'..advocating Muslim interests..': NGO protests court's problematic remarks
text_fields
New Delhi: A special NIA court made some serious controversial remarks while passing an order in the 2018 Kasganj violence case suggesting that NGOs who provide legal aid to accused charged of UAPA or terrorism have questionable motivations, The Wire reported.
The court said that those groups, particularly those advocating Muslim interests, promptly provide legal aid and fact-finding exercises. These are against constitutional principles.
Several Indian and international organisations such as the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Alliance for Justice and Accountability (New York) and Citizens for Justice and Peace (Mumbai) were mentioned in the court judgement, who provided mentioned aid to the accused. However, none of these organisations were party to the court proceedings.
In the case, the court sentenced 28 individuals to life imprisonment while criticising said organisations for providing legal aid to individuals accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and terrorism charges. They went to the extent of questioning the legitimacy of the mentioned organisations and suggested that their funding and objectives must be investigated.
“The prosecutors have expressed concern that in NIA courts across the country when accused in cases under the UAPA or other anti-national/terrorist activities are brought for trial, NGOs – primarily advocating Muslim interests – promptly provide legal aid. This contradicts constitutional principles, as it boosts the morale of undesirable elements,” the court order read.
Following this, the PUCL responded by expressing its strong disapproval of the court’s comments, citing a Supreme Court judgment that courts must not make adverse remarks against individuals or groups without giving them a chance to be heard.
“It should be noted that none of the implicated organisations were before the court or were put to notice that observations were likely to be made against them. We are shocked to note that the ruling has passed prejudiced, unsubstantiated and potentially damaging comments about the role of human rights organisations in general and PUCL in particular when these comments are not germane to the issues in the criminal trial nor were they based on evidence led during the trial,” PUCL’s statement said.
It is strongly argued that fact-finding, legal aid and financial support provided by NGOs cannot be considered anti-national activity. It demanded that the court’s observations must be expunged because it lacked “factual substance and attacked the credibility of human rights organisations,” The Wire quoted.