[Reader-list] More on S A R Geelani Acquittal and background info.

[Harsh Kapoor]

The Christian Science Monitor
October 30, 2003 edition

India's 'Patriot Act' comes under scrutiny
Wednesday, a court overturned the conviction of a Muslim professor 
accused in a terrorist conspiracy.
by Dan Morrison | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor
BOMBAY - An Indian appeals court Wednesday overturned the conviction 
of a Muslim professor who had been sentenced to die as a conspirator 
in the December 2001 terrorist attack on India's Parliament. The 
attack, for which India blamed neighboring Pakistan, almost drove the 
nuclear rivals to war.

Prof. Syed Abdul Geelani and three other defendants had been 
convicted under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), which grants 
broad powers to police and prosecutors and which critics say tramples 
the rights of the accused.

The Delhi High Court verdict came as India is reassessing the 
terrorism law and adding measures meant to safeguard defendants from 
abuse. There are complaints that federal and state governments have 
wrongly used the law against common criminals, political opponents, 
journalists, and even children.

"Indian justice has redeemed itself,'' says Ram Jethmalani, Mr. 
Geelani's lawyer. Geelani, a lecturer at Delhi University, had been 
sentenced to the gallows on the basis of a brief cellphone 
conversation in which, prosecutors said, he showed knowledge of and 
approval for the attack.

The high court said the conversation wasn't sufficient to convict him.

"The evidence turned out to be useless,'' Mr. Jethmalani says. "It 
established his innocence rather than his guilt.''

Generally speaking, India's debate over POTA is similar to concerns 
in the United States over the USA Patriot Act. Both laws give the 
government broad powers to investigate and interrogate suspects.

In India, the law for the first time makes jailhouse confessions 
admissible as evidence. In nonterrorism cases, such confessions are 
not admissible because they are assumed to be the product of torture. 
Wiretaps and transcripts of phone conversations are also admissible, 
and bail is all but impossible.

"This was a test case for POTA with its draconian provisions, which 
hold that we must deviate from the norms of justice to fight 
terrorism,'' says attorney Nitya Ramakrishnan, whose client, Navjot 
Sandhu, was ordered freed. "The verdict shows a lack of 
accountability, a lack of conscience'' by the authorities.

Ms. Sandhu had been sentenced to five years in prison for allegedly 
concealing her husband's role in the conspiracy. The high court 
upheld the death sentences handed to her husband, Shaukat Hussain, 
and another man, Mohammad Afzai, for their roles in the conspiracy.

Prosecutor Gopal Subramanian says he can't comment until he reads the 
decision. "I have not yet observed the wording,'' he says.

The Dec. 13, 2001, assault on India's Parliament is seen as India's 
Sept. 11. Five attackers stormed the walled Parliament complex and 
killed nine people before they were gunned down. India blamed 
Pakistan-backed militants for the attack, which Pakistan denied, and 
more than a million soldiers were massed at the border.

None of the four defendants was present at the attack. Instead they 
were linked to it through intercepted mobile-phone conversations and 
by confessions they claimed were the result of police torture. Police 
deny those charges.

Human rights advocates say the trial, most notably Geelani's 
conviction, was rife with procedural errors, fabricated evidence, and 
capriciousness by the judge.

"It throws open all these questions,'' Ms. Ramakrishnan says. "A 
trial court sentences a man to death after tying both hands behind 
his back, and the high court acquits him.''

Ajai Sahni, editor of the South Asia Intelligence Review, says the 
verdict "does not reflect on the validity of the law or the necessity 
for the law." He says POTA is one of the weakest antiterrorism laws 
in the world, but seeks to adapt the antiquated Indian penal code to 
the challenges of terrorism.

"Most of what would be evidence in the West would not be evidence 
here," he says.

Almost every Indian state government has been accused of misusing the 
terrorism law.

In the state of Jharkhand, a 13-year-old boy and an 81-year-old man 
were charged as terrorists during a February round up of 200 
suspected Maoist rebels and their supporters.

In Tamil Nadu, Chief Minister Jayalalitha has charged a political 
opponent, who is also a junior member of the federal cabinet, under 
the law for allegedly speaking in favor of Tamil separatists.

On Monday, Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam added new sections to 
the terrorism law that give review committees the power to quash 
unfair prosecutions. Now the committees have the power to "review 
whether there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the 
accused under this act and issue directions accordingly.''


  o o o

The Hindu, Oct 30, 2003
Geelani, Afsan Guru acquitted in Parliament attack case

By Anjali Mody

A jubilant Arifa Geelani hugs lawyer Nandita Haksar after the Delhi 
High Court on Wednesday acquitted her husband, S.A.R. Geelani, who 
had earlier been sentenced to death, in the Parliament House 
terrorist attack case. Ms. Geelani's son and her father look on. -- 
Photo: S. Subramanium

NEW DELHI OCT. 29. The Delhi High Court today acquitted S.A.R. 
Geelani and Afsan Guru in the December 13 Parliament attack case. Mr. 
Geelani, a Delhi University lecturer, had earlier been sentenced to 
death by a special POTA court on charges of conspiring in the attack. 
Ms. Guru (formerly Ms. Navjot Sandhu) had been sentenced to 
five-years rigorous imprisonment on the lesser charge of concealing 
knowledge of the conspiracy.

The two-judge Bench, comprising Usha Mehra and Pradeep Nandrajog, 
however, dismissed the appeals of Mohammed Afzal and Ms. Guru's 
husband, Shaukat Hussain Guru, against their conviction under the 
Prevention of Terrorism Act and the death sentences awarded to them 
on three counts. The judges also upheld an appeal by the state to 
increase the sentence on the charge of conspiring to wage war against 
the state from life to death. Citing a Supreme Court judgment of 
2002, they held that "the offence is of a magnitude that the 
collective conscious of the community is so shocked that it will 
expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death 
penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards 
desirability or otherwise of retaining the death penalty."

Eight security personnel and a gardener were killed in the attack by 
five armed militants on Parliament on December 13, 2001. The 
militants, who were named by the investigators as Mohammed, Hamza, 
Rana, Haidar and Raja, were also killed. A telephone number found on 
their persons was said to belong to Mohammed Afzal. The call records 
of this number led them to Mr. Geelani, who knew Afzal through his 
cousin, Shaukat Hussain.

In a 392-page judgment, the two-judge Bench said that the evidence, 
on which the lower court relied in convicting Mr. Geelani, did not 
stand up to scrutiny.

They said that "we are left with only one piece of evidence against 
Geelani - the record of telephone calls between him and Afzal and 
Shaukat. This circumstance, in our opinion, does not even remotely, 
far less definitely and unerringly, point towards the guilt of 
Geelani. We, therefore, conclude that the prosecution has failed to 
bring on record evidence, which cumulatively forms a chain, so 
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that in all 
human probabilities Geelani was involved in the conspiracy."

In the case of Ms. Guru, the judges dismissed the state's appeal 
against her acquittal in the lower court on charges of conspiracy.

They upheld the trial court's judgment absolving her of any part in 
the conspiracy. Further, the judges held that on the evidence against 
Ms. Guru "even the offence that she had knowledge of the conspiracy 
and failed to report the same to the police is not established." They 
took the view that her husband's confessional statement - one of two 
pieces of prosecution evidence - was not evidence against her. They 
said that a confession made before a police officer under POTA was 
not admissible as evidence against a co-accused.

Ms. Guru's lawyer, Nitya Ramakrishnan, told The Hindu after the 
verdict that the question to be asked is: "Why had the police, with 
the best legal advice and in such a high-profile case, not paused to 
consider if it had sufficient evidence to prosecute the case."

Nandita Haksar of the All-India Defence Committee for S.A.R. Geelani 
echoed the sentiment. She said that while Mr. Geelani's acquittal 
vindicated the judiciary, "the question that remains to be answered 
is how did any court sentence a man to death on no evidence at all."

Both Shaukat Hussain Guru and Mohammed Afzal are expected to file 
appeals in the Supreme Court. Shanti Bhushan, counsel for Shaukat 
Hussain, said that "he has an excellent case and should have been 
acquitted. He has been falsely implicated because he is a cousin of 
Afzal who is a surrendered militant. I am quite sure the Supreme 
Court will do justice and acquit him".

Mohammed Afzal's counsel, Colin Gonzalves, said that he would file an 
appeal after a meeting with his client.

The public prosecutor, Mukta Gupta, said any decision by the state to 
appeal against the acquittals of Mr. Geelani and Ms. Guru would be 
taken only after the judgment had been scrutinised by all the 
"relevant departments".

Gopal Subramanium, who argued the case as the special prosecutor, 
said he could not comment on the judgment, as he had not yet read it.

PTI reports:

Accepting the prosecution contention that Afzal and Shaukat Hussain 
Guru were known to Mr. Geelani and used to remain in contact with him 
over telephone, the Bench said ``there is, however, no evidence on 
record to establish that he (Geelani) remained in touch over the 
telephone with the terrorists. When one acquires a mobile phone, it 
is but natural that one would test it for use. What other number 
would one connect other than that of a known person," the court 
asked, and added that "by itself, with nothing more, we are afraid 
that conviction cannot be sustained on this evidence."

o o o

Financial Times
Oct 30 2003

Indian court acquits Muslim professor
By Edward Luce in New Delhi
Published: October 29 2003 13:35 | Last Updated: October 29 2003 13:35
A New Delhi appeals court on Wednesday overturned last year's 
conviction of a Muslim academic who had been sentenced to death for 
his alleged role in orchestrating a suicide terrorist attack on 
India's parliament two years ago.

Wednesday's ruling, in which S.A.R. Geelani, a professor at Delhi 
University was freed after almost two years in custody, comes as an 
embarrassing blow to the New Delhi police which had based much of its 
case on Mr Geelani's role in the outrage.

The court also acquitted Navtoj Sandhu, wife of Shaukat Hussain Guru, 
whose death sentence was on Wednesday confirmed by the court. Ms 
Sandhu had been sentenced to five years for withholding knowledge of 
the conspiracy. The court also upheld the death sentence against 
Mohammed Afzal.

All five terrorists, whom New Delhi says were from Pakistan, were 
killed in the attack. "This ruling is a real triumph for India's 
judicial system," Ram Jethmalani, lawyer to Mr Geelani, told the 
Financial Times. "It showed that the judiciary has the courage to 
take on the establishment."

The attack, which New Delhi says was carried out by two 
Pakistan-based terrorist groups, claimed 12 lives and came close to 
wiping out a large chunk of India's political leadership, including 
senior cabinet ministers. It was followed by a tense nine-month 
military stand-off between the two nuclear powers.

Wednesday's ruling is likely to raise further questions about alleged 
police misuse of India's tough prevention of terrorism law which was 
enacted a few weeks after the attack. Human rights groups say that 
the law allows India's police to detain people indefinitely even 
where normal evidence is lacking.

The verdict is also likely to add to calls for reform of India's 
police. "Clearly the police are not trained for long enough or well 
enough," said Kuldip Nayer, a commentator and former Indian high 
commissioner to the UK. "To have put someone so obviously innocent as 
Mr Geelani through all this right up to a death sentence is a sad 
reflection on their methods."

Opponents of the anti-terrorist law also highlighted a recent case 
where Iftikar Geelani, a Kashmiri journalist, was detained for 
several months having been found in possession of a document that he 
downloaded from the internet. The document was widely available and 
unclassified.

They also point to the alleged misuse of the law in the Hindu 
nationalist BJP-ruled state of Gujarat, where riots last year claimed 
up to 2,000 Muslim lives, following a mob attack on a train in which 
58 Hindu passengers were incinerated. The state government has 
detained 240 people under the law, of whom 239 are Muslim.

"If you have a law like this, which you shouldn't, then you must 
ensure the police are independent from political interference, which 
they aren't," said Mr Nayar. New Delhi recently announced the 
creation of state committees to review detentions under the law. But 
critics say the move is insufficient.

o o o

[USEFUL BACKGROUND MATERIAL]

Victims of December 13
Basharat Peer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,990901,00.html

Delhi University Teachers in Defence of S. A. R. Gilani
http://sacw.insaf.net/new/indefenceofJilani092003.html

All India Defence Committee for Syed Abdul Rehman Geelani
http://www20.brinkster.com/sargeelani

Trial of Errors: A critique of the POTA court judgement on the 13 
December case by Peoples Union for Democratic Rights, (PUDR), Delhi 
February 2003 http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Law/2003/parliament-case.htm