Front Line expresses concern regarding the charges that have been filed against human rights defender Dr Lenin Raghuvanshi and other staff members of the People's Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR). Dr Raghuvanshi is the Convener of the PVCHR and also a member of the District Vigilance Committee on Bonded Labour in the State of Uttar Pradesh, in northern India. In his work in the defence of human rights, Dr Lenin Raghuvanshi has focused on the protection of the right to food and on victims of death due to starvation.
Further Information
Posted 25/01/2007 On 23 January 2008, Dr Raghuvanshi appeared before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 1 to present his application for bail, which was accepted as the Court ruled that there was no reason for him to be detained. Furthermore, the Magistrate ruled that the complaint that had been filed against Dr Raghuvanshi on 9 December 2007 by the village head of Belwa in the Badagaon administrative district, Rajendar Thripathi, for “anti-state activities” could not be registered due to insufficient evidence.
Dr Raghuvanshi, along with Ms Anupam Nagavanshi and Ms Shruti Nagavanshi, also staff members of the PVCHR, has been charged with “statements conducing to public mischief”, under Section 505 (b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the Court reportedly ordered that they are not to be arrested in relation to these charges until further notice. Due to questions regarding the procedure that was followed in this case, the Magistrate has ordered the Phulpur police to produce all documents relevant to this case before 29 January 2008.
Front Line has previously expressed its concern regarding threats against Dr Raghuvanshi and the staff of the PVCHR, received between 4 and 6 December 2007, as well as the complaint filed against him by Rajendar Thripathi, on 9 December 2007. Dr Raghuvanshi was the subject of intimidation by Rajendar Thripathi, and in 2002, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed against Rajendar Thripathi by Dr Lenin Raghuvanshi in his capacity as member of the Committee on Bonded Labour. A warrant was consequently issued for Rajendar Thripathi's arrest, which is still pending. It is not known why Rajendar Thripathi was not arrested when he presented himself at the police station to file the FIR against Dr Lenin Raghuvanshi; however it could be seen to indicate a degree of collusion between the police and the local authorities.
In August 2005, Dr Lenin Raghuvanshi received death threats from a friend of Rajendar Thripathi, Rmasray Singh, while Rajendar Thripathi was contesting the Panchayath election. Dr Lenin Raghuvanshi reported these threats to the authorities on 6 August 2005 and a FIR was issued. This case is also pending despite expressions of concern from three United Nations Special Rapporteurs to the central government.
Front Line believes Dr Lenin Raghuvanshi and the staff of the PVCHR have been targeted as a result of their legitimate human rights work, in particular, their work to protect victims of starvation in Uttar Pradesh. Dr. Lenin Raghuvanshi and the PVCHR have recently drawn attention to three incidences of babies and young children dying from starvation in the State, which have engendered widespread media attention and public criticism of the State government's failure to acknowledge and tackle the problem. This poverty and starvation are closely linked to the issue of caste discrimination. Concern is expressed for the security and physical and psychological integrity of Dr Lenin Raghuvanshi and all staff members of the PVCHR.
Action Finished:
This Urgent Appeal has now ended. No further action is requested at this point. Thank you for taking action on this case.
Front Line issues Urgent Appeals on behalf of human rights defenders at risk on a daily basis. These Appeals normally remain active on our web site for a period of up to six weeks, depending on the situation. After this time they will be archived. Front Line maintains a watching brief on all these cases but no further action is requested after the six weeks, unless there is a significant development in the case.
