SHILLONG, Aug 5: The Meghalaya Human Rights Commission (MHRC) has closed a case against former East Khasi Hills Superintendent of Police, Rituraj Ravi, after finding no evidence of human rights violations in connection with the attempted removal of activist Bindas Syiem during her hunger strike last year.
The Commission, in its order dated July 25, stated that witness testimonies were inconsistent and failed to substantiate the allegations made against the police officer.
“Thus, as no case of violation of human rights is made out against Rituraj Ravi (respondent) and the case is closed,” the MHRC said in its order.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Enlang Sawian, who alleged that on June 9, 2024, a team of heavily armed police personnel led by Ravi attempted to forcibly remove Syiem from her hunger strike site without the presence of a female officer or executive magistrate.
On June 13, 2024, two more complaints were submitted — one by the president and vice president of the Hynniewtrep Integrated Organisation (HITO), and another jointly by Purity Phawa and Marylis Mawrie — accusing Ravi of forcefully trying to evict Syiem from the Secretariat premises, where she was protesting the delay in repairing the Nongpoh-Umden road.
These complaints were registered as MHRC cases number 29/2024 and 30/2024, and were clubbed with MHRC case number 28/2024 due to their similar subject matter.
The Commission took cognisance of the matter, issued a notice to the Director General of Police (DGP), Meghalaya, and directed Ravi to appear before it.
However, the complainants – Enlang Sawian (HYC), Donbok Dkhar and Shaniah Nongrum (HITO) – did not appear before the Commission, despite being informed of the hearings. They neither pursued the case nor came forward as witnesses for the aggrieved person.
In their depositions, witnesses Kyrmen Uriah and Purity Phawa stated, “The actions of the Superintendent of Police are in violation of the constitutional and basic human rights of Bindas Syiem as a female person and he must be punished as per the provisions of law.”
However, during cross-examination, when Phawa was asked: “Did you hear me or any police personnel using any indecent, immoral, improper, or unparliamentary words or gestures on that night?” Phawa replied, “No, I did not.”
Syiem, in her testimony, did not explicitly state that her rights had been violated. Only during cross-examination, when asked, “In your opinion, what rights of yours have I or other police personnel infringed upon?”, she responded: “In my opinion, I felt that my rights had been infringed, as on that day, you came in the midnight to that place, bringing an ambulance. I did not see any doctor or nurse, so why should the policemen come late at night only with an ambulance?”
The Commission observed that the testimonies of the three witnesses were not in harmony regarding the core incident. “Though due weightage must be attached to the evidence on the aggrieved person, however, the same should be consistent and reliable,” it noted.
Furthermore, key individuals who were present with Syiem at the time were not presented as witnesses, and a video clip of the incident was also not produced.
Based on the evidence, the Commission concluded there was no case of human rights violation against Ravi, and subsequently closed the case.
Nonetheless, the Commission advised the DGP to review the entire incident and issue appropriate guidelines for handling such situations in the future.
“However, during the course of the hearing of the case, the Commission got the impression that the whole incident/commotion could have been avoided had the Superintendent of Police been accompanied by the magistrate/medical officer.
Therefore, DGP may like to examine the entire incident and issue necessary directions/instructions as deemed fit for future guidance of officers in dealing with such situations,” the order stated.
