SOS e - Clarion Of Dalit

IT IS A FORUM TOWARDS PROTECTING THE CIVIL , HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE OPPRESSED - DALITS , MINORITIES & TRIBALS.The Criminal - Police - Politician - Judge - Criminals Nexus is trying to silence me in many ways. If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA together with jurisdictional police & District Magistrate will be responsible for it. Secure Mail : Naag@torbox3uiot6wchz.onion

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Police are also Human Beings

S.O.S   e - Clarion  Of  Dalit  -  Weekly  Newspaper  On  Web 
Working  For  The  Rights  &  Survival  Of  The Oppressed
Editor: NAGARAJA.M.R… VOL.10 issue.23…… .08/06/2016


Editorial : Police Constables =  Human Beings
An Appeal to National Human rights Commission and  Supreme Court of India

   Police  Constables  are also Human Beings  ,  one among us  who has chosen the job of policing for livelihood.  Since decades  their human rights , constitutional rights are violated , their voices seeking justice are suppressed by superior police officers. The Police  Constables who tried to  organize them ,  who asked for justice were dismissed from police service.
  It has a boomerang effect on vulnerable sections of  society. The police constables  who work under extreme psychological stress , who’s very own rights are violated   are  prone to committing rights violations of  the weaker people. Till we as a society , government , Superior Police Officers  start respecting the human rights of Police constables , we can not expect police constables to respect human rights of others. It is simple Give Respect & Take Respect.
   Hereby , We  appeal to Honourable National Human Rights Commission of India  and Honourable Supreme Court of India , to register following  PILs and to protect the Human Rights of  both Police Constables and  the Public alike.
   Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Your’s sincerely ,
Nagaraja.M.R.


Karnataka: 50000 cops apply for ‘harassment leave’; may go on strike


The police personnel are protesting against harassment by senior officers in the name of discipline.


 Akhila Karnataka Police Maha Sangha is leading the movement, which will be a major embarrassment to the state government if it is successful. (Representational Image)

BENGALURU: In a first of its kind in the state, police personnel are planning to go on mass leave on June 4, in protest against the harassment by senior officers in the name of discipline, meagre salary, no proper leaves and other issues faced on the professional front.
It has been learned that more than 50,000 policemen across the state have already applied for ‘Harassment Leave’ on June 4. However, police heads of all districts have issued orders to all police station heads directing them not to grant leave to any staff on that day.
Akhila Karnataka Police Maha Sangha is leading the movement, which will be a major embarrassment to the state government if it is successful. V. Shashidhar, the Founder President of the Organisation, told Deccan Chronicle that the movement gained momentum after a few policemen approached him with the plan of protesting against the system.
“They told me that all the policemen should go on leave on the same day to pass a strong message to the government and they requested me to lead the movement, as there is no proper forum to fight for the rights of policemen. Then I started working towards it and it gained support from thousands of policemen and also various other organisations,” Shashidhar said.
“There are around 85,000 policemen in the state. In this, 65,000 staff is constabulary, which is the most harassed section. Forget decent salary, they are not even able to spend time with their families. They don’t get leaves even during emergency situations. Even for small issues, they have to face suspensions in the name of ‘disciplinary action’. Their working condition is pathetic as they have to work more than 15 hours at a stretch without basic amenities. This is nothing but gross violation of human rights. Despite repeated requests for the last 25-30 years the governments have not done anything to sort out the issues and even courts did not rule in favour of policemen. Thus, they have reached threshold and are ready to give a clear message to the government this time,” he said.
As it is obvious that the higher ups won’t grant leave on June 4, the policemen have reportedly decided to not turn up for work on that day. “However, they won’t come on streets to protest as they belong to disciplinary force. Instead, we are requesting their family members to protest on behalf of them. Also, various organisations like Karnataka Rakshana Vedike have supported our cause and will join hands with us,” Shashidhar added.

PIL –  Treat  Police  Constables Humanely
An  Appeal to National Human Rights Commission of  India and Supreme Court of  India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.         OF    2016


IN THE MATTER OF


NAGARAJA . M.R

editor ,  SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice
# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,
Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State
.
....Petitioner

Versus

Honourable   Chief Secretary , Government of Karnataka  & Others

....Respondents



PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.


To ,
1. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship's Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.
2. Hon’ble Chairman , National Human Rights Commission of India

The Humble petition of the   Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. Facts of the case:

Police  constables are  also Human Beings and must be treated as such by superior officers  and all.
As every other Human Being , police  constables also has got human rights  of equality , dignity of  labor ,  equitable justice.
As Indian  citizens  police  constables has constitutionally guaranteed  rights of equality , equitable justice , etc.
Police constables  are  appointed  , trained for the very specific purpose of maintaining law , order and detecting crimes.
When  police  constables  are treated  humanely by superiors and others , they will reciprocate the same.
Police constables are always  under the threat of criminals ,  anti nationals , mafia. But they are not paid any compensation by government  when murdered by criminals , on the lines of soldiers becoming martyr  during war.
Government has enacted laws  enforcing   equal pay for equal work ,  1 earned leave for  20 working days , maximum of 8  working hours , one paid weekly off after 48 working hours or 6 days , for all private & public sector employees. In  case  of urgency over time work can be allotted  to worker with his willingness ( not forced )  at the rate of double wages. For violation of these  laws , labor department officials will prosecute guilty  company executives.
Since decades , police constables  are  not paid equal wages in comparison to their counterparts in other states and  with people of their own rank like teachers , electric line mans , etc in our state itself.  Everyday  they are forced to work beyond 8 hours without any additional wages. Leaves are not sanctioned. They are  addressed  by first name in vulgar language by superior officers  and forced to  do menial jobs  by superior officers which are not part of police manual  or service rules. Those who refuse to do it are  dismissed by superior officers  citing indiscipline. Day in day out every second  police constables are treated inhumanely by superior  officers.  POLICE  CONSTABLES  HUMAN RIGHTS  ARE VIOLATED  by superior officers since decades. These  police constables  work under extreme psychological stress and  some police constables  vent out their  anger  on innocents , suspects in lock up  by using 3rd degree torture methods. Some other constables  have fired at their  superior officers  and some have gone to the extreme of  committing  suicide.
In the name of discipline , job security , the doors  to legal redress of grievances  are shut for police constables.
Till  violation of Human Rights of Police  Constables are not  stopped , you can not stop  human rights violations by police , 3rd degree torture of  innocents , lock up deaths  by police.


2. Question(s) of Law:
Is it right for  senior government officials , police officers , ministers ,  judges   to violate HUMAN RIGHTS , CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS  of Police Constables ?

3. Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , protection of  constitutional rights , human rights of police constables  and Prosecution of  guilty judges , police officers , IAS  officers , ministers.


4. Averment: 
Please read following cases at website mentioned below :
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/115594/these-cops-much-abused-bosses.html  ,


Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties , to respect the Human Rights , Constitutional Rights  of police constables.


That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the chief secretaries of all stae governments ,  the concerned public servants  in the present case , to perform their duties.
b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

c. To legally prosecute  guilty judges , police officers , IAS  officers , ministers  and their family  members who are  ill treating ( under threat )  police constables and violating their human rights , constitutional  rights.
d. To  immediately ban  colonial era system of providing  police constables as orderlies  to senior government officials ,  judges , ministers.
e. To  immediately order  respective state governments to pay  over time pay to all police  constables  with  back wages , over time wages  since their appointment till date.
f.  To immediately order state governments to start process of police constables recruitment.
g. To give   staggered weekly off  to  all  police  constables  without  fail.
h. To order  state governments to  strictly pay equal wages for equal work  to all police constables in comparison to  their  counter parts in other states and  state government employees of their same rank in their own states.
i. To order state governments  to pay compensation to police  constables who  die in the line of duty  on par with military compensation.
j. To order state government to constitute district committees comprising of district head of police , doctor , psychiatrist , behavior specialist and human rights expert , providing a forum for  victimized police constables to air their grievances and in turn getting counseling , grievance redress. This will go a long way in controlling 3rd degree torture of innocents by police , lock up deaths also.


FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY. 


Dated : 29th  April   2016 …………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place :   Mysuru , India…………………….   PETITIONER-IN-PERSON 


PIL –  Ban  Orderly  services  performed by Police Constables , others
An  Appeal to National Human Rights Commission of  India and Supreme Court of  India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.          OF 2016


IN THE MATTER OF


NAGARAJA . M.R

editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice
# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,
Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State
.
....Petitioner

Versus

Honourable   Chief Secretary , Government of Karnataka  & Others

....Respondents



PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.


To ,
1. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship's Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.
2. Hon’ble Chairman , National Human Rights Commission of India


The Humble petition of the   Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :
1. Facts of the case:
Police constables  are  appointed  , trained for the very specific purpose of maintaining law , order and detecting crimes.
Dalayaths , peons  in various state & central government departments  are appointed , trained  for the very specific   purpose of  assisting their  immediate superior in  official duties.
Police constables , Peons , Dalayaths are  PUBLIC  SERVANTS  / GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS  paid from public exchequer  to  do  public duties.
Police  Constables ,  Peons , Dalayaths  are  Human Beings , deserve respect  by all including  their superiors.
Police  Constables ,  Peons , Dalayaths  are  ill treated , they are treated as  SLAVES  / Bonded  Labourers  by  their superior judges , police officers , IAS  officers , Ministers , etc.  They  are  forced to do menial jobs  (other than official duties )  like   clearing  night soil from sewage line ,  washing  under wears , clothes of officer  &  his family members ,  polishing shoes of  officers , their family members ,  washing  clothes , cooking utensils , etc.
If  the officer  & his  family members are suffering from  PARALYSIS   or any other  health problems  which makes them  unable to perform their own work , then  they can appoint private persons  by paying from their personal pockets.

2. Question(s) of Law:
Is it right for  senior government officials  to  force ( under  threat ) their  subordinate officials to  do  officer’s   personal , private  work ?

3. Grounds:
Requests for equitable justice , protection of  constitutional rights , human rights of police constables , dalayaths , peons and Prosecution of  guilty judges , police officers , IAS  officers , ministers.


4. Averment: 
Please read following cases at website mentioned below :
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/115594/these-cops-much-abused-bosses.html  ,


Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties , to respect the rights  of police constables ,  dalayaths , peons. To assign proper official duties to police constables , dalayaths & peons.


That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants  in the present case , to perform their duties.
b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

c. To legally prosecute  guilty judges , police officers , IAS  officers , ministers  and their family  members who are  ill treating ( under threat )  police constables , dalayaths , peons.
d. To  immediately ban  colonial era system of providing orderlies  to senior government officials.


FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY. 


Dated : 20th  April   2016 …………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place :   Mysuru , India…………………….   PETITIONER-IN-PERSON 


Pocket  Book for Police – Human Rights Standards

Understanding the Psychology of Police Misconduct
By Brian D. Fitch, PhD, Lieutenant, Los Angeles, California, Sheriff’s Department

Law enforcement is a unique profession, with officers experiencing a host of freedoms not available to the general public, including the application of deadly force, high-speed driving, and seizing personal property. While these liberties may be necessary, they also can create opportunities for wrongdoing, especially if such behavior is likely to go undetected because of poor supervision. The embarrassment caused by misconduct can damage the public trust, undermine officer morale, and expose agencies to unnecessary—and, in many cases, costly—litigation.1 Consequently, a clear understanding of the psychology underlying unethical behavior is critical to every law enforcement supervisor and manager at every level of an organization, regardless of one’s agency or mission.
Law enforcement agencies go to great lengths to recruit, hire, and train only the most qualified applicants—candidates who have already demonstrated a track record of good moral values and ethical conduct. Similarly, most officers support the agency, its values, and its mission, performing their duties ethically while avoiding any misconduct or abuse of authority. Yet despite the best efforts of organizations everywhere, it seems that one does not have to look very far these days to find examples of police misconduct, particularly in the popular press.2 Even more disturbing, however, is that many of the officers engaged in immoral or unethical behavior previously demonstrated good service records, absent any of the “evil” typically associated with corruption or abuse.
While it is probably true that at least some of the officers who engage in illicit activities managed somehow to slip through the cracks in the hiring process and simply continued their unethical ways, this account fails to explain how otherwise good officers become involved in misconduct. The purpose of this article is to familiarize law enforcement managers and supervisors with the cognitive rationalizations that can contribute to unethical behavior. The article also offers strategies and suggestions intended to mitigate misconduct, before it actually occurs, by developing a culture of ethics.

Moral Responsibility and Disengagement
Most law enforcement professionals are, at their core, good, ethical, and caring people. Despite the overuse of a popular cliché, many officers do in fact enter law enforcement because they want to make a positive difference in their communities. Officers frequently espouse strong, positive moral values while working diligently—in many cases, at great personal risk—to bring dangerous criminals to justice. Doing so provides officers with a strong sense of personal satisfaction and self-worth. As a result, most officers do not—and in many cases cannot—engage in unethical conduct unless they can somehow justify to themselves the morality of their actions.3
Decades of empirical research have supported the idea that whenever a person’s behaviors are inconsistent with their attitudes or beliefs, the individual will experience a state of psychological tension—a phenomenon referred to as cognitive dissonance. 4 Because this tension is uncomfortable, people will modify any contradictory beliefs or behaviors in ways intended to reduce or eliminate discomfort. Officers can reduce psychological tension by changing one or more of their cognitions—that is, by modifying how they think about their actions and the consequences of those behaviors—or by adjusting their activities, attitudes, or beliefs in ways that are consistent with their values and self-image. Generally speaking, an officer will modify the cognition that is least resistant to change, which, in most cases, tends to be the officer’s attitudes, not behaviors.
One of the simplest ways that officers can reduce the psychological discomfort that accompanies misconduct is to cognitively restructure unethical behaviors in ways that make them seem personally and socially acceptable, thereby allowing officers to behave immorally while preserving their self-image as ethically good people. The following is a partial list of common rationalizations that officers can use to neutralize or excuse unethical conduct:5
Table 1: Rationalizing Misconduct
StrategyDescription
Denial of VictimAlleging that because there is no legitimate victim, there is no misconduct.
Victim of CircumstanceBehaving improperly because the officer had no other choice, either because of peer pressure or unethical supervision.
Denial of InjuryBecause nobody was hurt by the officer’s action, no misconduct actually occurred.
Advantageous ComparisonsMinimizing or excusing one’s own wrongdoing by comparing it to the more egregious behavior of others.
Higher CauseBreaking the rules because of some higher calling—that is, removing a known felon from the streets.
Blame the VictimThe victim invited any suffering or misconduct by breaking the law in the first place.
DehumanizationUsing euphemistic language to dehumanize people, thereby making them easier to victimize.
Diffusion of ResponsibilityRelying on the diffusion of responsibility among the involved parties to excuse misconduct.

Denial of victim. Officers who rely on this tactic argue that because no victim exists, no real harm has been done. It is probably safe to suggest that officers do not generally regard drug dealers, thieves, and sexual predators as bona fide victims, regardless of the nature of an officer’s conduct. An officer, for instance, who takes money from a suspected drug dealer during the service of a search warrant might argue that because the dealer acquired the currency illegally, the dealer was never actually entitled to the proceeds. Rather, the money belongs to whoever possesses it at the time.
Victim of circumstance. Officers who utilize this method convince themselves that they behaved improperly only because they had no other choice. Officers may claim that they were the victims of peer pressure, an unethical supervisor, or an environment where “everyone else is doing it,” so what else could they possibly have done? Regardless of the context, these officers excuse their conduct by alleging that they had no alternative but to act unethically.
Denial of injury. Using this form of rationalization, officers persuade themselves that because nobody was actually hurt by their actions, their behavior was not really immoral. This explanation is especially common in cases involving drugs, stolen property, or large amounts of untraceable cash where it can be difficult, if not impossible, to identify an injured party. Officers who use this tactic may further neutralize their deviant conduct by comparing it to the harm being done by the drug dealer from whom the money was stolen.
Advantageous comparisons. Officers who depend on this explanation rely on selective social comparisons to defend their conduct. Officers who falsify a police report to convict a suspected drug dealer, for example, might defend their actions by minimizing their participation or the frequency of their unethical behavior, while at the same time vilifying a coworker as someone who “lies all the time on reports.” In comparison to an officer who routinely falsifies reports, the first officer’s conduct can seem less egregious.
Higher cause. Officers who practice this type of cognitive restructuring argue that sometimes, it may be necessary to break certain rules to serve a higher calling or to achieve a more important goal. An officer who conducts an unlawful search to uncover evidence against a suspected pedophile might reason that the nature of the crime justifies breaking the rules. “The ends justify the means,” officers might assert—suggesting that they did what was necessary, regardless of the legality or morality of their conduct, to put a dangerous criminal behind bars. This form of rationalization can be especially disturbing because it goes beyond merely excusing or justifying deviant behavior to the point of actually glorifying certain forms of wrongdoing in the name of “justice” or “the greater good.”
Blame the victim. An officer who uses this form of justification blames the victim for any misconduct or abuse. If, for instance, officers use unreasonable force on a suspected drug dealer, they can simply argue that the victim brought on this suffering by violating the law. “If the dealer doesn’t want to get beat up, the dealer should obey the law,” the officer might reason. “I’m not using force on law-abiding citizens, only on drug dealers; they give up their rights when they break the rules.” By assigning blame to the victim, the officer not only finds a way to excuse any wrongdoing, but also a way to feel sanctimonious about doing so.
Dehumanization. The amount of guilt or shame officers feel for behaving unethically depends, at least in part, on how they regard the person being abused. To avoid the feelings of self-censorship or guilt that often accompany misconduct, officers can employ euphemistic language to strip victims of their humanity. Using terms like “dirtbag” to describe law violators has the effect of dehumanizing intended targets, generally making it easier for officers to justify, ignore, or minimize the harmful effects of their actions, while at the same time reducing their personal responsibility for behaving in ways that they know are wrong.
Diffusion of responsibility. An officer who uses this excuse relies on the shared participation—and, by extension, the shared guilt—of everyone involved in an incident of misconduct to excuse or reduce any personal culpability. With each additional accomplice, every individual officer is seen as that much less responsible for any wrongdoing that might have occurred. If, for instance, money is stolen from an arrestee, officers might assert that there were many officers at the crime scene who could have done this, so an individual cannot be blamed. Similarly, if ten officers were involved in the service of a search warrant, then each officer is only one-tenth responsible for any misconduct that occurs.

Misconduct’s Slippery Slope
It is important to note that most officers do not jump headfirst into large-scale misconduct—instead, they weigh in gradually in a process referred to as incrementalism.6 The strength and ease with which officers can rationalize unethical behavior also depends, at least in part, on how they view their conduct, the people harmed by their actions, and the consequences that flow from their actions. An officer’s initial slide down the slippery slope of misconduct can begin with nothing more than simple policy violations that, if left unchecked, generate a mild feeling of psychological tension or discomfort. However, by learning to rationalize wrongdoing in ways that make it psychologically and morally acceptable, officers are able to relieve any feelings of distress or discomfort, effectively disengaging their moral compasses.
Officers can employ cognitive rationalizations prospectively (before the corrupt act) to forestall guilt and resistance, or retrospectively (after the misconduct) to erase any regrets. In either case, the more frequently an officer rationalizes deviant behavior, the easier each subsequent instance of misconduct becomes.7This is because the more frequently officers employ rationalizations, the easier it becomes to activate similar thought patterns in the future. With time and repeated experience, rationalizations can eventually become part of the habitual, automatic, effortless ways that officers think about themselves, their duties, and the consequences of their actions, eventually allowing officers to engage in increasingly egregious acts of misconduct with little, if any, of the guilt or shame commonly associated with wrongdoing.
As officers learn to pay less attention to the morality of their actions, the ways they think about misconduct—that is, their attitudes, beliefs, and values—may begin to change as well. Officers can begin defining behaviors that were once seen as unethical or immoral as necessary parts of completing their assigned duties. Even more troubling, however, is that once rationalizations become part of an agency’s dominant culture, they can alter the ways officers define misconduct, particularly if wrongdoings are rewarded either informally by an officer’s peer group or formally by the organization.

Ethics Education
Law enforcement agencies throughout the United States, as well as abroad, have begun to recognize the importance of ethics training. While such attention represents a significant step in the right direction, ethical instruction is often limited to little more than the discussion and development of proper moral values—an approach commonly referred to as character education.8 Proponents of this method suggest that officers who possess the right values—and, by extension, the right character—will always do the right thing, regardless of the circumstances. Although few people would argue with the importance of good moral values and character, ethical decisions are not always simple.
Before officers can act ethically, they must recognize the moral nature of a situation; decide on a specific and, hopefully, ethical course of action; possess the requisite moral motivation to take action; and demonstrate the character necessary to follow through with his decision.9 To further complicate matters, even the best of intentions can be thwarted by peer pressure or fear of retaliation. For example, the 2003 National Business Ethics Survey found that approximately 40 percent of those surveyed would not report misconduct if they observed it because of fear of reprisal from management.10
This cloud does, however, contain a silver lining. Research has demonstrated that ethics education can assist officers in better navigating moral challenges by increasing ethical awareness and moral reasoning—two critical aspects of ethical decision making.11 However, conducting meaningful ethics education requires more than lengthy philosophical lectures on the importance of character. Rather, instructors should focus on facilitating a dialogue that challenges officers on key moral issues and assumptions; tests their reasoning and decision-making skills; and allows them to share their experiences in a safe, supportive environment.12
For ethics education to be truly effective, organizations must make moral discussions a regular part of the agency’s training program. In the same way that officers routinely train in defensive tactics, firearms, and law to better prime them for field duties, officers should prepare equally well for any ethical issues they might encounter.13 Supervisors can stimulate ethical discussions with a video documentary, news clip, or fictional story. Regardless of the stimulus, however, the more frequently officers discuss ethics, the better able they will be to recognize a moral dilemma, make the appropriate ethical decision, and demonstrate the moral courage necessary to behave honorably.
Next, law enforcement agencies must establish a clear code of ethical conduct, including a set of core values and mission statement. Merely establishing a code of ethical conduct is not enough, however; the department’s top management must lead by example. It is important to remember that a code of conduct applies equally to employees at all levels of an organization.14 As most leaders can confirm from experience, officers can be surprisingly quick to point out any inconsistencies between the organization’s stated values and the conduct of senior management. If leaders expect officers to behave ethically, leaders must model the way.
Departments must also work to create systems that reward ethical conduct and punish unethical behavior.15 Core values and codes of conduct are of little value if they are not supported by wider agency objectives that reward ethical actions. Not only should law enforcement organizations reward officers for behaving ethically, they must also seriously address officers’ ethical concerns by thoroughly investigating any allegations, while protecting the confidentiality of those reporting such incidents. And, finally, agencies should strive to create an open environment where ethical issues can be discussed without fear of punishment or reprisal.
In the end, mitigating and, hopefully, eliminating misconduct require regular ethics training, high ethical standards, appropriate reward systems, and a culture in which ethical issues are discussed freely. While the responsibility for creating a culture of ethics rests with leadership, individual officers must do their part to behave ethically, support the moral conduct of others, and challenge misconduct in all its forms. Only by remaining vigilant to the psychology of misconduct can law enforcement professionals focus attention back on the positive aspects of their profession, while enjoying the high levels of public trust necessary to do their jobs. ■



United Nations

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment


Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),
Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,
Have agreed as follows:

Part I

Article 1

  1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
  2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

  1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
  2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
  3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

  1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
  2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

  1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
  2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

  1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
    1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
    2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
    3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
  2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
  3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 6

  1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
  2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
  3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
  4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 7

  1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
  2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
  3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

Article 8

  1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
  2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
  3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
  4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.

Article 9

  1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
  2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.

Article 10

  1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.
  2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such persons.

Article 11

Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 13

Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.

Article 14

  1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation.
  2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other person to compensation which may exist under national law.

Article 15

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

Article 16

  1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
  2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion.

Article 17

  1. There shall be established a Committee against Torture (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided. The Committee shall consist of 10 experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field of human rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity. The experts shall be elected by the States Parties, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution and to the usefulness of the participation of some persons having legal experience.
  2. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals. States Parties shall bear in mind the usefulness of nominating persons who are also members of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and are willing to serve on the Committee against Torture.
  3. Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at biennial meetings of States Parties convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At those meetings, for which two thirds of the States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting.
  4. The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of this Convention. At least four months before the date of each election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a letter to the States Parties inviting them to submit their nominations within three months. The Secretary-General shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all persons thus nominated, indicating the States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties.
  5. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election if renominated. However, the term of five of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election the names of these five members shall be chosen by lot by the chairman of the meeting referred to in paragraph 3.
  6. If a member of the Committee dies or resigns or for any other cause can no longer perform his Committee duties, the State Party which nominated him shall appoint another expert from among its nationals to serve for the remainder of his term, subject to the approval of the majority of the States Parties. The approval shall be considered given unless half or more of the States Parties respond negatively within six weeks after having been informed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the proposed appointment.
  7. States Parties shall be responsible for the expenses of the members of the Committee while they are in performance of Committee duties.

Article 18

  1. The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years. They may be re-elected.
  2. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall provide, inter alia, that
    1. Six members shall constitute a quorum;
    2. Decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members present.
  3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under this Convention.
  4. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee. After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as shall be provided in its rules of procedure.
  5. The State Parties shall be responsible for expenses incurred in connection with the holding of meetings of the States Parties and of the Committee, including reimbursement of the United Nations for any expenses, such as the cost of staff and facilities, incurred by the United Nations pursuant to paragraph 3 above.

Article 19

  1. The States Parties shall submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this Convention, within one year after the entry into force of this Convention for the State Party concerned. Thereafter the States Parties shall submit supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken, and such other reports as the Committee may request.
  2. The Secretary-General shall transmit the reports to all States Parties.
  3. [Each report shall be considered by the Committee which may make such comments or suggestions on the report as it considers appropriate, and shall forward these to the State Party concerned. That State Party may respond with any observations it chooses to the Committee.
  4. The Committee may, at its discretion, decide to include any comments or suggestions made by it in accordance with paragraph 3, together with the observations thereon received from the State Party concerned, in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. If so requested by the State Party concerned, the Committee may also include a copy of the report submitted under paragraph 1.]

Article 20

  1. If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to co-operate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned.
  2. Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State Party concerned as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee may, if it decides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently.
  3. If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee shall seek the co-operation of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory.
  4. After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee shall transmit these findings to the State Party concerned together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in view of the situation.
  5. All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this article shall be confidential, and at all stages of the proceedings the co-operation of the State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard to an inquiry made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report made in accordance with article 24.

Article 21

  1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article 3 that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure:
    1. If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions of this Convention, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three months after the receipt of the communication the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter which should include, to the extent possible and pertinent, references to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending, or available in the matter.
    2. If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee by notice given to the Committee and to the other State.
    3. The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it under this article only after it has ascertained that all domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.
    4. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.
    5. Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (c), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the obligations provided for in the present Convention. For this purpose, the Committee may, when appropriate, set up an ad hoc conciliation commission.
    6. In any matter referred to it under this article, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), to supply any relevant information.
    7. The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), shall have the right to be represented when the matter is being considered by the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing.
    8. The Committee shall, within 12 months after the date of receipt of notice under subparagraph (b), submit a report.
      1. If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.
      2. If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall be attached to the report.
In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned.
  1. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by any State Party shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.

Article 22

  1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party to the Convention which has not made such a declaration.
  2. The Committee shall consider inadmissible any communication under this article which is anonymous, or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of this Convention.
  3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, the Committee shall bring any communication submitted to it under this article to the attention of the State Party to this Convention which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 and is alleged to be violating any provisions of the Convention. Within six months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State.
  4. The Committee shall consider communications received under this article in the light of all information made available to it by or on behalf of the individual and by the State Party concerned.
  5. The Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual under this article unless it has ascertained that:
    1. The same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement;
    2. The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.
  6. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.
  7. The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the individual.
  8. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit parties thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by or on behalf of an individual shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.

Article 23

The members of the Committee, and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed under article 21, paragraph 1 (e), shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts on missions for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

Article 24

The Committee shall submit an annual report on its activities under this Convention to the States Parties and to the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Part III

Article 25

  1. This Convention is open for signature by all States.
  2. This Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 26

This Convention is open to accession by all States. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 27

  1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.
  2. For each State ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 28

  1. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20.
  2. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article may, at any time, withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 29

  1. Any State Party to this Convention may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General shall thereupon communicate the proposed amendment to the States Parties to this Convention with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposal. In the event that within four months from the date of such communication at least one third of the State Parties favours such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted by the Secretary-General to all the States Parties for acceptance.
  2. An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 shall enter into force when two thirds of the States Parties to this Convention have notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they have accepted it in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
  3. When amendments enter into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of this Convention and any earlier amendments which they have accepted.

Article 30

  1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation, shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.
  2. Each State may at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by the preceding paragraph. The other States Parties shall not be bound by the preceding paragraph with respect to any State Party having made such a reservation.
  3. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with the preceding paragraph may at any time withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 31

  1. A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.
  2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective. Nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective.
  3. Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State.

Article 32

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all members of the United Nations and all States which have signed this Convention or acceded to it, or the following particulars:
  1. Signatures, ratifications and accessions under articles 25 and 26;
  2. The date of entry into force of this Convention under article 27, and the date of the entry into force of any amendments under article 29;
  3. Denunciations under article 31.

Article 33

  1. This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.
  2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of this Convention to all States.

PIL –  Why NOT 3rd degree Torture , Death Sentence to  Corrupt Judges , Police & Doctors
An  Appeal to National Human Rights Commission of  India and Supreme Court of  India




IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2015


IN THE MATTER OF 


NAGARAJA . M.R 

editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice
# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,
Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State
.
....Petitioner

Versus 

Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India & Others 

....Respondents 



PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 


To ,
1. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship's Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.
                  2. Hon’ble Chairman , National Human Rights Commission of India


The Humble petition of the  Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :


1. Facts of the case:
"Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight among themselves for
power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt public servants , corrupt judges , corrupt  police & corrupt  doctors. 
2.  some  unfit people  based on their  connections , money power , etc  everything else other than MERIT  , HONESTY , INTEGRITY  have  become  Judges ,  Police & Doctors. These  unfit people have used criminal means for their selection and indulge in crimes by  selling their official duties for a price. Recent example : Delhi  Judge Selection Examination , KPSC & VYAPAM scams.
3. These unfit judges declare  rich criminals as innocents & send innocents to jail for a price. These unfit police  leave criminals , file B report to close cases , change charge sheet , change path of investigation / prosecution ,  fit innocents in cases using 3rd  degree torture methods , does contract / supari killing in the name of encounters , etc all for a price. These  corrupt doctors  give false post mortem reports , misguiding medico legal opinions  and  illegally advice police  how to torture a human being without leaving any evidences.
4.  Honest few in judiciary , police , health services & public services  are just mute spectators , they are not raising their voice , not legally prosecuting their corrupt colleagues.  It also amounts to corroboration &  a crime.
5 .  Due to these type of match fixing by Judges & police  many innocents are serving jail sentence behind bars & some have been hanged ,  while the rich crooks are roaming free.


2. Question(s) of Law:

Are  doctors , police & Judges above law ? Can  Doctors , Judges & Police Commit crimes , go scot free ? Can Judges & Police intentionally neglect ( to aid criminals ) their duties , while shamelessly drawing tens of thousands of rupees monthly salary & perks on time without fail from public exchequer.
Is it not the duty of doctor  to heal the pain of a human being rather than give pain to a human being ? is a doctor legally authorized to torture  or  aid torture of a human being ?
Is it not the duty of police to uphold our law , protect  public , common man  rather  than illegally  fixing them in cases ? are police legally authorized to  subject a human being to torture ? Are  not police  responsible for life , health & safety of persons under their custody ?
Is it not the duty of a judge to uphold law , protect public ? is it not his duty  to check the veracity of claims , reports by police , doctors  giving fake evidences , reports ? is it not duty of a judge to protect  life , health & safety of persons under judicial custody  or serving  prison sentence based on judicial orders ?

3. Grounds:
All Indian citizens are  guaranteed  with fundamental rights of  life  , liberty , health , safety , equitable justice  under constitution of india.
All Indian citizens are  guaranteed  with  human  rights of  life  , liberty , health , safety , equitable justice  under constitution of india  as india is also a signatory of UN Human Rights Charter.
All  Human Beings  are  guaranteed  with  human  rights of  life  , liberty , health , safety , equitable justice   by  virtue of their  birth  itself  irrespective of any constitutional bodies  or statutory bodies.

Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of corrupt public servants , corrupt doctors , corrupt judges , corrupt police. Request for supreme court orders to doctors ,  judges & police to perform  their duties properly.


4. Averment: 

Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions. 



PRAYER:
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:


a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.

b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 
c. to constitute impartial  statutory investigation committee  comprising  NGOs , press , police & judiciary  at taluk levels  to investigate cases of 3rd degree torture by law enforcement agencies . Essentially these committees  must include  a member from victim’s side  during investigation & prosecution. The  state government must bear the cost of  it’s  functioning  including  transportation , food , remuneration at actual rate.     
d.   In the cases of 3rd degree torture , fake encounters  , there must be provision  for  2nd , 3rd  medical examination , medical opinion by doctors  appointed by  investigation committee.
e.  when government doctors are  caught giving false  post mortem reports , false  medical opinions  they must be dismissed from service  and legally prosecuted for  abetting  torture , attempt to murder or murder as the case may be.
f. when  police , jail staff or law enforcing personnel  are  caught  for  physically & mentally torturing a human being , an under trial or convict   they must be dismissed from service  and legally prosecuted for  abetting  torture , attempt to murder or murder as the case may be.
g. when  a judge is caught for giving biased  judicial order  without examining  the veracity of evidences , statements , reports given by police , law enforcement personnel , doctors , when a judge bases his judicial orders on  forced  confessions taken from under trials , convicts by 3rd degree torture methods , those judges  must be dismissed from service  and legally prosecuted for  abetting  torture , attempt to murder or murder as the case may be.
h.  when a judge  fails to protect life , health , safety of a prisoner , whether under trial or convict , those judges  must be dismissed from service  and legally prosecuted for  abetting  torture , attempt to murder or murder as the case may be.
I . as 3rd degree torture , fake encounters are pre meditated , cold blooded murders , heinous crimes , they are rarest of rare cases  and judges , police , law enforcement officials , doctors  abetting , executing 3rddegree torture , fake encounters must be  hanged till death. They are worse than KASAB.
j. the state government  must give government job  to one from victim’s family  and  must pay compensation at  actual living cost levels to that family .
k. the government must recover  that compensation cost from  salary , pension , properties of guilty judges , police ,  etc as land arrears.
l. to legally prosecute  under murder charges STF police , forest officials  who were responsible for 3rd degree torture ,  encounter deaths of tribals  in MM Hills , Karnataka during operation nab veerappan.
m. to legally prosecute under murder charges judges who failed to protect the lives of under trials ,  convicts  in operation nab veerappan.
n. to legally prosecute under murder charges government  doctors who gave  false  post mortem reports , false medical opinions  about fake encounters , 3rd degree torture of tribals  in operation nab veerappan.

o . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 




FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY. 



Dated : 10th December 2015 ………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place :  Mysuru , India………………………….PETITIONER-IN-PERSON  

edited , printed , published & owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ : LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR ,HEBBAL ,MYSORE -570017 INDIA     
  cell : 91 8970318202        
 home page:   
http://paper.li/f-1367938674      ,      
A   Member  of  Amnesty  International

posted by DALIT online @ 11:49 AM