STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

291| Structures of Violence
roll of ofcials involved in the operation. This too had
not been submitted. Based on the above, the SHRC
concluded that Gowhar Amin Bahadur had been
th
abducted and killed by the 4 Battalion BSF. Rs.
2,00,000 ex-gratia government relief and
compassionate employment under SRO-43
[Statutory Rules and Orders] were recommended.
Another petition was led before the High Court
[Original Writ Petition (OWP) 187/2007] for the
completion of investigations, payments of Rs.
2,00,000 ex-gratia government relief and
compassionate employment under SRO-43, and
compensation/damages of Rs.10,00,000. The police
authorities submitted joint submissions before the
High Court where the details of the investigations
were provided, and it was stated that the
investigations were ongoing. The Deputy
Commissioner, Srinagar, relying on the BSF version
of events stated that the family of Gowhar Amin
Bahadur would not be entitled to relief/compensation.
A compliance report dated 22 March 2010 was
submitted by the Sub Divisional Police Ofcer
[SDPO], Shaheed Gunj Police Station stating that
investigations were ongoing, and statements of seven
BSF personnel were recorded, including that of
Commandant G. S. Shekawat that supported the BSF
version of events.
On 28 May 2010, an enquiry was ordered by the High
Court and it was conducted by the CJM, Srinagar, and
was concluded on 26 February 2011. The enquiry
found in favor of the family of Gowhar Amin Bahadur
and found that the version of events of the BSF were
baseless. On 10 June 2011, the High Court found in
favor of the family of Gowhar Amin Bahadur and
ordered Rs. 2,00,000 ex-gratia government relief,
compassionate employment and completion of
investigations to be monitored by the CJM, Srinagar.
Subsequently, a contempt petition [no. 462/2011] was
led for the non-implementation of the High Court
order. The police authorities provided written
submissions before the High Court. It was stated that
investigations were ongoing, witnesses were being
examined, and the High Court order was not being
disobeyed.
The Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar submitted that
Rs. 1,00,000 had already been sanctioned/ provided
to the family of the victim and the additional Rs.
1 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 h a d b e e n s a n c t i o n e d a n d t h e
compassionate employment under SRO-43 were
being processed.
On 3 April 2012, the High Court ordered that the issue
of compassionate appointment be nalised in two
weeks. The matter was listed in two weeks and a
status report on the investigations was sought.
On 11 September 2012 the High Court came down
harshly on the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar for
disobeying the orders of the court in relation to
compassionate employment and the ex-gratia
government relief. The High Court stated that
regardless of Rs. 1,00,000 already being paid, the
family of the victim was to be now paid Rs. 2,00,000.
Latest status of investigations was also sought.
By order dated 9 July 2012, the CJM, Srinagar, noted
that the BSF was not cooperating with the
investigations and stated that the investigations must
be expedited. The matter was put up for hearing on 20
August 2012. Ultimately, the police led a status
report on 17 April 2013 and stated that sanction would
be sought. But, no chargesheet was led on this
occasion. As a result, the wife of victim no.1, citing the
Pathribal Supreme Court judgment sought that a full
chargesheet be led while awaiting sanction. But, the
lower court and subsequently the High Court
dismissed this application.
Information on the petition numbers was sought
through the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information
Act, 2009 [RTI] on 16 February 2012. Information was
provided.
The family of Gowhar Amin Bahadur has received Rs.
2,00,000 compensation to date.
The family of Gowhar Amin Bahadur gave a statement
to the IPTK on 12 March 2012.
The instant case serves as a strong indictment of the
various processes of justice. A case of 1993 remains
pending with limited progress, except for the payment
of Rs. 1,00,000 of ex-gratia government relief. This
notwithstanding a conrmation by the SHRC, CJM,
Srinagar and the High Court that the victim was
t h
abducted by the 4 Battalion BSF. Further,
Commandant G. S. Shekhawat has admitted his role
in the operation on 8 April 1993. This coupled with the
ndings on the operation being one where the victim
was abducted and killed, the role of Commandant G.
S. Shekhawat would prima facie be established in the
killing of the victim. The role of Deputy Commander
Sanyal Singh, named by the family of the victim as
being responsible, would have to be further
established. Even the police has not indicted this
alleged perpetrator.
The ling of the FIR by the BSF while claiming to have
killed unidentied militants is yet another example of
the fake encounters carried out by the armed forces.
The subsequent exposure of the falsehood of the FIR
and the non-cooperation by BSF with the
investigations suggests that the BSF enjoyed
impunity for carrying out a fake encounter and noncooperation
with the investigations. This case also
indicts the police for ling the FIR only after the
intervention of the CJM, Srinagar and for not reporting
the non-cooperation of the BSF in a timely manner.
The police only referred to the non-cooperation of the
BSF when required to do so by the SHRC, in 2000,
and the High Court, in 2003.