Feb 3, 2016 | News
Yesterday’s decision of the Indian Supreme Court to refer to a larger bench of the same Court the petition challenging Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), offers the opportunity to undo the appalling 2013 judgment of a two-judge bench of the SC in the Suresh Koushal case, says the ICJ.
“This order of the Supreme Court is a crucial opportunity to undo the injustice of the Suresh Koushal decision,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “It is an important test of the Supreme Court’s commitment to equality and ending discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”
After the December 2013 Suresh Koushal decision – when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 377 and reversed the Delhi High Court’s courageous and much celebrated decision – the petitioners filed a review petition, which was dismissed.
The petitioners then filed “curative petitions” in 2014, stating that the Supreme Court’s judgment of December 2013 violated principles of natural justice for several reasons. A “curative petition” allows the Supreme Court to re-assess its previous decisions on limited grounds, even after appeals and reviews have concluded.
Yesterday the Supreme Court referred the curative petition, and the major constitutional questions it raised, to a five-judge bench of the same Court, thus acknowledging doubts about the correctness of its 2013 ruling. A five-judge bench will now be set up to hear this challenge.
“The referral highlights the Supreme Court’s recognition of the need for a judicial response to the ongoing discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,” Zarifi said.
“After 16 years within the court process, this issue clearly could not be resolved with the highly problematic Suresh Koushal decision, which ignored the reality of consensual same sex behavior in India and the fact that Section 377 criminalizes people for who they are and leads directly to serious human rights violations.”
By criminalizing consensual same-sex adult sexual conduct, Section 377 is inconsistent with India’s obligations under international human rights law, including in respect of the rights to sexual autonomy, equality, non-discrimination, privacy, dignity, free expression, and life.
Many of these rights are guaranteed in India’s Constitution.
India is also a party to several international instruments, which require that these rights be respected, protected and fulfilled.
The Yogyakarta Principles – which apply international human rights law to issues of sexual orientation and gender identity – clarify that the rights to equality, non-discrimination and privacy require states to “repeal all laws that criminalize consensual sexual activity among persons of the same sex who are over the age of consent.”
The Supreme Court referred to these principles in the 2014 National Legal Services Authority v Union of India (NALSA) case where it also acknowledged that Section 377 was “used as an instrument of harassment and physical abuse against Hijras and transgender persons”.
“Yesterday’s decision offers hope that the Supreme Court intends to reaffirm the principle that people in India cannot be subjected to discrimination, harassment and violence, simply on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” Zarifi said.
Background
Section 377 makes it an offence to “voluntarily ha[ve] carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal” and has been used to persecute people for their real or purported engagement in consensual same-sex sexual conduct. The penalty can extend to life imprisonment.
Several reports document how Section 377 has been a tool for discrimination, blackmail, extortion, and violence by state and non-state actors against the LGBTI community.
It has adversely affected HIV/AIDS prevention efforts, and has also reinforced harmful social stereotypes and taboos against sexual minorities.
The petitioners in the original challenge against section 377 have waged this legal battle for over a decade. The constitutional challenge against Section 377 was filed in 2001.
In 2009, in Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, the Delhi High Court held that Section 377 denied “a person’s dignity and criminalises his or her core identity solely on account of his or her sexuality”.
It went on to find that this criminalization of identity denied “a gay person a right to full personhood which is implicit” in the notion of life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and also violated the constitutional right to equality and non-discrimination. The High Court held that Section 377 was unconstitutional insofar as it criminalized consensual same-sex sexual conduct.
However, its judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court.
On appeal, in 2013 the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Delhi High Court, holding the section to be constitutional.
The Supreme Court also affirmed that legislature would “be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the Attorney General”.
Dec 3, 2015 | News
The Indian government should support a comprehensive law guaranteeing equal rights and non-discrimination to transgender persons, consistent with India’s international human rights obligations, the ICJ said today.
This law must be developed and passed after adequate consultation with the transgender community in India, the Geneva-based organization added.
“The transgender community in India has faced stigma, discrimination and violence for years,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director. “It is time for the Indian Parliament to pass comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation as an essential first step towards guaranteeing the transgender community’s internationally recognized, and constitutionally protected, human rights.”
Earlier this year, the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of the Indian Parliament) passed the Rights of Transgender Persons Bill, 2014, a private member’s Bill, that is, a bill introduced by a Member of Parliament rather than the Government.
The Bill guaranteed a wide range of rights to transgender individuals, including the right to be free from discrimination, the right to life and personal liberty, the right to protection from abuse, violence and exploitation, as well as equality in educational opportunities, employment, social security, and health care.
The Lok Sabha (Lower house of the Indian Parliament) will discuss a revised version of this Bill in the current session. The Government’s Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment is reportedly developing its own draft.
“Any transgender rights legislation must fully comply with India’s international human rights obligations,” Zarifi added. “An essential element of this is that the Indian government must ensure that the transgender community participates in, and is meaningfully consulted on, the new law’s provisions.”
India has ratified several international instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women. They prohibit discrimination and guarantee full equality for everyone, including transgender people.
Successive pronouncements by international bodies, including the UN, have affirmed that these rights apply to transgender persons.
The Yogyakarta Principles – which reflect the specific application of international human rights law in the context of sexual orientation and gender identity – recognize transgender people’s human rights, including the right to equality before the law, equal protection of the law and the principle of non-discrimination, as well as the right to self-defined sexual orientation and gender identity, the right to expression, to privacy, to health, to housing, to education, and the right to participate in policies affecting one’s welfare.
India’s transgender rights Bill should respect, protect and fulfill this range of rights. It should also ensure that the definition of who constitutes a transgender person, as well as the process of determining this, is consistent with international standards, the ICJ said.
In 2014, in the case of National Legal Services Authority v Union of India (NALSA), the Indian Supreme Court recognized transgender persons’ right to self-identification and to the legal recognition of their gender identity. However, a year after the Supreme Court’s judgment, its directions are yet to be effectively implemented, making the passage of a comprehensive bill on transgender persons’ human rights all the more crucial. At the same time, the legislative process culminating in the adoption of the legislation needs to be adequately consultative.
“A comprehensive transgender rights bill is long overdue in India,” Zarifi said. “It is crucial that the Indian government take advantage of the current political momentum to reaffirm the rights of transgender persons, and pass a strong and progressive law.”
Contact:
Sanhita Ambast, ICJ International Legal Adviser (Delhi), t: +91 9810962193; e: Sanhita.ambast(a)icj.org
Background
A report by India’s Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment – Report of the Expert Committee on the Issues relating to Transgender Persons –has acknowledged the range and impact of discrimination faced by the transgender community in India.
It makes note of the stigma, discrimination and violence they face from their families, communities, and state institutions, including the police. It also highlights the difficulties faced by them in accessing services like housing and education.
In the NALSA case, the Supreme Court found that discrimination faced by the transgender community in India violated the rights to equality, non-discrimination, free speech and expression, and life in the Indian constitution. The Court gave specific directions to address this discrimination.
It also noted that the absence of “suitable legislation protecting the rights of the members of the transgender community” has resulted in their facing discrimination in various areas. A clarification petition, filed by the government, regarding this case is currently pending at the Supreme Court.
Following the Supreme Court’s 2013 NALSA judgment, several states have put in place progressive policies to address the discrimination faced by transgender groups.
However, the implementation of this judgment is far from adequate, and a lot more needs to be done.
A 2011 Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has recommended that states “Enact comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation that includes discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity among prohibited grounds and recognizes intersecting forms of discrimination”.
It also asked states to “Facilitate legal recognition of the preferred gender of transgender persons”.
In its 2015 report, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights recommended that anti-discrimination legislation should “include[s] sexual orientation and gender identity among prohibited grounds, and also protect[s] intersex persons from discrimination” and that “LGBT and intersex persons and organizations [should be] consulted with regard to legislation and policies that have an impact on their rights”.
Nov 5, 2015 | News
On the 15th anniversary of Irom Sharmila’s hunger strike, the International Commission of Jurists calls on the Indian government to repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act without further delay.
Irom Sharmila began a hunger strike in November 2000, calling for the repeal of the AFSPA, following the unlawful killing of 10 civilians by security forces purportedly acting under it in Malom.
“The AFSPA has facilitated gross human rights violations by the armed forces in the areas in which it is operational,” Sam Zarifi, Asia-Pacific Director of the ICJ said. “It is a repressive and draconian law that should have no place in today’s India”.
Once an area is declared “disturbed” under the AFSPA, armed forces are given a range of “special powers”. These include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, “fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death”. These and other vaguely framed provisions give armed forces broad powers that are inconsistent with the government’s obligations to respect the right to life.
In addition to leading to many unlawful killings in the areas in which it has been in effect, the provisions of the AFSPA have also facilitated torture, rape and enforced disappearances.
“The AFSPA has created a culture of impunity, shielding security forces from accountability in India for crimes under international law, and making it impossible for victims of human rights violations to access justice”, Sam Zarifi said.
Under the AFSPA, governmental permission, or sanction, is required before any member of the armed forces can be prosecuted for crimes in a civilian court. Decisions regarding sanction take many years, and as yet, no member of the armed forces has been prosecuted in a civilian court.
The Indian government has often justified the need for the AFSPA as necessary to address terrorism and militancy in “disturbed areas”. “International law requires and experience shows that effective counter- terrorism measures must reinforce human rights, and not undermine and violate them,” said Sam Zarifi.
Calls for the repeal or amendment of the AFSPA –including from official bodies – have come from near and far for a number of years.
Several UN human rights bodies have recommended that the AFSPA be repealed or significantly amended. These include the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (2014), the Special Rapporteur on violence against women (2014), the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (in 2013 and again in 2015), the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (2012), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2007), and the UN Human Rights Committee (1997).
In recent years, prominent Indian bodies have recognized the brutality of the AFSPA and echoed demands for repeal or amendment. The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee set up by the Government of India to review the working of the AFSPA, has advocated its repeal. The Fifth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission seconded this recommendation.
The Verma Commission, set up by the government following the gang rape in Delhi in 2012, called for the repeal of sanction provisions under the AFSPA as they relate to sexual offences. In 2015, a High Level Committee on the Status of Women also reportedly advocated its repeal.
In 2012, the Extra Judicial Execution Victims Family Association, Manipur (EEVFAM) filed a petition at the Supreme Court of India, alleging that between 1979 and 2012, 1528 people were extra-judicially executed by security forces in Manipur.
A court-appointed fact-finding commission – popularly known as the Santosh Hegde Commission – studied 6 of these cases, and found that the deaths were not lawful.
In its report, the Hegde Commission agreed with the observation of the Jeevan Reddy Commission, that the AFSPA had become “a symbol of oppression, an object of hate, and an instrument of discrimination and high-handedness.”
The case is still pending in the Supreme Court.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Sanhita Ambast, ICJ International Legal Advisor (Delhi), t: +91 9810962193; email: Sanhita.ambast(a)icj.org
Jul 30, 2015 | News
The ICJ strongly condemned the execution of Yakub Memon, who was hanged in Nagpur Central Jail, India this morning.
“Yakub Memon’s execution is a distressing and regressive move, keeping India in the minority of countries which continue to carry out executions,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director. “While Yakub Memon was convicted of terrible crimes, executing him was not the solution. India should immediately put in place a moratorium on the death penalty.”
A court set up under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) convicted and sentenced Yakub Memon to death for a range of offences, including conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, in connection with the deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 1993.
These attacks killed more than 250 people and injured more than 700. The main accused in this case, including Yakub Memon’s brother Tiger Memon, have still not been apprehended or tried.
“In executing Yakub Memon, the Indian government has only fulfilled a desire for retribution and added to the disturbing trend of executions in the name of fighting terrorism in South Asia”, Zarifi added. “The death penalty has not been shown to have any deterrent effect on crime or terrorism anywhere in the world.”
The Indian Supreme Court had confirmed Yakub Memon’s conviction and sentence on appeal from the court set up under the TADA in March 2013.
The Indian government repealed the TADA in 1995, after sustained national and international criticism for its incompatibility with human rights law, particularly the right to fair trial.
Yakub Memon was tried under provisions of the TADA as it was the law in force in 1993, when the terrorist attacks in Mumbai occurred.
The Indian president rejected a first mercy petition on his case in April 2014.
He subsequently filed a review petition challenging his sentence before the Indian Supreme Court, which was rejected on 9 April 2015.
On 21 July 2015, the Indian Supreme Court dismissed his curative petition for the commutation of his death sentence.
A court had authorized his execution before his curative petition was dismissed.
Yakub Memon then approached the Indian Supreme Court challenging, both, the manner in which his curative petition was heard and dismissed, and the validity of the order authorizing his execution. However, the Supreme Court dismissed both these arguments yesterday.
Over the past week, Yakub Memon filed fresh mercy petitions to commute his death sentence before the Governor of the State of Maharashtra and the President of India. Both were rejected yesterday.
Yakub Memon’s lawyers challenged the rejection of the mercy petition, and asked the Indian Supreme Court to stay the execution as per the guidelines issued in the 2014 case of Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India, for “safeguarding the interests of the death row convicts”.
These included ensuring a minimum period of 14 days “between the receipt of communication of the rejection of the mercy petition and the scheduled date of execution”.
But the Court – in a hearing early this morning – rejected this final plea.
Background:
This is India’s third execution in the past five years. India resumed executions in 2012, after a gap of eight years. Since November 2012, two other people have been executed, Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru.
They also were both charged and convicted for their role in terrorist attacks.
The ICJ expresses its solidarity with the victims of the 1993 attack, and their families.
India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial as well as the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory authority for the ICCPR, has emphasized: “In cases of trials leading to the imposition of the death penalty scrupulous respect of the guarantees of fair trial is particularly important. The imposition of a sentence of death upon conclusion of a trial, in which the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant have not been respected, constitutes a violation of the right to life.”
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view towards its abolition. Some 117 UN Member States, a wide majority, voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. In line with the present international trend, the ICJ calls on India to impose an official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing the death penalty.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Jul 22, 2015 | News
The Indian government should stay the imminent execution of Yakub Memon and commute his death sentence, said the ICJ today. The call comes after the Supreme Court dismissed his curative petition on 21 July.
Yakub Memon was convicted and sentenced to death for a range of offences, including conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, in connection with the deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 1993, which killed more than 250 people and injured more than 700.
A court has authorized his execution for 30 July 2015, although Memon has submitted another mercy petition, according to media reports.
“The 1993 terrorist attacks in Mumbai were heinous criminal acts that devastated the lives of the victims and their families, and amounted to massive human rights abuses,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“But the death penalty is itself a denial of the right to life and the freedom from cruel and inhuman punishment. Executing Memon only adds to the sum total of inhumanity,” he added.
Yakub Memon was initially sentenced to death by a court set up under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 (TADA) in July 2007.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision was the latest in a series of denials of relief.
The Indian Supreme Court confirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal in March 2013.
Memon then filed a mercy petition before the Indian president, who denied it in April 2014.
He subsequently filed a review petition challenging his sentence before the Indian Supreme Court, which rejected the petition on 9 April 2015.
A court set up under the TADA convicted Yakub Memon for his involvement in the terror attacks in Mumbai in 1993.
The Indian government repealed the TADA in 1995, after sustained national and international criticism for its compatibility with human rights law, particularly the right to fair trial.
Provisions of the TADA defined offences vaguely and broadly; reversed the presumption of innocence in certain instances; allowed for long periods of pre-charge detention; made certain “confessions” to specific police officials admissible as evidence; and limited the right to appeal by only allowing appeals to the Supreme Court.
Several provisions of the TADA were later included in the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), which was introduced in 2002 and repealed in 2004.
Subsequent amendments introduced some provisions of the POTA and TADA into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which remains in force.
Yakub Memon was tried under provisions of the TADA as it was the law in force in 1993, when the terrorist attacks in Mumbai occurred.
India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial as well as the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
“India, consistent with its international legal obligations, may not impose the death penalty in situations where important safeguards to ensure a fair trial have not been met,” Zarifi said.
The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory authority for the ICCPR, has emphasized: “In cases of trials leading to the imposition of the death penalty scrupulous respect of the guarantees of fair trial is particularly important. The imposition of a sentence of death upon conclusion of a trial, in which the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant have not been respected, constitutes a violation of the right to life.”
The ICJ expresses its solidarity with the victims of the 1993 attack, and their families.
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception.
The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
In line with the present international trend, the ICJ calls on India impose an official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing the death penalty.
India resumed executions in 2012, after a gap of eight years. Since November 2012, two people have been executed, Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru. They were both charged and convicted for their role in terrorist attacks.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view towards its abolition.
Some 117 UN Member States, a wide majority, voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
