reducedtoashes

10
Reduced to Ashes
Hari Ke Pattan.
None of these facts, described in the sanction order and Kuldip Singh’s testimony,
were known to the court, which had presumed Khalra to be alive, when it
ordered the prosecution of the officials on 30 July 1996. On 7 August 1996, the
court also directed the Punjab government to pay one million rupees as interim
compensation to Mrs. Khalra. The court’s order said: “The fact remains that the
abductors are keeping Khalra away from his family since 6 September 1995. Kidnapping
of a person whose family is totally in dark about his whereabouts – even
about the fact whether he is alive or dead – is the worst crime against humanity.
Under such circumstances, we direct the Punjab government to pay a sum of Rs. 10
lakh as interim compensation to Mrs. Paramjit Kaur, wife of Mr. Jaswant Singh
Khalra. In case the police officers are convicted, the State of Punjab can recover the
amount from the police officers…” 14
The CBI launched a prosecution against SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu and others under
section 365 of the IPC, i.e. “kidnapping with the intent to secretly and wrongfully
confine a person”, a balefully insufficient charge in the face of the evidence
proving kidnapping with the intent to murder, illegal confinement and custodial
torture. On 16 November 1996, the district and sessions court in Patiala released
SSP Sandhu on bail.
On 10 December 1996, the CBI submitted its final and fifth report on the
larger issue of police abductions and illegal disposal of the bodies. The Court
decided to keep its full contents secret, as urged by the CBI officials on the
ground that further investigations would be hampered by the publication of the
report. However, the Court’s 12 December 1996 order disclosed 2,098 illegal
cremations including 582 fully identified, 278 partially identified and 1,238
unidentified, carried out by the state agencies at three crematoria of Amritsar
district, one of Punjab’s 17 districts. Presumably, the CBI obtained these figures
by investigating the records the CIIP had furnished to substantiate its allegations.
The Supreme Court observed that “the report discloses flagrant violation
of human rights on a mass scale.” Instructing the CBI to investigate criminal
culpability and to submit a quarterly status report on its progress, the Court’s
12 December 1996 order said: “We request the National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC) through its chairman to have the matter examined in accordance
with the law and determine all the issues which are raised before the
NHRC by the learned counsel for the parties. Since the matter is going to be
examined by the NHRC at the request of this Court, any compensation awarded
shall be binding and payable.” 15
Six years have passed since the Supreme Court referred the matter to the NHRC.
However, there has been no meaningful progress even as the CCDP tried, under
considerable difficulties, to assist the NHRC in its task with its documentation work
through the CIIP based in Delhi.
14 The Supreme Court of India, Court No. 2. Record of Proceedings, in the matter of W. P. (Crl.) 497 of
1996, Paramjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. Order dated 7 August 1996.
15 Paramjit Kaur & Committee for Information & Initiative on Punjab, Vs. State of Punjab, Writ Petitions
(Crl.) Nos. 497/95 and 447/95, Order dated 12 December 1996.
punjab_report_chapter1.p65 10
4/27/03, 10:30 PM