattle is only puttingadditional pressure on them and thus, and inother ways also, is only endangering the

successful continuation of the case the full

hurden of which is still to he horne hy S;llllnenGuha and his wire, Latika Guha. As a personwho was associated with the humhle heginningof this organisation and incharge of prmlncing allthe written materials whether fllr correspomlenceor for publication of the organisation during firstseven years of its fragile dangerous existence Ihang my head in shame that the name of thisorganisal ion has got associated wil h suchdishonorable aC1ivities. Some people have fallenso low or have lost all senses that excavating inthe past they are hringing up some dommentaryevidence of a long forgotten misunderstandingbetween the brother Saumen Guha and sisterArchana Guha which was all hut natural as all

-adult person would know, under the unusuallyhigh and protracted pressure the Guha familylived through. But what is the purpose? Theanswer is hest left for the readers to decide. And

the present misguided leadership of "1'1 m hasjoined even this dirty game as their hook-letwould show.

It is extremely doubtful whether theindividuals who, abusing their position ofresponsihility, arc hringing Stich shame on theorganisation took ordinary members of theorganisation into confidence. If they were honestand ahsolutely ahove-hoard they would havearranged face to face exchange hetween SaumenGuha/Latika Guha and the members of APDR

and clear up any genuine misunderstanding. ThefaC1that they are pulling all the resources of theorganisation instC<ld for training their guns onGuha family only shows that these individualshave he'come part of a conspiracy to foil furtherprogress of the case in higher court. It is timethat honest and sincere members of the

organisation rise up and take appropriate steps tocorrect the aherration of their leadership andsave hoth the organisation and the C<Ise fromfurther damage. If they f~lil to do so, they cannotavoid being held responsihle for far fromdesirahle deeds of their spokesmen. One canonly hope that citizens at large will also assertthemselves publicly to stop this dirty game.

Finance

Wild lies arc also heing sprcad in writlJ1gabout the financial help the Guha family received

L < - -

from puhlic in running the case. Following is anapprox imate picture of the same:

I. Archana Guha Legal Aid Committee (acommittee formed hy a group of concernedcitizens in their individual capacity) -- Rs.10426.The payment was made between 8tb August '88and lIth January '93 in installments as and whenpublic subscription came through differentIllcllIhns of the conllllilll.'C. Nan:sh "hol., amemher of the committee, confirms that Guha

family always gave receipt.

2. Personal friends and other individuals

ranging, for example, from an humhle employeecontributing whole of his medical re­imhursement on one occasion, or three girlstudents from a middle class family contributingwhole of their monthly pocket money pooledtogether, to a well known singer contrihutingwhole of his golden disk award money receivedfrom a reputed gramophone company whichproduced and sold his Clssettes, Rs.45000/-.

Guha fdmily told this correspondent thatthey were equally grateful to all such donors nomailer how hig or sllIalltheir contrihution.

3. Japanese Section of AmnestyInternational -- One lakh Japanese Yen in June'90, equivalent to Rs.II ,027.

(It is interesting to note that in a recentlypuhlished article in a vcrnal.1.Jlar magazine aletter hy Sml. Matreye Chatterjl.'C puts this Iiguretwo and half lakh rupees. Even hy l.1Jrrentexchange rate it is a little ahove Rs.33000).

4. RCT of Denmark Rs.30,762.

All these amount to a total of ahout one

lakh. Besides. lTlany gave loans at very crucialmoments, without which case would 110tcontinue, as Saumen Guha informed thiscorrespondent gratefully. The loans were allrepayed.

In addition to the fund from sympathisersfamily spent ahout rupees three and a half lakhfrom its own resources which includescontrihution from relatives and the loans

rcpayed. In the process Latika's college

provident fund reached rock-bottom and the fewornaments she and Archana had also had to besold; Whatever Saumen earned from time to timefrom his contractual jobs like running workshopon video film, ac..'tingas consultant on musicalinstrument for a company engaged in exportingmusical instruments, etc., was devoured by thecase.

On expenses about a lakh was spent on ArunPrakash Chatterjee, over air fare, hotel expenses,and pocket money (no fee) in connection withcases in Supreme Court. A junior lawyerSubhasis Roy was paid above Rs.12,OOO/-for hisfees (Rs.500/- for his presence on court dates)and travel by train to Delhi. A few thousandmore on another lawyer Debasis ~'Y'(Rs.250/­for each court date) who assisted Saumen inlatter's role as prosecution counsel. About a lakhwas spent on buying books and journals on law.The rest went towards preparing necessary courtpapers, documents, etc.

The Left Front Government and the

OppositionAs is well known, after the internal

Emergency of '75-'77, the Left Frontgovernment came to power with unambiguouspromise to book the perpetrators of all c..-ustodialviolence committed on an unprecedented scaleduring the previous Congress regime. And in thefirst flush of victories it appeared that it mightkeep its promise. So at the insistence of AmnestyInternational, it did provide to and fro air farefor two when crippled Archana Guha and herhrother Saumen Guha were sent to RCT,Copenhegan for former's treatment. The hugecorrespondence between Saumen, Amnesty, andState Govt. kept with Saumen shows how it wasbrought about. But interestingly enough not asingle uniformed offender of that period wasever touched. In case of Runu Guha Neogy the

state government surpassed all records ofshamelessness. It not only ignored the vociferousdemands of the citizens voiced throughdemonstrations, deputations, book-lets (APDR,Nari Mrjatan Berodh Manch, and some otherwomen organisations took particular initiative)for suspension of Runu Guha Neogy till disposalof criminal case against him, but it went ongiving him one promotion after another till Runuwas raised to the rank of Deputy Commissionera few months before his retirement. Consideringthe spate of custodial deaths during presentregime this stance is not surprising of course.The opposition congress who have been cryinghoarse about custodial death during the currentregime are silent about the same when theylorded over West Bengal and so they behaved asif their is nothing called "Archana Guha Case".Both the Govt and the opposition greeted thejudgement with absolute silence.

Surprisingly enough, the present policecommissioner, Calcutta, Sri Tushar Talukdar hasopenly welcomed the judgement and went to theextent of criticizing the previous administrativeapproach of backing the corrupt official. Arejoinder from Runu threw back the charge ofcurrent custodial deaths at the door ofCommissioner. Funnily enough, in his rejoinderRunu boasted that with his "culture andeducation" he cannot use the language used bythe present police Commissioner against hispredecessor!

PostcriptArchana Guha Case has demonstrated both

the difficulties and possibilities of presentjudicial system in extra-ordinarily bold relief. Ithas also revealed for all who care to see the low

depth to which self-appointed spokesmen forcivil liberties may sometimes fall. []

- FRONTIER, CalcuttaOct. 5, 1996

Gautam Roy, a fresh graduate from Delhi University, started his journalisticprofession ill July 1995 with The Pioneer, Delhi. At present he is working with TheHindustan. Times, Delhi. He changed from crime beat to Trial Courts and TiharCentral Jail beats. He has reported a number of court cases, including the CBI caseinvolving Lakhu Bhai Pathak.

Of his past stories, the ones on the convicts of the Tihar Central Jail deserveappreciation. In one case an elderly inmate was recommended by-pass surgery. Heneeded about 10 units of blood. Several of the jail inmates offered to donate blood.The Union Home Ministry denied pennission on the ground that the blood of theprisoners was in the 'high-risk category '. Ultimately, the warders of the jail cameforward to donate their blood. Gautam Roy succeeded in underlining the plight of aprisoner in such a situation.

Another case, that he had uncovered in Tihar Central Jail, concerned a rapeaccused who was allegedly branded by some functionaries and inmates of the jail.The case is pending in the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge inDelhi.

Shri Gautam Roy was selected by the jury of the Sixteenth PUCL 'Journalism forHuman Rights' Award for 1996, for his path-breaking reports on the issue of votingrights of the under-trial prisoners. The Representation of the People Act, 1951,debars the under-trials from voting. This resulted in the All India Lawyers Forumfor Civil Liberties appealing to the National Human Rights Commission on thisissue. The Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice and the People's Union for CivilLiberties moved the Supreme Court chollenging the. Section 62(5) of theRepresentaJion of the People Act pleading for voting rights for about 25 lakh under­trial prisoners in the country. The case is still going on in the Supreme Court.

This Special Mention is awarded to appreciate his efforts to expose the denial ofrights to the condemned and the forgotten.

Alunedabad

March 23, 1997

People's Union for Civil Liberties

-~..

K.G. KannabiranPresident

Previous Winners

Swami Trivedi for 1981 in 1982

Chaitanya Kalbagh

1982

Neeraja Chawdhry (Ms)

1983

Shahnaz Anklesaria (Ms)

1984

Sheela Barse (Ms)

1985

Manimala (Ms)

1986

K. Balagopal

1987

Bharat Dogra

1988

Mukul

1989

Raju Mathew

1990

Sajan Abraham

1991

Jeemon Jacob

1992

Teesta Setalvad

1993

P. Sainath

1994

Utpal Bordoloi

1995 in 1996

Previous J.P. Mellw'ria[ Lectures

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Dada Dharmadhikari

Achyut Patwardhan

Nani A. Palkhivala

Raj Mohan Gandhi

P. N. Ilaksar

y.V. Chandrachud

Rajindar Sachar

O. Chinnappa Reddy

V. R. I<rishna lyeI'

Rajni I(othari

1(.G. Kalmabiran

Nikhil Chakravartty

V.M. Tarkunde

S. Sahay

Amrik Singh

Manimala

Presiaea Over tlie !function--------------------.-.- •••• - -+- _._~_._._------_._-----~-_. __ .•__ •• _----~-_._------------------------

V. M. Tarkunde

Neelarll SanjeevaReddy

K. Shivaram I(aranth

M.M. Ismail

Kaloji Narayan Rao

Minoo Masani

C.G.K. Reddy

Nayanlara Sahgal

Daya l<rishna

Kuldeep Nayar

Sachidanand

K.G. Kannabiran

S6rengltlhen

Itlhe

Mo veJIll en It

for

Civil

PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LmERTIES____ 8_1~_S_~!!~YO~A APARTI\1ENTS~l\1AYlJR VIII~~-!~P_~LH-.!:_1l0__09_1 __

FOUNDER: JA YAPRAKASII NARAYAN

ADVISOR: V.M. TARKUNDE

NATIONAlJ OI?FICER BEARERS-------------Presidellt:

K.G. Kannabiran

Gelleral Secretary:Y.P. Chhibbar

. Vice Presidellts:

Prabhakar Sinha (Bihar)

Alllrik Sillgh (Delhi)

8aba Adhav (Maharashtra)

Asghar Ali 1~lIgillccr(MlIlllhai)

Yogesh V. Kamdar (Mumbai)

Ilemiala Prabhu (Rajasthan)

N. Krishnaswami (Tamil Nadu)

Treasurers:

D. Jagannalhan (Delhi)

S.A.A. Pinto (Mumbai)

Orgallisillg Secretaries:

Ilasan Mansur (Karnalaka)

Rajendra Sail (Madhya Pradesh)

R.t>. NCIIC(Maharashlra)

N. Kotiswar Singh (Manipur)

Designed and Prinled by: CausallllfoOlUJlion SYSlellL~. F·20 Lajpal Nagar /J, New Dellli-l 10024.Plumes: 631')243, 6Y072H9