Soni Sori and Gautam Navlakha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh W.P. (CRL.) 206/2011

Human Rights Law Network

The petition was filed the Supreme Court of India because the Chhattisgarh police have made an attempt on the life of Petitioner, Soni Sori – a tribal woman from village Sameli in Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner also seeks a direction from the Court for the setting up of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of police officers from outside the state of Chhattisgarh, to investigate the criminal prosecutions against her as well as her allegation made in her complaint sent to the Delhi Police regarding the Chhattisgarh police attempting to murder her on September 11, 2011.

The third reason is that witness in FIR 26/11 relating to Soni Sori is the Sarpanch of a village from Orissa who was arrested by the Orissa police and handed over to the Chhattisgarh police, allegedly signed a statement to the effect that he was an eye witness to the alleged exchange of money between Essar corporation and the Naxalites.

At the very onset, it is stated that the Petitioner fled from Dantewada, Chhattisgarh in the second week of September 2011, in fear for her life. She came to Delhi and gave instructions and on the basis of these instructions this petition was filed. She fears that the Chhattisgarh police who are expected to follow her to Delhi will extra-judicially execute her as she has in her possession evidence to show that false cases have been registered against her nephew, Mr. Lingaram Kodopi, and herself. These false cases have been registered because the two of them refused demands made by the Chhattisgarh police that they act as intermediaries between certain corporations and the Naxalites. The Chhattisgarh police also wanted the petitioner to give evidence against her fellow villagers and to make false statements to the effect that they were Maoists.

As a result of their not giving in to the demands of the police, the police have filed a series of false cases against Mr. Lingaram and the petitioner. The casual way in which these false cases are prepared is set out in charts at pages …… and …… of this petition. The charts show that for different instances taking place at different points in time, the statements of the so-called witnesses have been prepared by cutting and pasting from what appears to be a template, even though the statements are supposed to have been made in entirely different contexts at different points of time.

It is also obvious from the tape recording done in a sting operation by Tehelka, where the policeman speaking on the phone admits their case to be a false one. According to the prosecution case an Essar contractor was carrying money to allegedly pay the Naxalites, and approached the petitioner and Mr. Lingaram who were allegedly acting as intermediaries, and that the contractor and Mr. Lingaram were arrested near a market where the transaction was taking place and that the petitioner fled from the place. The truth is, and this is confirmed by the policeman during the sting operation, that Mr. Lingaram was at his grandfather’s home when he was arrested. This single fact alone shows that the prosecution story is false.

Mr. Lingaram is particularly targeted because he came to Delhi at the end of 2009 and gave evidence at a public hearing organized by human rights organizations in Delhi on the atrocities against adivasis in Dantewada. While in Delhi, he completed a course in journalism and this apparently annoyed the Chhattisgarh police even further and made them apprehensive that he will use his recent training to report on police atrocities in Chhattisgarh. The police are clearly very apprehensive about the documentary evidence that Mr. Lingaram had obtained of the carnage in the three villages of Tarmetla, Morpalli and Timmapuram, where hundreds of houses were burnt, people were killed and women raped by the police and other armed security forces, and into which this Honourable Court has since ordered a CBI enquiry. The Chhattisgarh police arrested him to prevent him from handing over the evidence that he had collected including video testimonies and photographs of the victims including the rape victims to the CBI.

While in Delhi, Mr. Lingaram also appeared on several television programmes where he recounted very passionately the pathetic situation in which tribals like himself found themselves. The police are constantly after the petitioner and Mr. Lingaram to turn against their fellow tribals and collaborate with the police on pain of victimization and having false cases registered against them. Both the petitioner and Mr. Lingaram resisted these efforts of the police to draw them into acting as police informers. Hence the filing of the false cases.

On 31.08.2009, the Petitioner’s nephew, Lingaram Kodopi was forcibly picked up from his house in Sameli village, district Dantewada, locked up, and physically and mentally tortured in order to pressure him to become a Special Police Officer (SPO). When the members of Mr. Kodopi’s family and other villagers went to the police station, the police refused to accept that Mr. Kodopi was in their detention, but after the villagers persisted in their enquiries, the police stated that Mr. Kodopi had come of his own accord to become an SPO. On 18.9.2009, Mr. Kodopi’s brother, Masaram Kodopi filed a Writ petition (habeas corpus) No. 5469/2009, in the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, alleging forcible detention of Mr. Kodopi by the Chhattisgarh police. On 06.10.2009, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur directed that Mr. Kodopi be allowed to return to his family.

That the harassment of Lingaram Kodopi by the police continued even after they had to release him because of the above-mentioned order of the Court of Chhattisgarh. Immediately after Mr. Kodopi’s release, his elder brother, Masaram Kodopi, was picked up by the police and detained for a day and accused of securing the release of a “Naxalite.” The police continued to threaten Lingaram with dire consequences and harass his family members, due to which, Mr. Kodopi decided to migrate to New Delhi, and further undertook the study of journalism at the International Media Institute of India, at NOIDA in the state of Uttar Pradesh. An affidavit prepared by Lingaram Kodopi on 22.10.2009, describing the pernicious harassment by Chhattisgarh police, which had forced him to come to Delhi. Lingaram Kodopi also participated in a public meeting, titled the Independent People’s Tribunal on Land Acquisition, Resource Grab and Operation Green Hunt, where he described his own experiences of being detained and tortured by the police, and answered questions from journalists, jury members and audience about the situation of adivasis in the conflict-torn region of Dantewada in Chhattisgarh. While in Delhi, Mr. Kodopi also appeared on several television programmes where he recounted very passionately the pathetic situation in which tribals like himself found themselves.

That these cases are false can also be seen from the fact that the petitioner is a government servant and is the Residential School’s warden at Jabeli Ashram in Dantewada. She has been attending her duties every day and there are many witnesses to this. Yet in the charge sheets that have been filed, she is shown as an absconder. Things came to a head when she received a call from an unknown person that she should hide in the forests because the police were going to “encounter” her. She fled and a while later the police opened fire on her and tried to kill her. She managed to escape and came to Delhi for filing this petition before the Supreme Court of India.

Soni’s case is a typical case of tribal being caught in the cross fire between the Maoists and the security forces. Her father was shot at by the Maoists and his entire house looted on 14.6.11. He is currently in the hospital and lodged an FIR.

So the petition was filed for an order or direction to the state of Chhattisgarh to produce all the FIRs and charge sheets with respect to Soni Sori and her nephew Lingaram Kodopi. Also to setup a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising of officers from outside the state of Chhattisgarh to investigate and prosecute in respect of the FIRs and charge sheets. The petition also asks for staying the arrest of the Petitioner, who undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and an order or direction directing transfer of all the cases pending against Petitioner and Lingaram before any court in the State of Chhattisgarh to any competent court in Delhi.