CHANDIGARH, Punjab—While responding to the PIL filed by Voices for Freedom against the “unlawful” appointment of Sumedh Saini as Punjab Director General of Police, the Punjab Government makes a mockery of itself as it labeled the Voices for Freedom (VFF) organisation as being supportive of “radical and militants.” The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by VFF earlier this year in April asking the Punjab and Haryana High Court for directions to quash the appointment of Sumedh Saini on the grounds that his appointment was unlawful.
The Voices for Freedom human rights organisation has taken up issues of human rights abuses across the world and its work compares to that of organisations such as the Asian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Watch, and others. According to VFF Director, Sudip Minhas, “the Voices for Freedom-Asia came into existence in India in 2006. [Since then] it has been primarily focusing on rights of women, data collection on the disappearances [in Punjab], publishing reports, and protecting the rights of those that can’t defend themselves. [Its] aim is to bring the truth out and let the law of the land prevail with due respect to the sovereign rights as enshrined in the UN charter”.
For the State Government to adopt such cheap tactics to cause unnecessary delay in the case is disgusts human rights watchers as the appointment of Sumedh Saini was made to the detriment of the Sikhs. The Punjab Government, namely the Shiromani Akal Dal (B), has supported the appointment of Sumedh Saini and has now declared that Saini has a “consistently outstanding record.”
The Punjab Government has tried to get the PIL cancelled on multiple occasions; initially it questioned the locus standi of VFF in this case, and now by stating that Voices for Freedom is supportive of radicals and militants. Furthermore, it was argued by the legal team appointed by the State Government that “radicals and militants” had left comments on VFF’s fan page on Facebook. However, a quick look at the fan page (link) fails to show any such comments. These kinds of tactics are often used by the State of Punjab to denounce the credibility of organisations and to delay court proceedings.
When filing the PIL, VFF had argued that Sumedh Saini’s appointment was in clear violation of the directives of the Supreme Court of India which were issued in two cases: Narain and Ors. vs. Union of India and Prakash Singh vs. Union of India. The petition also argued that Sumedh Saini’s appointment also violates the spirit of the Punjab Police Act 2007 under section 6(2)(a). This section states that the Government should remove the DGP if he has a “conviction by a court of law in a criminal case or where charges have been framed against him by a court in a case involving corruption or moral turpitude.”
VFF had further stated that when Sumedh Saini was appointed as the DGP of Punjab on 14 March 2012, he was facing a criminal trial for serious offences before the Special CBI Court in New Delhi, including the abduction and death of three persons in 1994, in which the trial is still pending. VFF had also cited a recent court case decided earlier this year in March in which the High Court of Karnataka had nullified Karnataka DGP’s appointment due to his involvement in atrocities committed against women and tribal people of Karnataka.
The next hearing in this case will take place on July 26th.
VFF has published a two volume report on about 900 disappearances cases in Punjab, titled Smoldering Embers.
See volume 1 at http://www.amazon.com/
And volume 2 at http://www.amazon.com/
