Shooting, detaining, or abusing someone for breaking a curfew because they are desperately searching for food is clearly an unacceptable and unlawful response, the UN body chief Michele Bachelet said.
New Delhi: United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michele Bachelet cautioned governments against violating basic human rights granted to people under the guise of adopting emergency powers to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.
“They should be used to cope effectively with the pandemic – nothing more, nothing less,” she said on April 27.
Referring to reports of use of excessive force to force citizens to abide with lockdown rules, she noted that most violations have often been committed against people belonging to the poorest and most vulnerable segments of population.
“Shooting, detaining, or abusing someone for breaking a curfew because they are desperately searching for food is clearly an unacceptable and unlawful response. So is making it difficult or dangerous for a woman to get to hospital to give birth. In some cases, people are dying because of the inappropriate application of measures that have been supposedly put in place to save them,” Bachelet said.
She noted that thousands have been detained in some countries for curfew violations, which is “both unnecessary and unsafe”. “Jails and prisons are high risk environments, and states should focus on releasing whoever can be safely released, not detaining more people”.
In a new policy guidance document for states responding to COVID-19, the UN human rights office, based in Geneva, stressed that law enforcement officials should adhere to the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and precaution, as in normal times.
While states are able to restrict some rights for public health reasons under human rights law, the restrictions need to non-discriminatory, proportionate, limited in duration with key safeguard put in place, the office said.
“Certain rights, including the right to life, the prohibition against torture and other ill-treatment, and the right not to be arbitrarily detained continue to apply in all circumstances,” said the UN human rights office’s press communique.
The UN human rights chief said that there have been “deeply worrying cases” of governments using COVID-19 pandemic as a cover for restricting fundamental freedoms and civic space. Any exceptional measure or state of emergency should be subject to proper parliamentary, judicial and public oversight, she added.
“Given the exceptional nature of the crisis, it is clear states need additional powers to cope. However, if the rule of law is not upheld, then the public health emergency risks becoming a human rights disaster, with negative effects that will long outlast the pandemic itself,” said Bachelet.
State finance minister Manpreet Badal tells The Wire’s Mitali Mukherjee that Punjab is staring at 4% fiscal deficit for this year.
In this detailed interview on the economic crunch faced by Punjab due to the pandemic, state finance minister Manpreet Badal tells The Wire’s Mitali Mukherjee that Punjab is staring at 4% fiscal deficit for this year.
He says that the state has been losing Rs 500 crore a month and the annual loss for the state might be around Rs 20,000 crore.
He says that the outgo from the Centre with respect to COVID-19 stands at Rs 71 crore. In a dire economic situation like this, the minister, sharply criticising the Centre, says that they don’t except any sizeable package from the Central government and adds that they have “never begged for anything” from the Centre.
“Nobody is going to do anything” during the COVID-19 pandemic, said the bench.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a plea against the Centre’s Central Vista project which covers a 3-km stretch, from Rashtrapati Bhavan to India Gate, and includes construction of new parliament building.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justice Aniruddha Bose, did not agree to the submission that the project in Lutyens’ Delhi needed to be stayed as the government bodies were to approach the authorities concerned for clearance and other formalities.
“Nobody is going to do anything” during the COVID-19 pandemic, said the bench.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said a new parliament building is being constructed and wondered as to why anybody should have objection to this.
“Shikhil Suri, counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to amend the writ petition…which has been transferred to this court from the High Court. Prayer is allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid,” the apex court said in its order.
Another plea related to the project, filed by the same petitioner, is pending with the top court which refused to entertain the fresh plea.
The earlier plea was against the Delhi high court order which had said that the DDA was not required to apprise it before notifying changes in the Master Plan to allow the Central Vista project.
Several new government buildings besides a new Parliament House are part of the project.
A division bench of the high court on February 28 had stayed an order of its single judge bench which had asked the Delhi Development Authority to approach the court before notifying any change in the Master Plan for going forth with the Centre’s ambitious project to redevelop the Central Vista.
The HC’s stay order on the single judge bench’s February 11 direction had come on the intra-court appeal of the DDA and the Centre.
The division bench of the high court had also issued notice to the two individuals, Rajeev Suri and Lt Col (retd) Anuj Srivastava, on whose pleas the February 11 order was passed, and had listed the Centre and DDA’s appeals for further hearing on May 6.
Suri and Srivastava, in their pleas before the single judge, have opposed the Central Vista project on the ground that it involves a change in land use of the green area adjoining Rajpath and Vijay Chowk for building a new Parliament and government offices.
They have contended that DDA does not have the power to bring about the proposed change in land use and master plan and only the central government can do so.
Gujarat-based architecture firm HCP Designs has won the consultancy bid for the Centre’s ambitious project to redevelop the Central Vista.
The revamp, which was announced in September last year, envisages a new triangular Parliament building, with seating capacity for 900 to 1,200 MPs. It is targeted to be constructed by August, 2022 when the country will celebrate its 75th Independence Day. The common Central Secretariat is likely to be built by 2024.
The government refused to shed light on loosening of lockdown norms since May 3.
New Delhi: The Union health ministry on Thursday asserted that the recovery rate for COVID-19 has improved to 25%, while the fatality rate has been recorded at 3.2%.
In the last 24 hours, India’s total number of recorded cases has gone up to 33,050, after 1,718 new cases were reported, health ministry joint secretary Lav Agarwal told reporters.
He further claimed that the recovery rate for COVID-19 has improved from 13.06% to over 25% in the last two weeks. “[As many as] 8,324 COVID-19 patients, which is 25.19% of the total cases, have recovered so far,” he added. There have been 630 recoveries in the last one day.
Besides, 67 news deaths have been reported nationwide. The senior health ministry official said that the fatality rate stands at 3.2%.
Giving an analysis of ages of patients who have died due to coronavirus infection, he said that majority of the deaths had occurred in the age bracket of above 60 years. While 42% of the deaths occurred in the 60 to 75 years age group, the oldest bracket – 75 plus – accounted for just 9.2% of fatalities.
Besides, the age distribution study shows that those between 45 to 60 years account for 34.8%, while 14% cases occurred in patients below 45 years.
“It is important to note that when it comes to COVID-19, both age and co-morbidities are risk factors,” said Agarwal.
He also stated that national average of doubling time has gone up to 11 days, from 3.4 days before lockdown.
Among states, Assam, Telangana, Chhattisgarh and Himachal Pradesh have a doubling rate of over 40 days, while Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Punjab have doubling time between 10 to 20 days.
In answer to a question whether health ministry has any position on whether the national lockdown period should be extended beyond May 3, Agarwal vacillated. “Health ministry is very clear that we have to make physical distancing a part of our life, as a behaviour change. Along with that, it is equally important to focus on containment measures, in order to break the chain of transmission”.
The home ministry joint secretary Punya Salila Srivastava also was tight-lipped on whether there will be a loosening of restrictions on e-commerce in zones which have not been severely affected. “Please wait for the new orders,” she said.
She also deflected a question on the request of state governments to use the Railways to transport stranded migrants and other categories of persons. “Our order only deals with buses”.
With experimental drug Remdesivir getting good reviews in US as a possible coronavirus treatment, the health ministry official indicated that any celebrations were premature.
“As of now, there is no confirmed treatment protocol for COVID-19. Remdesivir is one of the various protocols which are being examined. Even the study on Remdesivir by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, USA, has not conclusively proved the effectiveness of the drug in curing COVID-19. We are waiting for larger evidence to take meaningful action at the field level.”
On another question that certain private health centres were charging more than the prescribed limit for rapid antibody tests, Agarwal replied that the role of these tests in detecting COVID-19 infection was highly limited.
The health ministry official also said that while several candidate vaccines have been identified, “nothing conclusive has come up”.
“Multiple stages have to be passed, to conclude safe and efficacious use of a vaccine by human beings. As far as India is concerned, we have identified Hydroxychloroquine to begin with, as a prophylaxis treatment”.
India has also exported HCQ and paracetamol tablets to 87 countries on a commercial basis during this pandemic. Besides, New Delhi will also provide 2.8 million HCQ tables as grant assistance to 25 countries, while 1.9 million tables of paracetamol is to be donated to 31 countries.
Experts are rubbishing the authorities’ claim that curbs on the internet are in no way impacting students when it comes to accessing study material or the ongoing efforts to thwart the advances of the coronavirus pandemic.
Srinagar: “Right to internet is not a fundamental right,” the Jammu and Kashmir administration told the Supreme Court in its 32-page report on Wednesday, while filing its detailed reply on a plea seeking the restoration of 4G internet connectivity.
Experts rubbished the government’s reply, which justified the curbs on the pretext that the number of government school students was far less and they didn’t possess a smart mobile phone or computer to access the internet.
“What kind of a logic is this,” fumed Professor Mohammad Aslam. “Have they gone out of their mind?”
Aslam, who headed the Department of English at Kashmir University first and the Central University of Kashmir later, said it was unthinkable to separate technology from education in the contemporary world. The abundance of material available on the internet is simply inaccessible to students in Jammu and Kashmir.
“The administration’s premise that the internet is not a fundamental right of a citizen of India holds no water,” Aslam said. “The Supreme Court has, long ago, declared access to internet a fundamental right.”
Government reply to Supreme Court notice
In its 32-page response, of which The Wire has a copy, the Jammu and Kashmir administration has maintained that a “majority of students of class 1st to 12th are studying in 24,018 government schools as compared to 5,690 private schools. Further, majority of government school students do not have mobile/smart phones or computers to access the internet.”
“It is submitted that restoration of 4G mobile data services will substantially increase the use of social media and other online platforms in uploading/downloading of videos and other propaganda material and their fast circulation, with resultant deterioration in law and order situation in Kashmir Valley. For any upload/ download of a typically heavy data file, the present speed restrictions increase the time taken or lead to failure….”, the reply contends.
The reply also avers that the contentions of “alleged deprivation of access to education, health care facilities/updates” are incorrect as the administration of J&K is “taking all possible steps to ensure minimum impact of COVID19 is felt”.
“Ministry of HRD Government of India has initiated some technology-based initiatives for e-learning and further proposal is being shared with it for delivering lessons on 16 DD Channels at national level,” the reply added.
The reply stated that the right to accessing the internet was not a “fundamental” right.
Students’ aspirations on hold
The day Mehran’s matriculation result was declared early this year, relatives and neighbours visited his house in droves, bringing bags full of sweets and almonds. In Kashmir, passing the matriculation examination is considered a major milestone in a student’s life.
At an impressive Cumulative Grade Points Average (CGPA) of 9.8, Mehran was poised to enter his professional career in style. He studied physics, chemistry and mathematics. From being a fan of shows like Sony BBC Earth’s Seven Worlds, One Planet, Masters Of Our Universe: Einstein and Hawking and Earth’s Natural Wonders, he also uses his telescope to immerse himself in the mysteries of the universe.
Mehran wants to be an astronaut with Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) as his first stopover in a career he has been dreaming about since his childhood.
But despite his talent, Mehran’s dreams face the first major roadblock: the internet. For example, it took him three hours to download the Class 11 syllabus which was uploaded on the Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education website.
A security forces officer patrols the Raj Bhawan area of Srinagar, after the bifurcation of the Jammu and Kashmir state came into effect on October 31. Photo: PTI
“I’ve had to grapple with a few kbps when my mind is thinking in terms of astronomical speeds,” a visibly frustrated Mehran said. “What can you do when a file of a few MBs takes an eternity to download?”
On August 5, 2019, coincidentally his birthday, the government of India unilaterally scrapped the special status of the Kashmir region guaranteed under Article 370 and Article 35-A of the Indian constitution, annexing it with the dominion as a Union Territory.
The clampdown
That day, the authorities severed the internet connection, casting Kashmir into an information black hole and leaving tens and thousands of students in a lurch. In a run up to the move, hundreds of paramilitary personnel were rushed to the erstwhile state to quell any possible unrest.
After a complete blackout for nearly six months since the revocation of the special status, authorities finally decided to restore the internet on January 25 – albeit with speeds downgraded to 2G. The restoration of the internet, however, came with a serious rider. Citing misuse by miscreants for propagating false information, the authorities decided to blacklist all social media platforms permitting access to some 301 “white-listed” websites. The number was increased to 1,485 by February 15.
To infiltrate the firewall, people started installing VPNs (virtual private networks) in order to access social media sites without being tracked from their original locations for fear of reprisal from police. The police also quizzed several people – mostly students – on the use of VPNs while registering open FIRs under various sections of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Indian Penal Code and IT Act against “hundreds of social media abusers” in the Valley.
On many occasions, army personnel intercepted students, asked them to hand over their mobile phones and if any VPNs were found installed, they were allegedly thrashed.
Supreme Court chips in
In January, a three-member bench led by Justice N.V. Ramana, next in line to be chief justice, had asked the government to review the internet lockdown in Kashmir.
“The authorities must, before invoking any such power, consider whether the ends can be met by resorting to other, less restrictive measures. The rules specify that any suspension must be temporary,” the bench said on January 10.
The court also asked the government to correct the “gap” in the law — by stipulating a period for such curbs — to ensure that the rules are proportionate. The court shot down the government’s argument that it was technically impossible to “selectively” block the internet. The proportionality requirement makes an indefinite suspension “impermissible,” the court observed.
The intervention of the top court did not motivate the authorities to lift the curbs on the internet. The curbs continued.
Amid the number of coronavirus cases witnessing a sharp rise in Kashmir, the Supreme Court on April 9 sought a response in a week from the Jammu and Kashmir administration on a petition demanding restoration of 4G connectivity. The plea was again heard by a three-member bench led by Justice N.V. Ramana. The deadline expired on April 16.
Explaining Article 19 of the Indian constitution, the Supreme Court had officially declared the internet access a fundamental right.
Expert opinion
While reacting to the unavailability of high speed internet, students and teachers described their experience as “no better than living in the Stone Age”.
Experts are rubbishing the authorities’ claim that curbs on the internet are in no way impacting students when it comes to accessing study material or the ongoing efforts to thwart the advances of the coronavirus pandemic.
Vice-chancellor Islamic University of Science and Technology, Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqui, who previously headed the Immunology and Molecular Medicine Department at SKIMS, described the non-availability of 4G internet as “disastrous” for students.
“High-speed internet and the contemporary methodologies of teaching and learning are so intertwined that, come what may, they can’t be separated from one another,” he said. “I’d only say the students of Jammu and Kashmir are very unfortunate for not being able to exploit the true potential of e-learning that the rest of the country is enjoying amid the COVID-19 lockdown.”
Siddiqui, who is an alumnus of Chiba University, Tokyo, and who has taught in Germany as well, said the slashed internet speeds have hampered efforts in controlling the coronavirus epidemic. “Let me mince no words. Kashmir, with regard to the coronavirus pandemic, is sitting on an Everest of dynamite that requires just a tiny spark to explode,” he warned. “Only the right kind of knowledge about the virus can save us from an imminent disaster which can only be achieved by lifting the curbs on the internet.”
Meanwhile, those pursuing PhD’s in universities of Kashmir are frustrated with the trimmed speeds as it limits their access to literature available on the internet, downloading papers, or communicating with journals and researchers outside the state.
“Without high-speed internet, the entire research work has become a laboriously time-consuming process rendering it a wasteful activity,” said Prof Iqbal Mattoo, who heads the School of Education and Behavioural Sciences, University of Kashmir.
Prof Wajahat Amin Shah of the Department of Chemistry, University of Kashmir, echoes similar apprehensions. “The process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of experts in the same field is possible only when an unimpeded high-speed internet is made available to the students and research guides,” Shah said. “Within the scientific community, peer review has become an integral component of the academic writing process.”
Mubeen Ahmad Masoodi, who runs a private coaching institute for IIT aspirants, has been struggling with the Zoom application. “High-speed internet would make classes flawless and increase our versatility,” Masoodi said. “It would also increase interaction as currently we disable sound and video from participants due to low bandwidth. We are limited to sharing white screen and can’t share more interactive content.”
People queue up to go online at a government set-up internet cafe in Budgam, Indian-administered Kashmir on December 24, 2019. Photo: Reuters/Athar Parvaiz
Fazal Ilhahi, who teaches Philosophy at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE) Srinagar, sees a trust-deficit angle behind slashing internet speeds. “They do not want to understand that declining number of students in subsequent classes could be due to weak net connectivity,” he said.
“I found teaching my students on 2G like either filling water in a wicker basket or pouring in a can with an inverted funnel. The bosses are unmoved. They say, keep on pouring, it would fill ultimately,” Illahi wrote a Facebook post.
The bottom line
It remains to be seen when the government decides to lift the curbs fully until then future of tens of thousands of students would continue to hang in the balance. According to a report, only Jio subscribers have shelled Rs 403 crore since August 2019 without actually getting full services.
Meanwhile, a dispirited Mehran, whose patience has started wearing thin, seems to have given up on the hope of the high speed internet being made available to him. “Why is the prime minister so insensitive to the requirements of a student,” he asked to his father. “Are we children of a lesser god?”
In an interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire, the former Supreme Court judge answered a range of questions on the apex court’s recent methods of functioning.
Complete transcript appended below
In an interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire on the functioning of the Supreme Court during the coronavirus pandemic, Justice Madan B. Lokur said he is “disappointed” by the way the court has responded to the suffering people affected by COVID-19 and the ensuing lockdown, now in its sixth week.
The Supreme Court, he said, is not fulfilling its constitutional functions adequately. “Certainly, it should be more pro-active than it has been,” he added.
Speaking specifically about the three weeks the court took to dispose of a petition on the right to life of migrant workers, only to request the government to “take such steps as it finds fit to help the migrant workers”, Justice Lokur said: “Yes, I think the court let down these migrants. Certainly…. I think the court should have and could have gone much further… Whatever steps you’re taking is good enough is not an answer particularly in a situation like this… A person has a right. If he has that right it has to be enforced. That’s it. You can’t say I hope and trust that somebody will enforce that right on his behalf. The person has a right. Why are you not enforcing it? It (the Supreme Court) is not fulfilling its constitutional functions adequately.”
Finally, when asked if he was disappointed with the Supreme Court, Justice Lokur said: “Yes, I am disappointed. It is disappointing. Certainly.”
The following is a complete transcript of the interview:
Karan Thapar: Hello, welcome to a special interview for The Wire. Earlier this week the lawyer Prashant Bhushan wrote an article for The Wire which is a critique of the Supreme Court’s functioning during the lockdown. Prashant Bhushan makes three critical points. He claims the Supreme Court is not doing enough to defend the constitutional rights of the Indian people, particularly the poor and vulnerable. Secondly, he questions the prioritization on which the Supreme Court is choosing to hear some cases immediately and to postpone others, perhaps even indefinitely, and thirdly, Prashant Bhushan says that the Supreme Court has surrendered its power of judicial review over government policy and action. With me to discuss the functioning of the court, here is one of the most learned and highly regarded former judges, Justice Madan Lokur. Justice Lokur, as I said in that introduction, Prashant Bhushan makes three key criticisms of the court, very briefly they are: a claim that the Supreme Court is not defending the constitutional rights of the Indian people, particularly the poor and vulnerable. Secondly, he questions the prioritization on which the court is hearing cases or deferring them, and thirdly, he says that the court has surrendered its power of judicial review over government policy and action. I’ll come to specifics later but broadly speaking, do you agree or do you disagree with Prashant Bhushan’s criticism?
Justice Madan B. Lokur:Thank you, Karan, for inviting me on your show. It’s a pleasure being here. Well, as far as the critique by Prashant is concerned I have gone through it. Broadly yes, I agree with him but I think he has been a little uncharitable in the sense that when we discuss about judicial review, I’m not sure whether the use of the word surrender would be appropriate. But yes broadly I agree with what he says.
Thapar: Let’s go through the main criticisms one by one and I’ll cover judicial review right at the end. To start with, let’s talk about the way the court has responded to the right to life of migrant workers. These are people who are destitute and starving, they’re desperate. We’ve seen on television how hundreds of thousands, if not millions, tried to walk back to their villages. Now, a petition on their plight was filed in the Supreme Court on the 31st of March. Thereafter, for one reason or another, the government was given additional time and new hearings were scheduled. Finally, three weeks later on the 21st of April, the court disposed of the petition with a pretty anodyne and tepid request to the government, to take such steps as it finds, to fit to resolve the issues raised in the petition. Do you believe this is an acceptable way of responding to the right to life of Indians?
Lokur: I think the concept of Public Interest Litigation in this situation has been completely misunderstood. The purpose of Public Interest Litigation is not adversarial. There is a problem which the public interest petitioner brings to the court, and the government whoever it is, if it’s a state government or if it’s a central government, says that yes perhaps things are not as they should be, they can improve, and we’ll certainly try and help you out and the court works in that direction along with the public interest petitioner and the government and arrives at a solution. Now in this particular case about the migrants, the stand that was taken was adversarial – there’s nothing wrong, we’re doing everything that’s possible and therefore please don’t interfere. I think that stand probably resulted in what has happened. There was a problem, I think the government should have acknowledged that there was a problem and it should have tried to find out ways and means to remedy that problem with the assistance of the court if it is possible or even otherwise. I think that’s where the mistake was made and yes I think in that sense the court led down these migrants, certainly.
Thapar: When you say the court led down these migrants are you saying the court should’ve put more pressure on the government? Should’ve been more clear cut that the government must act rather than simply saying, I’m quoting the quote – “take such steps as it finds fit to resolve the issue raised in the petition.”
Lokur: The thing is, these migrants don’t know what are the steps that have been taken. So to say that whatever steps you’re taking or you should take more steps… What are those steps? And if actually, you go through the status reports filed in the Supreme Court, one status report was filed on the 31st of March, another status report was filed on the 7th of April, there is a huge disparity in the figures – the number of camps, the number of NGOs who were helping out, the number of people who were provided shelter, the number of people who were provided food – it was a massive problem. And to say that you should do something about it and take whatever steps you feel are appropriate, that’s it, we don’t want to say anything more. I think the court should have and could have gone much further. You should look at some of the past Public Interest Litigations, say, bonded labor for example. The court could very well have said in the case of bonded labor – there’s bonded labor, do something about it, whatever steps you’re taking it’s good enough, and in the case of child labor, whatever steps that you’re taking it’s good enough. That’s not an answer particularly in a situation like this.
Thapar: Now let me quote to you what Chief Justice Bobde said to The Hindu on Monday as his explanation for not defending what is essentially a fundamental right. His words were, “This is not a situation where declaration of rights has much gravity or as much importance as in other times.” Do you accept that explanation? That’s his reason for saying – the government, do what you can we’re not going to put any further pressure on you.
Lokur: Well, I don’t want to get into anything personal with Chief Justice Bobde. It’s a view that he has and it’s a different view that I have, it’s nothing personal at all so I think we should be clear about that. To say that fundamental rights are not so important today because of the prevailing situation is, I think, is a wrong way of looking at it. The very same argument perhaps in slightly different words was put forth in the ADM Jabalpur case during the Emergency. And the view of the Supreme Court at that time was 4:1 – when there is an internal emergency, fundamental rights will take a back seat. Justice HR Khanna said – no they can’t take a backseat, fundamental rights are inherent. So to say that fundamental rights will take a back seat, I’m not sure if it’s the correct way of looking at it.
Thapar: Let’s come, Justice Lokur, to the sense of priority that the Supreme Court has shown in terms of what cases it has decided to hear immediately and which ones it has chosen to defer. Now, cases to do with the right of migrant labor presently stranded in shelter homes, to return to their villages, have been postponed to the 27th of May. Cases to do with NREGA payments to people who I presume are destitute, will only be heard two weeks after the lockdown is over. But when Arnab Goswami petitions the court seeking protection from multiple FIRs, he is heard in exactly 15 hours. Is that an acceptable sense of prioritization or is it a questionable one?
Lokur: Well, Karan, the issue is like this, the Supreme Court issued a circular on the 13th of March, saying that they will take up urgent cases from the 16th of March onwards. Now, what is the category of urgent cases, how do you define urgent cases and who decides whether a case is urgent or not, was not explained. A little later, sometime in April or maybe the 31st of March. I’m not sure about the date, they said not the urgent cases but the extremely urgent cases will be taken on. Given the situation I think nothing was more important than the rights of the migrants, wanting to go back home, their shelter, their food, their wages whether it’s under NREGA or otherwise, this was of crucial importance or of extreme urgency, whatever word you may wish to choose. Against that if you place the case that you’ve mentioned, where an FIR is filed or maybe 10 FIRs are filed against a person. What is the urgency? The police had not even acted upon those FIRs, in a situation like this the possibility of an arrest is almost zero. The police have to first at least prima facie verify whether the allegations made in the FIR are correct or not. And, from what I’ve read and even today there is a write-up on this – the petition was filed after 8:00 pm. So what was the extreme urgency and how do you define extreme urgency? Was there some extreme urgency that this guy is going to be arrested right now? And then you take it up the next day and then you say no coercive action for three weeks and so on… You should compare the plight of the migrants, compare the plight of the poor as against this, then there is just no comparison at all. It is very, very wrong on the part of the Supreme Court to have taken up that case without it falling in the category of extreme urgency. That’s from the facts that are available as of today.
Thapar: Again in the interview that he gave The Hindu on Monday, Chief Justice Bobde defended the prioritization with the following argument – “The courts are doing their best to cope with the situation and in particular they’re selecting and prioritizing matters they must hear.” That suggests that he thinks Arnab Goswami is important, while NREGA payments for the destitutes, or migrant laborers stranded is not an important issue.
Lokur: I don’t want to get into personalities but I think it’s pretty obvious isn’t it that the plight of the migrants is important and that NREGA is important , bail petitions are important, habeas corpus petitions are important, as against the right of a journalist. Of course, freedom of the press is important, there is no doubt about it. But an FIR which may or may not result in anything at all and there is no possibility of an arrest, I don’t see how that is of extreme urgency as compared to habeas corpus, or bail or migrants or payments under NREGA, the rights of the poor, the underprivileged. Sorry, there’s no comparison.
Thapar: Let me at this point Justice Lokur, briefly sidestep from Prashant’s critique and take up something that’s closely related to what we’re talking about. I’ll come back to Prashant’s critique in a moment’s time. This is not the first time the Supreme Court’s approach appropriate handling of constitutional rights has been questioned or criticized, it’s not the first time the Supreme Court’s prioritization of matters has been criticized. It happened when the whole constitutional structure of Kashmir was changed in August last year, it happened again when the Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed by parliament at the end of last year. Both of those raised fundamental key constitutional issues. In addition, there was also agitation and concern in the country. In both instances the Supreme Court simply kicked the can down the road, and even now, it hasn’t heard of those cases. How do you explain this deliberate reluctance to hear critical cases?
Lokur: Well, it’s difficult to understand. These cases are very important because they have the character of affecting a very large section of the people. Whether you’re talking about article 370, whether you’re talking about the Citizenship Amendment Act, whether you’re talking about migrants – huge sections of society are impacted. And really, these cases should’ve been taken up on a priority. I’m frankly not able to understand why that priority has not been given to these cases. Of course, it is within the court’s discretion to decide what should have priority, whether case A should be heard first or whether case B should be heard first. But there has to be a rational basis for deciding that case A should be heard first and not case B. Unlike – I don’t want to hear it now so we’ll hear it on some other day. That can’t be the answer.
Thapar: Something else that was deeply troubling, was the Supreme Court’s response for a whole spate of habeas corpus petitions. You know better than me that habeas corpus petitions are often considered perhaps the most important petition in front of a court because it concerns the very right to life. Once again the Supreme Court simply kicks them down the road.
Lokur: Yes, you’re right, habeas corpus petitions are not cases that are going to go on for two days or three days. They are based on subjective satisfaction of the detaining authorities. So the scope of interference by a court, whether it’s the High Court or the Supreme Court is limited. So it’s not something that’s going to go on for a couple of days. This is a matter of extreme urgency, a person is kept in detention without a trial for months altogether, right, this is a case of extreme urgency. And, these habeas corpus petitions, how many ever there are that are pending, should be heard. How much time is it going to take? One hour, two hours, three hours, maybe one day? Why not hear them?
Thapar: Let me sum up what people are saying of the court and it’s being said very widely. People say that the Supreme Court is reluctant to take up matters that would embarrass the government, that would prove awkward for the government Therefore to prevent that embarrassment or difficulty for the government, it simply defers the matter. Do you share that impression?
Lokur: I am not too sure, I think the Supreme Court has a duty under the constitution. It is answerable to the constitution of India, it is not answerable to the government. No.
Thapar: Can I put this to you – Is the supreme court failing to fulfill its duty under the constitution by deferring these constitutional matters, by deferring these habeas corpus petitions.
Lokur: Again, failing is quite a strong word but yes it should have regard to the constitutional principles and conventions. And certainly it should be far more proactive than it has been. Let me put it that way.
Thapar: Let’s drop the word failing. Would you say it’s not fulfilling its constitutional duty adequately?
Lokur: Yes. Adequately, yes.
Thapar: Let me then at this point come to the third criticism of Prashant Bhushan. It flows out of all that we’re discussing. He says that the Supreme court has adopted what he calls – “a hope and trust jurisprudence”, placing its entire trust in the government. And therefore he says – “it surrendered its powers of judicial review of government’s policies, directives and action. I know you don’t approve of the word surrender, but would you say that it is not exercising its powers of judicial review and therefore it’s allowing the government to get away on the basis of hope and trust?
Lokur: Yes you see the hope and trust jurisdiction goes back again to ADM Jabalpur, where one of the learned judges said that he has a diamond-bright and a diamond-hard hope that this will not happen. What happened to that diamond-hard, diamond-bright hope? So now this hope and trust that we are talking about today, or which Prashant seems to have mentioned, is the same in different words such as diamond-hard and diamond-bright. Really, this hope and trust jurisprudence… I dont think it’s correct. A person has a right. If he has a right it has to be enforced, that’s it. You can’t say I hope and trust that somebody will enforce a right on his behalf. This is what justice HR Khanna was talking about. You may hope and trust you may have a diamond-hard diamond-bright faith and whatever, but the person has a right, why are you not enforcing it? You know in that sense it’s adequately not fulfilling its constitutional functions.
Thapar: Once again let’s drop that word surrender, the court is not adequately exercising its power of judicial review. And the sad part is, this is when that power of judicial review is perhaps most needed. Not exercising when it’s most needed is very sad and sorry.
Lokur:Absolutely, let’s go back to the Emergency. During the Emergency, habeas corpus, arrests without detention… Was it not most required at that point of time ? It obviously was because many of the high courts exercised that power. Can anybody say – well, there is an external emergency, so forget about the right to life? You can’t.
So today there is no internal Emergency or any Emergency of any kind, you can’t say today that let’s forget about the right to life. If you can’t forget the right to life during the Emergency, I don’t see why you can forget it today.
Thapar: Let’s take a break at this point. Justice Lokur, when I come back I want to ask you one simple question, although I may ask it in many ways – Are you disappointed in the way the supreme court is functioning?
BREAK Thapar: Welcome back to a special interview for The Wire, our guest is one of India’s most learned and highly thought of former Supreme Court judges, Justice Madan Lokur. Justice Lokur, I want to ask you one simple question. In part one we talked about the manner in which the Supreme Court was not living up to its constitutional duties, It was failing to defend even the right to life of migrant citizens. It was actually exercising an almost inexplicable sense of prioritization. This was the time when it needed to exercise its powers of judicial review and it was not doing so. So let me ask you in the light of all of this, are you disappointed with the way the Supreme Court is functioning?
Lokur: You see, Karan, it’s a package – the Supreme Court has got certain administrative functions and it has got certain judicial functions. I’m not criticising judgements of the Supreme Court, that’s for the academics to decide if the Supreme Court has decided rightly or wrongly. But if you look at the whole package – the administrative functioning and the judicial functioning – yes, I am disappointed. You have things like appointment of judges for example, transfer of judges, listing-prioritising of cases, you know if you look at the whole package, it is certainly disappointing.
Thapar: Can I ask you this specifically about prioritisation of cases – the distinct cases. I take it that this is a responsibility exercised by the Chief Justice as master of the roster. So if an Arnab Goswami petition is heard in 15 hours, but the right to life of migrant labourers is postponed to the 27th of May, this is because that was a decision taken by Chief Justice himself. This is his prioritisation that is resulting in this outcome?
Lokur: I think 27th of May perhaps may be incorrect because 27th of may as it stands today will be during the vacations, so I think it’s probably 27th of April and I know that one of the cases was listed on 27th of April. But you know, the buck has to stop somewhere. Either it stops with the administration part of it which is the Secretary general of the Supreme Court, or it stops with the Chief Justice. Now here, one doesn’t know what is the criteria of an urgent case, or of an extremely urgent case. Who decides? Now supposing, I don’t know what has happened but take an example because the Supreme Court circular says that there is something called a competent authority – I don’t know what that means but you want a case to be listed you go to a competent authority and the competent authority says I don’t think it’s urgent or I don’t think its extremely urgent. Then, under the SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) which has been framed by the Supreme Court, that advocate can ring up the concerned judge, the presiding judge, and explain to him what is the urgency. So, I would assume that the competent authority is somebody in the registry, it could be the registrar or it could be the secretary general. And then the presiding judge decides whether there is extreme urgency or there is no extreme urgency. Now in this particular case I don’t know at what level the decision was taken – whether the registrar said yes I think it’s extremely urgent. Or whether the secretary general said it’s extremely urgent or the presiding judge said it’s extremely urgent. One does not know, so it’s really just guesswork. But ultimately, the buck has to stop somewhere and it would be a good idea for the Chief Justice or the secretary general, that somebody conducts an informal enquiry to find out what went wrong? How come this jumped the queue?
Thapar: You are saying something very important, we don’t know who is responsible for these decisions but as you said the buck stops at the Chief Justice because he is the Chief Justice and I think he needs to ask questions as why someone jumped the queue in this way? And if he doesn’t ask these questions then presumably he doesn’t have a problem jumping the queue. The other reason he’s not asking questions because he’s the one who has decided the queue should be jumped. The buck stops with Chief Justice Bobde.
Lokur: Yes, in a sense, unless he has delegated that power exclusively to the secretary general. In which case, the buck would stop with the secretary general. But then the secretary general would say, ‘I said it’s not extremely urgent, but I was overruled.’ One really doesn’t know what happened, it’s worth finding out.
Thapar: My last question, sir, I want to quote from the recent judgement by the High Court of Malawi. Malawi, as we know, is under a state of emergency, much as India is under the state of emergency although ours is not a formal emergency of the sort that happened in ‘75. Corona virus has changed the nature of judicial functioning both in Malawi and presumably in India. And it’s in that light, in that background that I want to quote what the high court of Malawi said in a recent judgement – “The Judiciary is enjoined by the Constitution to ensure that the rule of law is upheld at all times, be it before, during or after the state of emergency has been declared. The court is perfectly entitled to enquire into the legality of measures taken by the state in response to a state of emergency. A declaration of a state of emergency does not give the state carte blanche to exercise power indiscriminately. The substantive and procedural limitations imposed by the law have to be observed. Would you have liked to have heard those or similar words spoken by the Supreme Court of India?
Lokur: Yes, I would. I read an article yesterday, apparently in Nepal also there is a problem of migrant labor and the Supreme Court in Nepal has passed some orders. I haven’t seen those orders but they’ve also passed some orders to take care of the plight of migrant labour in Nepal. I’m glad that it’s come out in the papers today. Perhaps the decision was taken yesterday that migrant labour has been allowed to go back to their home. Well, if it would have come earlier it would certainly be better but better late than never I suppose.
Thapar:But we end with an interesting situation: the Supreme Court of mighty India was not capable of standing up to the rights of its people, of the constitution of this country, in a way the Supreme Court of little Malawi has done so. We in India tend to look down on these countries, considering ourselves superior. But in this instance, the High Court of little Malawi, and I don’t mean to be belittling when I say that, has perhaps shamed the Supreme Court of mighty India.
Lokur: I’m not sure. If you’re asking me for a comment, the Supreme Court of Malawi has done a good job. I believe the Supreme Court of Nepal has done a good job. The Supreme Court of India is capable of doing a good job. But I think they need to introspect. They need to sit down, brainstorm and figure out how to go ahead and they’re capable of doing it.
Thapar: Justice Lokur, it’s a very interesting choice of words you’ve used – they’re “capable” of doing it, they need to live up to their capacity. That says it all. Thank you so much for speaking so openly to The Wire.
While police have denied the allegation, the condition of one of the boys has allegedly been deteriorating.
Jaipur: Three Kashmiri boys working as deliverypersons in Jaipur’s Hassanpura area were allegedly beaten up severely by local police while they were out delivering food.
One of their co-workers, Altaf, who spoke to The Wire, said that the incident is a week old but the condition of one of the three, Ishfaq Ahmad, has deteriorated since then.
“All the three boys had kept quiet about the incident as they had feared that it would worry their parents back home in Kashmir but today, Ahmad told us that the pain in his head has been unbearable. So, we had to speak out,” said Altaf.
He said that on April 10, about 14 boys, including the three from Kashmir, were out on their daily duty when local police intercepted them.
Upon identifying them as Kashmiris, the policemen allegedly called them ‘traitors’ and began beating them up with lathis.
Altaf claimed that police were mild on the local boys and did not hit them hard, but “channeled all their energy to beat up the Kashmiri boys.”
“If one looks at their photographs from the day they were beaten up, one can see how ruthless the police were. It appeared as if they were exacting revenge from Kashmiris,” he addd.
The boys were taken to the police station. They were taken to hospital only at 10 am the next day, and then, produced before the magistrate.
Denying the allegations, Rajendra Singh, Station House Officer at the Hasanpura police station in Jaipur said, “The police had only pointed at them when they were walking down the road along with their bedding. They were neither beaten up, nor put in the lock-up.”
Upon being asked as to why the boys had injury marks, he said,” Anyone can show injury marks, even I can, but that doesn’t prove that police injured them.”
Altaf and many others from Kashmir work as delivery boys for caterers in Jaipur. Most have not been paid salaries for some months now, making it difficult for them to think of leaving for home, even when the lockdown ends.
“We came here to earn, there would be no point in leaving work and going back. Most of us have not even been paid salaries. We won’t leave without taking back our money,” said Altaf.
He also added that they are facing food shortage at their house. “We have roza [fasting during the holy month of Ramzan] but are not able to eat proper food afterwards.”
Altaf further said that civil society in Jaipur was aware about the incident but decided to look the other way.
“For the past two hours, after Nasir Bhai tweeted, some four-five people including social activists and a few journalists spoke to us on a conference call and said that medical attention would be provided to us, but it happened only after we put the information out on Twitter.”
Nasir Khuehami, a 24-year-old student from Bandipora in Kashmir had tweeted today about this incident.
🆘
Call for a help:
A group of students Stranded at Hassanpora near NBC,Jaipur, Rajasthan.They are going through the pain & agony.Having short of money, Instead of help they hv been beaten by the police for being a Kashmiri. Kindly Intervene @ashokgehlot51@RajCMO@_lokeshsharmapic.twitter.com/75ziZ50Mwt
— Nasir Khuehami (ناصر کہویہامی) (@NasirKhuehami) April 30, 2020
He administers a WhatsApp group to help Kashmiris living and working in other parts of the country. He was informed about the incident by Altaf.
This is fourth incident of violence against Kashmiris reported in Rajasthan in the past one year.
Earlier in February, a Kashmiri boy named Basit Khan alias Ghulam Mohiudin (18), working as a caterer in Jaipur’s Harmada area, was beaten to death, allegedly by his co-workers from Mumbai.
In November last year, four Kashmiri students were beaten up by fellow students at Mewar University in Rajasthan’s Chittorgarh over the issue of a gate pass that was allegedly given to a Kashmiri student and denied to a student from Bihar.
According to an expert, while J&K residents would have an assembly and be able participate, those in Ladakh may not be able to.
New Delhi: The idea behind including the Union Territories of Delhi and Pondicherry in Article 54 and 55 of the constitution was to allow its citizens to participate, through their legislators, in the election of the President of India.
But the Reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir Act, 2019 has, by splitting the state into two union territories, and not giving the people of Kargil and Leh districts an assembly, has denied its citizens of their right to participate in the presidential polls through membership to the electoral college.
An RTI application filed by a political science student of Ashoka University has sought to highlight this anomaly.
A vague reply to a direct query
In his application, filed on March 6, Shubham Khatri, a resident of Narela in Delhi, had asked for “a list of State and UT legislative assemblies which are part of the Electoral College for election of the President of India”. He had also asked “whether or not the legislative assembly of UT of Jammu and Kashmir is part of the Electoral College for election of President of India”.
The Election Commission replied through a letter dated April 19 in which all that it said was “for the said information, applicant may be informed to refer (to) Article 54 of the Constitution of India”. It added to good measure that in case the applicant was not satisfied with the information, an appeal may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of this reply.
Article 54, 55 were amended to include assemblies of UT of Delhi and Puducherry
Now a reading of Article 54 reveals that it speaks about the “Election of President”. It lays down that “the President shall be elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of – (a) the elected members of both Houses of Parliament; and (b) the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the States”.
It also provides an “explanation” to state that in this Article (54) and in Article 55 (which deals with the ‘manner of election of President’, “State” includes the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union territory of Pondicherry.
Incidentally, both Delhi and Pondicherry, which is now known as Puducherry, were included in these Articles through the Constitution (Seventieth Amendment) Act, 1992. The statement of objects and reasons of that amendment had stated that: “Views were expressed in both the Houses of Parliament in favour of including also the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of Union territories in the electoral college for the election of the President under article 54 of the Constitution.”
Intention was to allow more citizens to participate in President’s election
Accordingly, it had stated, that “an explanation is sought to be inserted in article 54 to provide that reference to “State” in articles 54 and 55 would include the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union territory of Pondicherry for constituting the electoral college for election of the President.”
Clearly the intention behind the amendment was to ensure that citizens of even UTs were able to participate in the election of the President.
J&K Reorganisation denied this right to people of Kargil and Leh districts?
In this light, Khatri has alleged that the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir has denied this right to the people of the erstwhile state residing in the Leh and Kargil districts, who were earlier able to participate in the election of the President of India through their MLAs.
On what prompted him to file the query, Khatri said: “I found that the Legislature of UT of J&K won’t be a part of the Electoral College for election of President, because Article 54 of the Constitution has not been amended.”
He said the “government doesn’t have numbers/support to do so (because Article 368 of the constitution clearly mentions that for amending Article 54, a two-third majority in parliament along with ratification of more than 50% States is required).”
So, Khatri is apprehensive that the citizens of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir may no longer have a vote in the election of the president. “As of now erstwhile state of J&K is the only Indian territory which is under The President’s Rule and it is also going to be the only legislative assembly which won’t be part of the Electoral College for election of President of India,” he said.
Expert insists J&K assembly members would be part of electoral college
However, according to constitutional expert and former secretary general of Lok Sabha, P.D.T. Achary, the people of the Jammu and Kashmir union territory would still be able to participate in these elections.
Achary said that there are two kinds of Union Territories, the first being those which are directly governed by the Centre – like Chandigarh, Daman and Diu, or even Ladakh now. Then the second batch includes others like Delhi and Puducherry, which have an assembly and which participate in the presidential polls.
In the case of Jammu and Kashmir too, he said, the Act provides for an assembly for the Union Territory and through that arrangement, it would also join the league of Delhi and Pondicherry as a UT whose legislators would be part of the electoral college. For this, Achary said, a separate amendment to the constitution may not be required.
Incidentally, Section 13 of the J&K Reorganisation Act states that “the provisions contained in article 239A, which are applicable to “Union territory of Puducherry”, shall also apply to the “Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir”.
Also, Section 14 part 2 and 3 lay down that “there shall be a Legislative Assembly for the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir” and that “the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir to be filled by persons chosen by direct election shall be 107.”
The issue, however, is bigger as there is a call for allowing all citizens to participate in the presidential election through their elected representatives. While all citizens do so in a way through their Lok Sabha MPs, some have a lesser say because their region does not have an assembly and MLAs who are part of the electoral college – Ladakh in this case.
Endowed with a phenomenal memory, his column was awaited anxiously by many who wanted to accompany him on his walk down the memory lane.
Morris Ronald Vivian Smith wrote his own obituary on June 16, 2015.
He died almost five years later on April 30, 2020.
Born to a journalist father, Thomas Smith in Agra, R.V. Smith, as he was called, died at the ripe age of 84 at a time when death is cloaked in suspicion and shorn of its rituals due to social isolation brought into our lives by the pandemic.
Smith sahib worked for long years as the city reporter for The Statesman, the newspaper his father was associated with from Agra. In those days, journalism in Agra invariably meant covering the visits of celebrities to the Taj Mahal, and folklores and myths surrounding other famous monuments of the Mughal era.
In his own words, he was brought up in a haunted house that was built around the 1860s, which had its share of stories, ghosts and spirits. His aunts and elder sisters told him about how an apparition of women in flowing white saris was visible in the dark rooms (kothri) of his house.
Even when he left his doting mother to work from Delhi, he carried with him his sense of history, his love for local reporting and his unending quest to understand one basic question that would not fit a blind rationalist – why are people afraid to enter some places and not others. It was an investigation only a simple-minded, intellectually curious R.V. Smith could have conducted as he went about jaywalking from his home in old Delhi to his office in New Delhi in search of a story or a nugget for his weekly column.
Endowed with a phenomenal memory, his column was awaited anxiously by many who wanted to accompany him on his walk down the memory lane that was replete with history, food and a lot more.
He surprised me a couple of years ago by telling me the day when my father, a friend of his late father, was born.
When I asked him how he knew that he said, “I have a thing for dates. I remember many things”.
R.V. Smith. Photo: Author provided
Smith sahib wrote many books during his lifetime, Lingering Charm of Delhi: Myth, Lore and History and Delhi: Unknown Tales of a City. Over the years, he built sizeable fan following amongst the young and old alike.
Historians recognised the power of a good reporter and his ability to ferret out stories and perspectives that a trained researcher would miss. Many of them, including aficionados of Delhi’s history, would converge at his Mayapuri house. Though he was a stickler for deadlines, he gave enough time to visitors that came calling to his Spartan DDA house.
In his self-written obituary, he says that he picked up anecdotes of oral history from Delhi’s Naaz Hotel Room, where the famous artist, M.F. Hussain also lived and later at Azad Hind Hotel where the proprietor had 11 wives and 28 children. That was R.V. Smith.
He had the uncanny ability to meet unusual people and learn things that would elude the ordinary. He carried all his knowledge and deep understanding of different worlds (nether too) so lightly. “I think 99% of the ghost stories are lies, but there is some merit in one percent. Why are we scared of entering some rooms or houses and not others?,“ he would ask. A simple question that only those who fear darkness can tell.
I have no recollection of the first time I met him. Was it in Agra when I probably walked around holding my journalist father, late Bishan Kapoor’s little finger, to Thomas Smith’s house or did I meet him many years later in Delhi?
Smith sahib insisted that he remembered me as a child from his days in Agra, but I only caught up with him much later in Delhi while I used to work out of INS Building for the Blitz news magazine. He would follow my articles religiously and give me a candid feedback – not always charitable. But he spoke in a friendly manner.
When I launched my magazine, Hardnews, in 2003, Smith sahib was most forthcoming to assist me.
He proofed the final magazine, contributed and generally ensured that the magazine never got delayed. Every time he would submit an article, he would say, “yaar see if it can used”. There was no attempt to persuade me or insist that the article should be carried – always assuring me that it was the editor’s discretion to carry it. He would call me when he would receive the final copy of the issue to give his comments.
Largely, he would be concerned about the revenue side of the publication and would feel elated when he would see decent advertisements in the magazine. “That’s the only way your magazine will survive.” I knew it, but..
It is difficult to imagine Smith sahib, the chronicler of Delhi, going away anywhere. One wonders how he would have perceived the deathly pandemic and its impact on a city that has changed its skin so many times. How would he react to Narendra Modi’s attempt to rebuild Delhi’s Central Vista? I am sure Smith sahib would have a tale to tell from our history to decode its implication.
Sanjay Kapoor is the editor of Delhi-based Hardnews magazine, the South Asian partner of French publication Le Monde Diplomatique.
He stood trial alongside Nelson Mandela in the 1963-64 Rivonia Trial.
Johannesburg: South African anti-apartheid activist Denis Goldberg, who stood trial alongside Nelson Mandela in the 1963-64 Rivonia Trial and was imprisoned for 22 years by the regime, has died at the age of 87 at his home in Cape Town.
President Cyril Ramaphosa expressed his deep condolences at the passing of Goldberg, one of the most prominent white activists in South Africa’s long struggle against racial repression.
“This is…a moment for all of us to appreciate Denis Goldberg‘s brave dedication to our struggle and his lifelong activism in the interest of – and in the physical presence of – poor and vulnerable communities around our country,” Ramaphosa said in a statement on Thursday.
He died on Wednesday after suffering from lung cancer for years.
Goldberg, whose family had Lithuanian Jewish origins, was born in Cape Town in 1933.
A communist, he joined the African National Congress’ (ANC) armed wing in 1961 to oppose the apartheid regime. He was arrested in 1963 at a clandestine meeting in a Johannesburg suburb and stood trial with several others, including Mandela and Walter Sisulu, in what became know as the Rivonia Trial.
He was convicted on sabotage charges and sentenced to life imprisonment after the judge declined to impose the death sentence.
Being white, Goldberg was not sent to the notorious Robben Island prison along with black political prisoners like Mandela, in keeping with the apartheid regime’s philosophy that the country’s different races should not mix.
Instead, he was jailed in the capital Pretoria, where he spent most of the time in solitary confinement.
He was released in 1985 after 22 years in prison after agreeing with the government not to take part in political violence. He continued his role in the anti-apartheid struggle from exile in London.
Apartheid ended with Mandela’s victory in the country’s first free elections in 1994, but Goldberg did not return to live there until 2002 due to family reasons.
In more recent years, Goldberg criticised failures by the now-ruling ANC to lift enough South Africans out of poverty. He was especially critical of former President Jacob Zuma, who faces several inquiries over corruption allegations during and before his time in office.
“He dedicated his life to achieving the better life we enjoy today and his revolutionary contribution reinforced the non-racial character of our struggle and of our democratic dispensation,” Ramaphosa said.
