Editor,
For the brutal rape and subsequent murder of Thangjam Manorama Devi of Manipur committed by the 17 Assam Rifles in the intervening night of 10th and 11th July, 2004, the Supreme Court has, on 18th December, 2014, passed an order on the Central Govt, to pay Rs. 10 lakh to the family of the victim. This punitive action passed by the Apex Court could not have come at a better time to check such violation of human rights by our own disciplined Security forces who are supposed instead to safeguard such inviolable rights.
However, with due respect to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am afraid that this specific direction to the Central Govt, shall evidently imply that the guilty personnel can go scot free. Every conscientious citizen, like me, will however feel justified that the perpetrators of this heinous crime ought not to have been left off the hook and they should face punishment as per provisions under the Indian penal code given that they have consciously committed one of the gravest of grave crimes. Perhaps, the amount of Rs. 10 lakh is far from what the family of the killed Manorama expected and hope it will pursue the case further until the delinquent personnel are brought to book. It may be pertinent to recall that in a similar incident in Kashmir, 5 (five) army men have been handed life terms in the month of November last year for being linked with the Machil fake encounter leading to the death of some innocent men in that state. If in Jammu & Kashmir where in some parts the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958 is strictly imposed but such deterrent measures can be implemented on our security forces, then I can’t see why Manipur is made an exception for such an animalistic crime against a woman?
Likewise, in our own state of Meghalaya, referring exclusively to the Hynniewtrep region, such human rights violation may have been committed but the same have never been probed by any fair and credible body to establish the veracity of public outcry. To cite just one spine-chilling example that occurred a few years back near the office of the Directorate of Agriculture, Lower Cleve Colony, Shillong, we have seen through the visual media how some Khasi youths, alleged to be HNLC cadres were brutally shot dead, while on board their vehicle, by the Meghalaya Cops. This revolting scene had sent shock waves across the public psyche when it noticed the blood-spattered^ bodies hit by a hail of bullets. Perhaps such blood-letting specter could have been avoided had the powers that, maneuvered other best available options. Alas! such ominous encounters had long faded from public memory.
Yours etc.,
Jerome Diengdoh
Shillong – 2
Time to introspect
Editor,
Apropos news item “KHADC files appeal against HC ruling” (ST Jan 5, 2015) I wish to share my views with the general public over the issue which has arisen out of the judgment of the High Court of Meghalaya passed in W.P. (C) 363/2014 dated 10/12/2014. It seems now the CEM, KHADC has awakened from his deep slumber to protect the rights of the Rangbah Shnong/Headman. Now where was the CEM and his predecessors, when several reports of ostracization of families by the headman were reported in the media? Where was he when several families were denied PDS rice by the headman? Where was he when these headmen instigated and led mobs to commit unlawful acts? Where was he on similar other occasions, where at the hand of the headman there were instances of violation of human rights which were reported in the past, in almost all the local newspapers.
To file an appeal against any decision before the appellate court is a right, if the same is provided under the statute. But I am surprised to hear about tradition and practice (custom) from the CEM, KHADC. In this context, I will refer to the legal maxim “ignorance of fact can be excused but ignorance of the law is no excuse.” A custom in order to be valid must (i) have been practiced from ancient times (ii) unambiguous and reasonable and (iii) not opposed to any law and public policy. As Mr Toki Blah had pointed out in his article “Tradition at the crossroads” published in The Shillong Times dated 6th Jan’ 2015, that “… In Meghalaya, Govt insists on such mandatory RS certificate before any official document can be entertained. Official records shows that this practice started since 1979.” Does the CEM think that the issue of headmen issuing certificates mandatory for official purpose, an age-old practice? If so under what law? Does it qualify to be a valid custom?
In 2008, in a particular case the Sub Registrar, Shillong had refused to register the Sale Deed of a person on grounds that signature of the local headman was not obtained. Consequently, the aggrieved person had filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench against the State of Meghalaya impleading Sub Registrar, East Khasi Hills, Shillong as respondent No. 2. The High Court vide order dated Feb 1, 2008 had allowed the writ petition. In its Order the High Court had observed in para 6 as follows The respondent No. 2 who is a statutory authority appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, is required to exercise his power of registration within the four corners of the law. Nowhere in the Registration Act is the respondent No. 2 obligated to insist upon the petitioner to obtain the consent of unauthorized person like the local headman for registration of the Sale Deed or for that matter, any deed of transfer which is otherwise duly executed in accordance with law. In other words, if a Sale Deed fulfills all the requirements of law, the respondent No. 2 cannot refuse registration on the grounds which are not prescribed by the Indian Registration Act, 1908″ [ quoted 2009 (2) GLD 499 (Gau)]. Now, may I question, whether the CEM, KHADC will also file an appeal against the said order too?
To my understanding the undue importance given to the headman by the authorities particularly the office of the Deputy Commissioner of different districts has led to a situation where the headmen impose their own diktats thereby violating the human rights, fundamental rights, civil as well as political rights of the public. The havoc created by the headman is the result of the non-performance of his duties in the right perspective and in accordance with law by the different Deputy Commissioners, Police and other authorities. Therefore, it is now the right time for all concerned to introspect over the current issue of headmen and do the needful without any bias to ensure and uphold the rule of law.
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request