Sunday, 17 April 2016

Why The Indian Government Should Release On Bail Kobad Ghandy – Incarcerated In Tihar Jail, Delhi For Over Six Years – On Health And Humanitarian Grounds. Long Term Treatment In A Multi-Specialty Hospital Alone Can Save His Life

By Dr. P.S. Sahni

“What is it that has happened to our people? Why have they lost the power to fight?”
                         - Chinua Achebe: ‘Things Fall Apart’

Kobad Ghandy, arrested in 2009 continues to be incarcerated in Tihar jail with multiple ailments including life threatening ones. He is passionate about the ideology of Maoism. Several decades of his life have been spent for the cause of the indigenous peoples, downtrodden and other oppressed sections of the society.  Constant medical attention and care is not possible within the jail premises. Kobad Ghandy is an under-trial. Anyway, every provision of the Indian Constitution applies to him. Various judgements of the Supreme Court of India which point to and read the right to health as a fundamental right apply as much to Kobad Ghandy as to any other citizen. The WHO and UN have express provisions for entitlement to prisoners to the highest attainable standard of health care.

The 198-paged WHO document (2007) titled “Health in Prisons” is a guide to the essentials in prison health. Certain points raised in this document need to be quoted:

i.                    This guide outlines some of the steps prison system should take to care for prisoners in need. This specially requires that everyone working in prisons understand well how imprisonment effect health and the health needs of prisoners. Other essential elements are being aware of and accepting internationally recommended standards for prison health providing professional care with the same adherence to professional ethics as in other health services and while seeing individual needs as the central feature.
ii.                  People who are in prison have the same right to health care as everyone else.
iii.                Health care staff must have the same professional independence as their professional colleagues who work in the community. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN 1976) establishes the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. This applies to prisoners just as it does to every other human being. Those who are imprisoned retain their fundamental right to enjoy good health and retain their entitlement to a standard of health care that is at least the equivalent of that provided in the wider community.
iv.               The United Nation’s (1990) Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners indicate how the entitlement of prisoners to the highest attainable standard of health care should be delivered. Prisoners shall have access to the health services available in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal situation. When a state deprives people of their liberty it takes on a responsibility to look after their health in terms both of the conditions under which it detains them and of the individual treatment that may be necessary. (emphasis provided)
v.                 All health care staff members who work in prisons must always remember that their first duty to any prisoner who is their patient is clinical. This is underlined in the first of the United Nation’s (1982) Principles of Medical Ethics. Of course the Hippocrates Oath to which all doctors are bound cannot be violated for fear or favour.

Kobad Ghandy’s precarious health

During the pendency of one of the applications moved by Kobad Ghandy before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, a Report was called and received from the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, regarding the medical condition of the accused, Kobad Ghandy. In this official Report it is stated:

“This is to inform you that above said inmate patient is follow-up case of HTN, Decreased vision, Ingrowing Toe Nail with Keloid, BPH, Cervical Spondylitis and getting treatment from GBPH/ Cardiology Department, AIIMS Hospital / Skin Department & Nephrology Department, Jail Orthopedic S/R, Jail Skin S/R and Doctor on duty. The inmate patient recently reviewed at the AIIMS Hospital / Nephrology Department on 22.08.2015 and they advised some investigation and medication and to review after 03 weeks. The investigation has been done and is plan to review at AIIMS Hospital /Nephrology Department on 12.09.2015 as per advice. The inmate was also reviewed at GB Hospital / Cardiology Department on 29.08.2015 and advised to USG KUB with Renal Doppler and oral medication and to review with investigation report after 01 month. The USG KUB with Renal Doppler has been done and the inmate will be reviewed at GB Pant Hospital / Cardiology Department as per advice. The USG KUB shows mild Prostatomegely with Bilateral Renal Artery Doppler normal. The inmate also reviewed at AIIMS Hospital / Skin & Eye Department on 25.08.2015, for his complaint of Ingrowing Toe Nail, the inmate advised local ointment for 04 weeks from the Skin Department and glasses were prescribed and to review after 06 months for his eye problem from Eye Department. The inmate also reviewed by Doctor on duty on 10.09.2015 for his complaint of loose motion since 01 day and advised appropriate medication for the same. At present his general condition is stable and vitals are stable.”
(Reproduced verbatim from order dated 24.09.2015 of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi)

How these ailments affect Kobad Ghandy’s daily life in prison

The hypertension (high blood pressure) gives him breathlessness, palpitations (eerie feeling of heart beats) and severe headache. His cardiac problem accentuates these symptoms apart from giving heaviness in the chest and dull pain. Extreme anxiety results when his heart beat falls to low levels of 60, 50 and even 40 per minute. Getting up urgently from a lying down position – say to visit the toilet – could result in hypo-tensive (low blood pressure) episode and a fall – which at his age could result in fracture of the hip bone and Colles fracture (fracture of the wrist bone, radius). As he suffers from Irritable Bowel Syndrome he has to rush to the toilet due to the urgent need. This process of rushing to and fro is repeated several times from morning to forenoon till he feels that bowel is cleared. Such is the very nature of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. One of the causes for this is the stressful situation in which he is placed. As if this were not enough he has to cope with Benign Hypertrophy of the Prostrate (enlarged prostrate gland); this requires frequent visit to the urinal; he has to get up several times during the night and literally rush to the urinal. The triad of frequency, urgency and nocturnal urination is deeply disturbing and exhausting. It is also a painful attempt as he also has cervical spondylitis, a degenerative process of the seven bones forming the neck part of his spine. His neck movements are restricted and painful. The nerves emanating from the spinal cord to both his arms get compressed resulting in pain, tingling and numbness of both arms and hands. Occasionally this pain is excruciating – described as a ‘feeling of passing of electric current’. Coupled with this is the possibility of  associated VBI (Vertebro-Basilar-Insufficiency) causing blood supply to a part of the brain to be less than normal; this results in episodes of dizziness/nausea/vomiting/attacks of ‘black-outs’. This itself could result in a fall. The concomitant decreased vision in both eyes increases the chances of this fall – remember he has not been provided an attendant/‘sevadar’. A person with cervical spondylitis is expressly forbidden to carry heavy weight, is advised to use a cotton mattress over a hard bed; and H-shaped pillow for the neck at night, as also a cervical collar during the day. Daily physiotherapy, hot/cold therapy for neck is needed but is not practical within the jail premises. Besides a nurse is required to give him several medicines at the right time on a twenty-four hour basis. This, too, has been denied to him. It has been reported that several times he had been shifted to a newer ward. This entails that he has to carry his luggage/belongings himself – a hard labour of sorts. This further plays havoc with his neck ailment.

The in-growing toe nail with keloid causes gnawing pain (akin to being bitten by a rat). This itself causes sleeplessness as there is a constant urge to scratch the skin in and around the keloid which gets itchy. At times the scratching actually increases the itching! One could spend a sleepless night and not be over with it.

It is humanly impossible for any prison inmate to be coordinating visits to different hospitals in Delhi and different departments within the same hospital. The only correct way of treating his host of ailments is to ensure that he is admitted in a multi-specialty hospital under a physician in the Department of Internal Medicine. All other specialists could be visiting him upon referral by the physician. This ensures that comprehensive medical care and treatment gets provided. It also simplifies undertaking a battery of tests and investigations. Till such time that all his ailments are under control he should be allowed to continue to stay in the hospital. It is ironic that Kobad Ghandy was arrested in 2009 while he was visiting Delhi for better medical care of his ailments. Right since his arrest this has been denied to him. Kobad Ghandy is in a unique situation which calls for extraordinary medical attention. Piecemeal medical care will not do. It will only lead to preventable death in the prison. The inhumanity faced by Kobad Ghandy is no different from that faced by the protagonist, K. in Kafka’s The Trial.

The Trial

Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi ordered on 24.09.2015:

“From contents of the above report, it is apparent that Kobad Ghandy is suffering from a host of medical ailments. He is aged about 65 years. His condition has visibly deteriorated during the period the trial of this case has progressed before this Court. Kobad Ghandy is in custody since 20.09.2009. His co-accused Rajinder Kumar has been granted bail (though he has not filed bail bonds and remains in custody).
In these facts and circumstances, I admit the accused Kobad Ghandy to interim bail for a period of three months on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac) and two sureties of the like amount.”

But this bail order brings no relief. Kobad Ghandy sent a public appeal which was published in Mainstream issue dated 27 November, 2015. A few lines need to be quoted:

“Now, once the Delhi case is over, I will have to face serial trials—and that too at the age of 69 with serious heart, kidney and arthritis problems. The cardiologist seriously considered I may need a pace-maker if my pulse continued to drop below 40.

Though the Delhi trial is nearing its end, the learned judge, in September 2015, considered my health conditions so serious as to grant me three months interim bail. Let alone avail of this bail to get proper treatment (impossible in jail), I will now be taken from one court/jail to another all over the country, which is nothing but an attempt to kill me.

Given that all the above ‘cases’ (except the one in Delhi) have questionable legal norms, and given that I have been denied my constitutional right to speedy trials, and, most importantly, given my age and failing health, I request that an appeal be sent out urgently to the government to release me on bail on health/humanitarian grounds.

Please consider this as urgent.”

How bail has eluded Kobad Ghandy in another trial in Andhra Pradesh is a commentary on the sad state of affairs in the judiciary.  The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in its judgement and order dated 10 August, 2011 had granted regular bail to Kobad Ghandy. The State of Andhra Pradesh went in appeal against this order to the Supreme Court which in its order dated 27 January, 2012 granted interim stay of the bail order! This interim stay on grant of bail – a rarity – continued till 18 July, 2014 i.e. for over thirty months!! It was only in July 2014 that the Supreme Court of India directed the District and Sessions Judge in Andhra Pradesh before whom Kobad Ghandy’s case was pending to decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law!!! Two things are pertinent about these orders by the apex court. A citizen expects the apex court to be concerned about his/her liberty being deprived. In Kobad Ghandy’s case the Supreme Court of India stayed the grant of bail for thirty months in the first instance and worse still after thirty months it allowed the stay on bail to continue till the disposal of Kobad Ghandy’s case before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Andhra Pradesh. Thus bail has been stayed by the apex court since 27 January, 2012; and this stay continues till date. Why could the apex court not direct the case to be decided as expeditiously in its 2012 order itself? And why should Kobad Ghandy be made to suffer prison incarceration unnecessarily? In true Orwellian double-speak, bail for Kobad Ghandy has so far meant further stay in jail.

Limits of Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence

At the behest of the powers that be Kobad Ghandy is facing cases emanating from Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Patiala, Surat and Delhi. The Jharkhand case allegedly dates back to the year 2007; 15 cases from 1990’s to 2005; and so on. Kobad Ghandy denies all the charges levelled against him by various State governments. The trial in the Delhi case itself continues in 2016 while the trial in other cases has not even begun. At this rate it would take 4 to 5 decades before the trial in all cases gets completed unless the trials in all the cases run concurrently. Right from the judges of the subordinate judiciary to those of the highest court of the land, as also the political establishment is well aware that the whole attempt is to ensure that Kobad Ghandy dies in this or that jail without the trial being completed in all the cases. There is not even a pretence of ensuring that justice is done.

Kobad Ghandy has publicly stated that his constitutional right to speedy trials has been taken away. It so happens that the Delhi Lt. Governor has ensured that Kobad Ghandy cannot attend cases outside Delhi till the Delhi case is over. The Delhi Lt. Governor ensured this by invoking Section 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the delay in trials is patently due to the legal rigging by the minions of the Indian State, the latter should now be obliged to ensure the following:

1.     Bail for Kobad Ghandy on health and humanitarian grounds.
2.     Shifting of Kobad Ghandy to a multispecialty hospital on a long term basis for his treatment and care at state expense.
3.     Simultaneous trial of all cases through video conferencing while Kobad Ghandy recuperates in a home care set-up after being discharged from the hospital.

Kobad Ghandy has invoked his constitutional right to speedy trials; he had been on a peaceful hunger strike in 2015 within the jail premises against the harassment by the authorities. It is not just Kobad Ghandy who is on trial; it is the Indian judicial system too, which has to innovate and find a creative legal solution so that Kobad Ghandy is set free on bail and gets the best treatment for his fast deteriorating health. After all what would be achieved if Kobad Ghandy dies in jail without proper treatment? Would it end Maoism? – That is the philosophical question.

(Dr. P.S. Sahni, Orthopaedic Surgeon is a member of PIL Watch Group. The group is campaigning on ‘bail not jail’ since 2014 particularly in cases of public importance wherein a socio-political environment has been manufactured which goes against the accused getting justice.
Email: pilwatchgroup@gmail.com)


Saturday, 2 April 2016

Why The Supreme Court of India Should Enlarge Prof. G.N. Saibaba On Bail

By Dr. P.S. Sahni

“A separate ‘bail act’ is under consideration of the Government of India that would limit the discretionary powers of courts in granting relief to an accused.”
- The Times of India, 26.3.2016

On 4th of April, 2016, the Supreme Court of India is scheduled to hear the bail plea of Prof. G.N. Saibaba, lecturer, Ram Lal Anand College, Delhi University and who is presently lodged at Nagpur jail since May, 2014.

Earlier in September 2013 the police had raided Saibaba’s residence and took away what was alleged to be ‘incriminating evidence’. Saibaba had been assisting the Maharashtra police in its probe whenever it descended in Delhi. A charge sheet was filed in the case in February, 2014 and a non-bailable warrant procured against Saibaba. He was eventually arrested. As Prof. Saibaba was cooperating in the probe there was no need for his arrest during the trial period. Ironically he has been arrested under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [UAP Act] as amended from time to time; some of the sections under which he has been charged include S. 13, 18, 20 and 39 of the UAP Act. Under this law anticipatory bail is expressly prohibited. Even the regular bail gets denied under the Act if the court on a perusal of the case diary or the report prepared by the police is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. This goes against the fundamental principles of granting bail to an accused. It is ultra vires the Constitution as the liberty of the accused is unnecessarily curtailed. It is about time that the constitutionality of sections of UAP Act and other similar Draconian laws – under which bail is denied – gets challenged, notwithstanding that the constitutionality of the same may have been upheld earlier. No ‘special law’ should override the fundamental right to liberty of any citizen as enshrined in Indian Constitution.

Prof. Saibaba suffers from Post Polio Residual Paralysis of both lower limbs since age 5 years. He also has weakness of upper limbs. He suffers from acute low back pain due to the disturbed anatomical configuration of his bones and spine. He also suffers from cardiac problem and has high blood pressure. Prof. Saibaba is wheel chair bound and needs the services of an attendant for activities of daily living.

On 30 June, 2015 Prof. Saibaba was granted conditional bail on medical grounds for three months by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court presided over by the Chief Justice; and on 4 September, 2015 the bail was extended till 31 December, 2105. The bail was cancelled on 23 December, 2015 by a Single Judge of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court! The fact that during the period of bail there is nothing on state record to show that Prof. Saibaba has attempted to disturb or disrupt justice should have paved the way for bail. Ironically on 29 February, 2016 the Supreme Court passed the following order:

“We have perused the counter affidavit as also the additional affidavit filed by the State of Maharashtra. We have also heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It emerges that out of 34 witnesses, cited by the prosecution, some of the material witnesses have already been examined whereas 8 further material witnesses are yet to be examined. …
At the present moment, we consider it just and appropriate to direct the trial court to hold day-to-day trial with effect from 04.03.2016 so as to record the statements of all material witnesses. The statements of the material witnesses, referred to hereinabove, be positively concluded before the next date of hearing.
List again on 04.04.2016.”

There is an apparent apprehension that if enlarged on bail, Prof. Saibaba would jump bail and flee the country or otherwise influence material witnesses – both these assumptions are unfounded. Far from fleeing in the physical sense Prof. Saibaba is wheelchair bound and is not even able to stand on his own feet. Besides there is not even an allegation against him that he has ever tried to influence witnesses.
We had sent an email to Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer on 22 September, 2014 apprising him of Prof. Saibaba being denied bail. Justice Iyer’s deteriorating health by then ensured no reply from his side. He passed away on 4 December, 2014. The email is available at our blog: http://pilwatchgroup.blogspot.in/2014/09/email-to-justice-vr-krishna-iyer-on.html


How late Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer would have adjudicated on the issue: Glimpses from his treatise on bail.

“Prof. G.N. Saibaba has moved the Supreme Court of India for bail, having been arrested in May 2014 under various provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 as amended from time to time. During this period the petitioner has been out on bail for medical treatment for about six months. The examination of the material witnesses is underway.

Our justice system, even in grave cases, suffers from slow motion syndrome which is lethal to “fair trial”, whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of social justice since the community, as a whole, is concerned in the criminal being condignly and finally punished within a reasonable time and the innocent being absolved from the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings. This is by the way, although it is important that judicial business management by engineering, not tinkering, so as to produce efficient expedition, is an urgent, high-priority item on the agenda of court reform, to be radically undertaken none too soon.

Against the backdrop of social and individual facts the court must consider the motion for bail. The correct legal approach has been clouded in the past by focus on the ferocity of the crime to the neglect of the real purposes of bail or jail and indifferent to many other sensitive and sensible circumstances which deserve judicial notice. The whole issue, going by decisional material and legal literature has been relegated to a twilight zone of the criminal justice system. Courts have often acted intuitively or reacted traditionally, so much the fate of applicants for bail at the High Court level and in the Supreme Court, has largely hinged on the hunch of the bench as an expression of ‘judicial discretion’. A scientific treatment is the desideratum.

The Code is cryptic on this topic and the court prefers to be tacit, be the order custodial or not. And yet, the issue is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden on the public treasury, all of which insists that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process. Personal liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Art. 21 that the crucial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community. To glamorise impressionistic orders as discretionary may, on occasions, make a litigative gamble, decisive of a fundamental right. After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of procedure established by ‘law’. The last four words of Art. 21 are the life of that human right.

The doctrine of Police Power, constitutionally validates punitive processes for the maintenance of public order, security of the State, national integrity and the interest of the public generally. Even so, having regard to the solemn issue involved, deprivation of personal freedom, ephemeral or enduring, must be founded on the most serious considerations relevant to the welfare objectives of society specified in the Constitution.

What, then, is ‘judicial discretion’ in this bail context? In the elegant words of Benjamin Cardozo:
The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to ‘the primordial necessity of order in the social life’. Wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains.”

Even so it is useful to notice the tart terms of Lord Camden that
“the discretion of a judge is the law of tyrants: it is always unknown, it is different in different men; it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper and passion. In the best it is oftentimes caprice; in the worst it is every vice folly and passion to which human nature is liable. . . . "

Some jurists have regarded the term ‘judicial discretion’ as a misnomer. Nevertheless, the vesting of discretion is the unspoken but inescapable silent command of our judicial system, and those who exercise it will remember that:
“discretion, when applied to a court of justice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humor; it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular.”
“An appeal to a judge’s discretion is an appeal to his judicial conscience. The discretion must be exercised, not in opposition to, but in accordance with, established principles of law.”

Having grasped the core concept of judicial discretion and the constitutional perspective in which the Court must operate public policy by a restraint on liberty, we have to proceed to see what are the relevant criteria for grant or refusal of bail. What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J. said:
“I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.”

This theme was developed by Lord Russel of Killowen C. J., when he charged the grand jury at Salisbury Assizes, 1899:
“....it was the duty of magistrates to admit accused persons to bail, wherever practicable, unless there were strong grounds for supposing that such persons would not appear to take their trial.”
In Archbold it is stated that:
The proper test of whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the defendant will appear to take his trial…
The test should be applied by reference to the following considerations:
          (1) The nature of the accusation…
(2) The nature of the evidence in support of the accusation…
(3) The severity of the punishment which conviction will entail....
(4) Whether the sureties are independent, or indemnified by the accused person...

Perhaps, this is an overly simplistic statement and one must remember the constitutional focus in Arts. 21 and 19 before following diffuse observations and practices in the English system. Even in England there is a growing awareness that the working of the bail system requires a second look from the point of view of correct legal criteria and sound principles, as has been pointed out by Dr. Bottomley.

Let us have a glance at the pros and cons and the true principle around which other relevant factors must revolve. When the case is finally disposed of and a person is sentenced to incarceration, things stand on a different footing. We are concerned with the penultimate stage and the principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant who seeks to be liberated, to take judgement and serve sentence in the event of the court punishing him with imprisonment.

It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record – particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society.

We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be demoted. In the United States, which has a constitutional perspective close to ours, the function of bail is limited; ‘community roots’ of the applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation’s Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a policy favouring release justly sensible.

Having regard to this constellation of considerations, carefully viewed in the jurisprudential setting above silhouetted, we are of the view that, subject to certain safeguards, the petitioner Prof. G.N. Saibaba is eligible to be enlarged on bail.”

[Extensive and exclusive quotes are from the case Babu Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 527
Bench: Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice D.A. Desai]
(Dr. P.S. Sahni, Orthopaedic Surgeon is a member of PIL Watch Group. The group is campaigning on ‘bail not jail’ since 2014 particularly in cases of public importance wherein a socio-political environment has been manufactured which goes against the accused getting justice; the philosophical basis and theoretical framework being provided by Justice Krishna Iyer’s treatise on bail)

Email: pilwatchgroup@gmail.com)