By Md. Ali, TwoCircles.net,
New Delhi: “The manner in which the entire trial of Binayak Sen was conducted and the calculated and well-planned witch-hunt waged against Binayak and my family, have shaken my faith in Indian judiciary and the idea of India,” said Elina Sen, activist, academician and wife of Dr. Binayak Sen, while talking to the press at the Press Club here on 3rd January. It was the first press conference by Dr. Sen’s wife after his conviction two weeks back.
On 24th December, 2010, second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raipur, Chhatisgarh, B P Varma held Sen guilty of sedition and sentenced him to life in prison.
Expressing concerns about her safety and that of her family, Mrs. Sen said: “I don’t feel safe in the state of Chhatisgarh any longer.” She said that asylum can be an option “if things go out of hand.”
Apparently tired and sad, Mrs. Sen said that the very process of getting justice itself might turn out to be punishment for her and her family, considering the slow pace of Indian judiciary.
Alleging that judiciary and the state police were hand in gloves in this state managed witch hunt against Binayak, Elina said that, “if you go through the judgment, you will feel like it is exact copy of the language used by the state police.”
Terming the entire charges of sedition against Dr. Sen as “witch hunting” of people who don’t agree with the policies of Chhatisgarh government, Elina Sen said, “ it was completely ok until Binayak was treating patients in the state of Chhatisgarh. The problem started when he began speaking on the issues of human rights and rights of the local adivasis against the interests of the multi national corporations in the mineral rich areas like Bastar.”
Mrs. Sen clarified that neither she nor Dr. Sen supported Maoists, but they did talk about peace with equity and justice: “Peace not that of graveyard but peace of a place where every body has a dignified existence.”
Talking about various loopholes in the case, which was trumped up against Dr. Sen, Elina Sen said that forensic test of the CPU of Dr. Sen’s computer was done in the absence of Dr. Sen’s lawyer. Further, the video recording of the search operation of Dr. Sen’s home by the police, showed that the police took the documents without sealing them; but the judge refused to see that video.
She also talked in great detail, how her and her family association with Muslim friends was presented by the prosecution as friendship with “terrorists” and ISI. Mere using of terms like “comrade” as a from of greeting in letters to various family friends, was painted as language which Maoists use, thereby proving “Maoist” links of Binayak Sen.
L-R: Prashant Bhushan and Elina Sen addressing the media
Prashant Bhushan, eminent lawyer and campaigner of judicial accountability, said that the judgment shows “the fascist and prejudiced mindset” of the concerned judge, who gave life imprisonment to Binayak Sen. The state (Raipur) HC should take suo moto cognizance of this non judicial mindset of the judge and should remove him because the judgment has much wider implications on the very idea of justice.
Calling the judgment which gave life imprisonment to Dr. Binayak Sen as “absurd”, Mr. Bhushan said that its absurdity can be understood by going through the letters which were made the sole basis of the charges of sedition against Binayak Sen. Mr. Bhushan referred the letters as “unacceptable and legally untenable evidences” to support the charges of sedition.
Giving reasons for his argument, Mr. Bhushan said that the alleged letters which were supposedly carried by Binayak Sen were routine letters and didn’t have any thing which could be amounted as offense, conspiracy or inciting hatred.
The concerned judge showed ignorance of previous Supreme Court judgment, which had read down that very “draconian” section of Law on Sedition which was made the basis to award punishment to Binayak. According to the Supreme Court judgment in Kedar Nath Vs State of Bihar (1962), a six-judge’s bench of the apex court had said that if there is an incitement of violence against the state, then that can be considered as seditious. On the contrary, in the case of Binayak Sen, the judge upheld the charges of sedition only on the basis of letters which didn’t have anything offensive or violent, said Mr Bhushan.