Women delgetation submits Memo to President demanding judicial probe

By TwoCircles.net Staff Reporter,

New Delhi: About 50 women, comprising of rights activists, academicians, Planning Commission Member, politicians has submitted a memorandum to the President demanding an independent and fair Judicial probe into alleged snooping of an architect in Gujarat, apparently on the direction of ‘Saheb.’

---

Support TwoCircles

---

Civil society urged the President to demand fair judicial probe into the entire issue, to restore the confidence of ordinary citizens, particularly women, that state power is not being misused to breach their constitutional rights.

News portals i.e. Gulail and Cobrapost have released extensive audio-tapes on 15th November, 2013 revealing illegal surveillance of a young architect woman from Gujarat in September, 2009 by three wings of Gujarat Police i.e. State Intelligence Bureau, Crime Branch and Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) by former Minister of State for Home, Gujarat and now BJP National General Secretary – Shri Amit Shah under directions of his ‘Saheb’ i.e. Shri Narendra Modi, Chief Minister, Gujarat.

The Memorandum noted the sordid episode that raises certain pertinent questions for your kind consideration. These are:-

(1) ‘Right to Privacy’ is part of fundamental rights of ‘Right to Life’ under Article 21 of Constitution of India as held by Supreme Court of India umpteen numbers of times.

Do Shri Narendra Modi and Shri Amit Shah have right to conduct surveillance of a young girl as also tapping her phones, phones of her friends and acquaintances with complete impunity in a totally illegal fashion?

(2) Under what authorization or law, did Shri Narendra Modi and Shri Amit Shah choose the three wings of Gujarat Police i.e. State Intelligence Bureau, Crime Branch and Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) – for purposes of illegal surveillance of this young girl and tapping of phones of this young girl, her friends and acquaintances? Why was Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) involved? Whether Shri Narendra Modi or Shri Amit Shah had an apprehension of any terrorist activity?

(3) Are Shri Narendra Modi and Shri Amit Shah entitled to use State police machinery beyond boundaries of State of Gujarat and in other State(s) to conduct surveillance of a young girl, her friends and acquaintances?

Did Shri Narendra Modi and Shri Amit Shah inform the Government(s) and police authorities of any State(s) before undertaking illegal and unauthorized surveillance activities within the territorial jurisdiction of the State(s)?

(4) Section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 permits interception of conversation for ‘occurrence of a public emergency’ or ‘in the interest of public safety’ i.e. ‘danger or risk for people at large’. These and other conditionalities have been elaborately laid down by Supreme Court of India in ‘People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India’ – 1997 (1) SCC 301.

Will Shri Narendra Modi and Shri Amit Shah tell as to what was the public emergency or danger or risk for people at large that led to surveillance of as also tapping of phones of a young girl, her friends and acquaintances?

(5) Services of dozen of police officers including SP level officers were used across cities in the State of Gujarat and other State(s) for undertaking the surveillance operations. Extensive money, resources and vehicles were used.

Will Shri Narendra Modi and Shri Amit Shah explain as to where the money, resources, vehicles, plane tickets were generated from for purposes of surveillance? Did the money belong to public exchequer? If yes, how and from which head was this money used and its justification? If it was private money, where was it generated from and how was it being used by government officers?

(6) Contents of the tapes also reveal that ‘saheb’ i.e. Shri Narendra Modi was also conducting surveillance of this young girl from his own independent sources over and above the use of State police officers as stated by Shri Amit Shah.

Will Shri Narendra Modi and Shri Amit Shah state as to what are these extra constitutional sources of intelligence that Shri Modi was using for surveillance of this girl? Who are these agencies or authorities who were conducting such intelligence operations for Shri Modi? What is the source of their funding? Do Shri Modi and Shri Shah continue to maintain the same?

(7) Is it not a fact that illegal interception of the nature conducted by Shri Narendra Modi and Shri Amit Shah along with police officers of the State makes out a clear cut offence under Section 26 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 120-B as also Section 166 of Indian Penal Code? Would it not also be tantamount to ‘stalking’ under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code?

Does it not violate the very oath of office to Constitution and people by Shri Narendra Modi?

(8) Is the young girl along with her friends and acquaintances i.e. the only private citizens who have fallen victim to a secret surveillance apparatus being run at the whims of Shri Narendra Modi and Shri Amit Shah? How many more people – political opponents, human right activists, journalists, witnesses, and police officers – have been subjected to such illegal surveillance?

(9) Why were extensive surveillance operations launched on an ‘oral undated request’ of father of an adult woman, as is now being sought to be alleged in hindsight? Which Chief Minister puts a young girl under such extensive surveillance on an oral undated request from her parent or relation? In how many cases before and after this incident has Shri Narendra Modi put young girls under surveillance on the request of their parents or relations? Why were other friends and acquaintances meeting up with the young girl being put under surveillance? Does an oral undated request of surveillance by a parent condone the crime of illegal surveillance of an adult citizen of India and her acquaintances and associates violating their human and civil rights?

(10) Call details leakage of Shri Arun Jaitley, Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha had led to vociferous protests by BJP and blocking of Parliament for three days. It also led to registration of criminal cases and arrest of those found prima facie guilty.

Should similar action be not initiated against Shri Narendra Modi, Shri Amit Shah and others involved in this illegal ‘snooping’?

(11) Does this illegal surveillance not raise moral and ethical issues as to capability and style of governance of Shri Narendra Modi? Can a person with such flagrant disregard for law, Constitution and liberty of people be trusted with positions of public responsibility or to protect the rights of citizens?

This total breach of Constitutionally enshrined ‘Right to Privacy’ of a young woman, her friends and acquaintances raises pertinent issues of gender justice, equality before law and negation of oath of office for protecting life and liberty of every citizen. These facts have now been admitted by BJP and its National President – Shri Rajnath Singh. These questions are being asked by lakhs of young men and women in this country qua protection of their right to personal liberty and right to privacy that were being trampled upon at the whims of Gujarat Chief Minister, Shri Narendra Modi. Not only have Shri Narendra Modi as also Shri Amit Shah and others violated the oath of office but they have also breached the obligations of protecting the life and liberty of every citizen besides committing crimes under the Indian Telegraph Act as also Sections120-B and 166 of Indian Penal Code.

Given the grave violations of constitutional rights and laws at the behest of the highest Executive authority of Gujarat, viz. Chief Minister Shri Narendra Modi and former Minister of State for Home, Gujarat – Shri Amit Shah, and the fact that it is causing great fear and consternation in the minds of the women of the country, the situation requires your intervention, as Head of the Nation, through directing an independent and fair Judicial probe into the entire issue, to restore the confidence of ordinary citizens, particularly women, that state power is not being misused to breach their constitutional rights.