Rights group blames J&K Police for backlash against Kashmiris after Pahalgam attack
Releasing its annual report on human rights on the eve of the sixth anniversary of the abrogation of special provisions of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir, the forum noted that the police information that two of the terrorists were Kashmiris caused a backlash.
'It also created a permissive environment for hate speech and actions, as evidenced by trolling, arrests and illegal demolitions. By the time the NIA (National Investigation Agency) clarified the terrorists were all Pakistani, one month later, considerable damage had been done,' the report, J&K-Statehood for Human Rights, reads.
The report said that mob hate spread to the extent that even the Foreign Secretary, Army and Air Force officers were trolled for a ceasefire.
The forum alleged that there was no preventive action to stop the backlash. 'Though a backlash against Kashmiris and Muslims was widely anticipated, the Union Home Ministry did nothing to prevent it. By contrast, in 2010, the Union Home Ministry had issued an advisory to all police to act against harassment. Fortunately, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah had his ministers rush to other states to appeal to their chief ministers to protect Kashmiri residents, after which the backlash dwindled,' it said.
The forum highlighted security lapse in preventing the Pahalgam terror attack, which left 26 civilians dead. 'The least that could have been done, issuing a general advisory warning residents and tourists in Jammu and Kashmir of a risk to crowded or tourist areas, was not done either,' it said.
It pointed out the plight of border residents during 'Operation Sindoor'. 'Despite taking two weeks to respond militarily, little was done to evacuate civilians from the border areas, who were in any case facing incessant firing across the Line of Control from Pakistani troops (probably to facilitate the escape of the terrorists and infiltration by others),' the report said.
The report said that the very large number of people were brought in for questioning – reportedly 2,800 – and the slapping of PSA and UAPA charges on over 100, 'were seen as collective punishment of the people for lapses of the Union Home Ministry and Lieutenant-Governor's administration'.
The report claimed 'marginalization of the elected administration through imposition of the new Transaction of Business Rules issued shortly before the assembly election, which retained most powers in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor, including over civil servants, the police, the Attorney-General and prosecutorial services.
'These rules nullify the rights of the people to representative and accountable governance,' it added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Juveniles, age of consent and justice: Explaining the wide conviction gap
An analysis of government data in the Supreme Court reveals a stark disparity between the number of juveniles and young adults charged under rape and child sexual abuse laws and the relatively small proportion who are eventually convicted, throwing sharp focus on the ongoing debate over the age of consent and its unintended consequences. According to the Union government's latest submission to the Supreme Court, between 2018 and 2022, only 468 juveniles aged 16-18 were convicted under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, despite more than 4,900 being booked across the country in the same period , a conviction rate of just 9.55%. For charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, just 855 convictions were recorded out of 6,892 cases during the same period , a rate of only 12.4%. The corresponding numbers for young adults aged 18-22 tell a similar story. While 52,471 were arrested under these stringent laws during this period, only 6,093 were convicted under Pocso, a conviction rate of just 11.61%. Of 24,306 arrested between 2018 and 2022 for rape, only 2,585 young adults were convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, amounting to just 10.63% . The statistics form part of the Centre's written submissions opposing any move to lower the age of consent under the Pocso Act or introduce exceptions for adolescent relationships, telling the top court that such dilution, 'even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy,' would dismantle the statutory shield meant to safeguard minors and risk opening the door to child abuse. However, the wide gap between the registration of cases and convictions suggests that while these laws aim to safeguard children from sexual exploitation, they may also be pulling large numbers of adolescents and young people (mostly men) into the criminal justice system, often in cases involving consensual relationships that turn adversarial due to family or societal pressure. Convictions and sentencing For juveniles (16-18 years), Pocso convictions rose modestly from 144 in 2018 to 213 in 2022 even as the number of detentions rose from 844 to 1,757, which implies a conviction rate of just 12.12% in 2022. The majority received prison terms of up to 10 years. Life imprisonment was awarded in only 31 cases across five years, and there was no death penalty. For the same group, rape convictions remained flat, ranging from 83 to 110 per year, with over 85% receiving sentences of up to 10 years. Only eight juveniles, tried as adults under the pertinent legal provisions, received life terms during this period. Among young adults in the 18-22 years age group, convictions under Pocso grew from 1,213 in 2018 to 1,312 in 2022. However, even this increase is modest considering the scale of bookings under the Act. While 8,740 persons were apprehended in 2018, 13,068 were arrested in 2022. That translates to conviction rates of 13.88% in 2018 and 10.04% in 2022 under Pocso. Additionally, rape convictions dropped from 620 in 2018 to 476 in 2022, reflecting a 23.23% decline despite higher arrest figures. Life imprisonment was more common in this age group. 773 individuals received life terms for Pocso offences, while 238 did so for rape. A total of 22 young adults were awarded the death penalty over the five years, compared to just one juvenile. These statistics emerge at a time when the Supreme Court is hearing a public interest litigation examining whether the blanket criminalisation of all sexual activity below the age of 18 under the Pocso Act requires re-examination. The law, enacted in 2012, sets the age of consent at 18 and makes even consensual acts between teenagers prosecutable. Senior advocates Indira Jaising and Sidharth Luthra, appearing as amici curiae in the 2012 public interest litigation (PIL) filed by lawyer Nipun Saxena, have argued that the mandatory reporting requirement and lack of a close-in-age exception is leading to over-criminalisation, infringing on the autonomy, privacy, and health rights of adolescents, particularly girls. But the Union government has pushed back, telling the court that 'any dilution of the age of consent, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law.' In a recently filed affidavit, It has urged the court to uphold the 'bright-line' age of 18 to deter abuse and exploitation. Numbers suggest a need for nuance Data suggests that many of those convicted are themselves just a few years older than the complainants. The tables submitted by the government highlight that young men aged 18–22 are the most prosecuted group under Pocso, raising concerns that the protective intent of the law is being applied to penalise consensual relationships. For example, in 2022, 213 juveniles (16-18) were convicted under Pocso whereas 1,312 young adults (18-22) were convicted under the same Act -- over six times higher. Rape convictions for 18-22-year-olds (476) were also significantly higher than for juveniles (92). The sentencing trends further bolster the case for a more differentiated approach. A vast majority of both juveniles and young adults received sentences below 10 years, suggesting courts may be exercising discretion when faced with such cases, but only after the accused have undergone lengthy trials and detention. A legal and social dilemma The Centre's firm position against creating a 'close-in-age' exception, such as exempting consensual acts between teens aged 16-18, comes amid growing calls for a calibrated rethink. Several high courts, and even Supreme Court benches in bail and quashing proceedings, have flagged the problem of criminalising teenage love. Yet, the government has maintained that 'loosening age-based protections could open avenues for abuse under the guise of consensual activity,' and that the law must 'act as a strong deterrent… in a society where children, especially girls, are vulnerable to manipulation, coercion and abuse.' At the heart of the debate lies the challenge of balancing protection with autonomy, ensuring minors are not exploited, while also preventing a legal system from punishing consensual and developmental relationships among peers. In her written submissions countering the Centre's stance, Jaising said the age of consent was static at 16 years for 80 years and that increasing it to 18 years through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. 'No rational reason has been indicated for the increase, nor is there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase,' stated her submissions, adding the increase in the age of consent violated the right to autonomy of children between the ages of 16 and 18 who have the ability to give mature consent to sexual activity, having regard to the fact that they have attained puberty giving rise to sexual awareness. 'Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness. It is the age during which there is a natural attraction between the sexes and the development of sexual relationships of choice. Hence, to criminalise such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law,' the submissions contended. Increasing the age of consent has led to branding hundreds of children in the 16-18 age group as criminals. 'Data also indicates that most complaints to police are filed by parents of the girl, often against her own wishes and for extraneous reasons such as inter-religious or inter-caste relationships,' she said. 'The only solution lies in declaring that sex between consenting adolescents between the age of 16, an almost universal age of sexual maturity, and 18 is not a form of 'abuse',' Jaising's submissions added. The senior counsel urged the Supreme Court to read into the impugned legal provisions a 'close-in-age exception', applicable when both parties to the sexual act are adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 and the sexual act is consensual. 'Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature,' she said. As the Supreme Court resumes hearing the matter next month, the numbers paint a sobering picture : thousands of adolescents and young adults are caught in the legal net each year, but only a fraction are ultimately held guilty, often after years of litigation. Whether this calls for legislative reform or judicial steps may now be for the court to decide but the data offers compelling reason to confront the unintended consequences of the current regime.
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Justice Nagamohan Das submits report, proposes 6.6% internal quota for SC (Left)
Bengaluru: The Justice HN Nagmohan Das Committee on internal reservation among Scheduled Castes (SCs) submitted its final report to the govt Monday, marking a key step in the state's move to rationalise SC quotas based on empirical report, which contains six major recommendations, was formally received by chief minister Siddaramaiah and will be placed before the cabinet on Thursday for further consideration. Sources say the report recommends an allocation of 6.5% for SC (Left), 5.5% for SC (Right), 4% for 'untouchables', and 1% for other nomadic Das told TOI that since there was no reliable data on SC sub-castes, the commission undertook a fresh state-wide survey. This data forms the basis of the panel's recommendations."The govt agreed to our interim recommendation of having a fresh SC survey which was held between May 5 to July 6," Justice Das said. "The survey was conducted across 27.2 lakh families and just over 1 crore people. We have done our job and the govt is vested with our report to take further action."He also pointed out that his earlier report had suggested raising the overall SC quota in Karnataka from 15% to 17%, and this premise has also influenced the internal reservation framework recommended now."The 30-year-long struggle of communities seeking internal reservation came to a head when the Supreme Court on Aug 1, 2024 said providing internal reservation is permissible under the Constitution," Justice Das response to the Supreme Court's ruling, the Siddaramaiah govt, in Jan, formed a single-member commission headed by Justice Das. An interim report was submitted on March 27. The idea of internal reservation had also found traction during the previous BJP govt, which in Oct 2022, had proposed a similar matrix — 6% for SC (Left), 5.5% for SC (Right), 4.5% for 'touchables', and 1% for smaller final report submitted on Monday spans 1,766 pages and includes the panel's findings, the survey data, and supporting appendices.
Economic Times
23 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Bolsonaro under house arrest after Brazil Supreme Court crackdown — will Trump hit Brazil with tougher sanctions as Lula defies US pressure?
Synopsis Bolsonaro under house arrest is the latest twist in Brazil's growing political storm. Former President Jair Bolsonaro was placed under house arrest by the Brazil Supreme Court for breaking court orders in an ongoing coup investigation. The dramatic move follows earlier U.S. sanctions, including 50% tariffs, already imposed by President Donald Trump in support of Bolsonaro. Now, tensions are rising fast as Trump considers tougher action while President Lula defies U.S. pressure and defends Brazil's judicial independence. AP Bolsonaro under house arrest — a phrase that has suddenly shaken Brazil and caught global attention. On August 4, the former Brazilian president was placed under strict house arrest by the country's Supreme Court for violating legal orders tied to an alleged coup attempt. But the drama doesn't stop there. U.S. President Donald Trump, who had already slapped Brazil with heavy 50% tariffs in support of Bolsonaro, is now considering even tougher sanctions. Meanwhile, President Lula is standing firm, openly defying U.S. pressure as he backs Brazil's judiciary. Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil's former president, has officially been placed under house arrest by the Brazil Supreme Court, marking a dramatic turning point in the country's deepening political crisis. The arrest order, issued on August 4, 2025, comes as part of a sweeping investigation into Bolsonaro's alleged role in trying to overturn the 2022 election results. But beyond Brazil's borders, the decision has triggered international tensions — particularly with the United States, where President Donald Trump has already imposed 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods and is now signaling even tougher sanctions may be on the way. The house arrest order was issued by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, a key figure in Brazil's top court. Bolsonaro, who lost the 2022 election to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, is under investigation for allegedly attempting to stage a coup and incite unrest in an effort to overturn the results. According to the court, Bolsonaro violated multiple court-imposed conditions: Refused to wear an electronic ankle monitor Maintained indirect contact with allies under investigation Continued influencing supporters through social media intermediaries and public appearances The court also ordered that all communication devices in his residence be seized and restricted visits to only lawyers and court-authorized individuals. Even before this house arrest, Donald Trump had taken Brazil's legal actions against Bolsonaro personally. Earlier in 2025, Trump's administration imposed a sweeping 50% tariff on major Brazilian exports like steel, soy, and meat, claiming the actions against Bolsonaro were 'political persecution.' Now, following the house arrest, the White House is reportedly reviewing options to hit Brazil with additional penalties—from financial restrictions to potential blacklisting of more officials involved in the case. Trump has repeatedly voiced support for Bolsonaro, calling him 'a patriot' and warning Brazil not to 'abandon democracy in the name of revenge.' President Lula da Silva, who returned to office in 2023, has strongly defended the independence of Brazil's judiciary. He has pushed back against Trump's claims and refused to interfere in the court's decision. In recent remarks, Lula stated: 'No nation, no leader, has the right to dictate how we uphold justice in Brazil.' Despite the economic risks, Lula has so far defied U.S. pressure, choosing to support the court's process rather than bow to Trump's political demands. His government has also been working with European Union diplomats to build new trade partnerships that could offset some of the U.S. pressure. With Bolsonaro's house arrest now official, there is growing speculation in Washington and Brasília that Trump may move beyond tariffs. Potential escalations include: Cutting access to U.S. financing or investment deals Suspending diplomatic exchanges Blocking joint defense projects or trade agreements Some insiders say Trump is considering a full suspension of Brazil's trade privileges, depending on how the situation develops in the coming weeks. This could deepen the rift between the two major economies and reshape the future of U.S.–Brazil relations. At home, Bolsonaro's house arrest has sparked mixed reactions. His supporters have begun staging protests, claiming political persecution. On the other hand, many Brazilians — including lawmakers and civil society leaders — are applauding the move as a step toward protecting democracy and ensuring that no leader is above the law. Internationally, the growing U.S.–Brazil standoff is likely to push Lula closer to new strategic partners like China, Russia, and the BRICS alliance, where he may find more sympathetic allies. If Trump continues to apply pressure, Brazil could pivot away from traditional Western alliances in search of economic independence and political leverage. Bolsonaro's legal team has already confirmed plans to appeal the house arrest order, but the case itself is still moving forward. If convicted, Bolsonaro could face decades in prison and be permanently barred from holding office again. For now, the former president remains at his residence under strict legal supervision, as Brazil enters one of the most consequential chapters in its modern democratic history. Q1: Why is Jair Bolsonaro under house arrest in Brazil? He broke court rules while facing trial for trying to overturn the 2022 election. Q2: Has Trump already imposed sanctions on Brazil over Bolsonaro's arrest? Yes, Trump imposed 50% tariffs and may now add tougher sanctions.
