India

The government generally respected the rights of its citizens; however, numerous serious problems remained. Major problems included extrajudicial killings of persons in custody, disappearances, torture and rape by police and security forces. The lack of accountability permeated the government and security forces, creating an atmosphere in which human rights violations often went unpunished. Although the country has numerous laws protecting human rights, enforcement was lax and convictions were rare. Poor prison conditions, lengthy pretrial detention without charge, and prolonged detentions while undergoing trial remained significant problems. Government officials used special antiterrorism legislation to justify the excessive use of force while combating terrorism and active, violent insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir and several northeastern states. Security force officials who committed human rights abuses generally enjoyed de facto impunity, although there were investigations into individual abuse cases as well as punishment of some perpetrators by the court system. Corruption was endemic in the government and police forces, and the government made little attempt to combat the problem, except for a few instances highlighted by the media. The government continued to apply restrictions to the travel and activities of visiting experts and scholars. Attacks against religious minorities and the promulgation of antireligious conversion laws were concerns. Social acceptance of caste-based discrimination remained a problem, and for many, validated human rights violations against persons belonging to lower castes. Domestic violence and abuses against women such as dowry-related deaths, honor crimes, female infanticide and feticide, and trafficking in persons remained significant problems. Exploitation of indentured, bonded, and child labor were ongoing problems.

Separatist guerrillas and terrorists in Kashmir, the northeast, and the Naxalite belt committed numerous serious abuses, including killing armed forces personnel, police, government officials, judges, and civilians. Insurgents also engaged in widespread torture, rape, and other forms of violence, including beheadings, kidnapping, and extortion.

In June 2005 the government passed the Right to Information Act (RTI), mandating stringent penalties for failure to provide information or affecting its flow, and requiring agencies to self-reveal sensitive information. The implementation of the act marked a departure from the culture of secrecy that traditionally surrounded the government's rule making.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

Government forces continued arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of life of those in their custody. Police and prison officers also committed extrajudicial killings of suspected insurgents and suspected criminals by staging encounter killings. Terrorist and insurgent groups killed members of rival factions, government security forces, government officials, and civilians in Jammu and Kashmir, several northeastern states, and in the Naxalite belt in the eastern part of the country (see section 1.g.). According to the Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights Commission, it received 1,867 complaints of human rights violations since 2002.

Security forces often staged encounter killings to cover up the deaths of captured non-Kashmiri insurgents and terrorists from Pakistan or other countries, sometimes after torturing them. Circumstances around allegedly faked encounter killings were often in dispute. On May 18, the Defense Ministry reported that it was aware of two fake encounter killings that occurred in 2003, and it court martialled the officers involved. However, Human Rights Watch (HRW) could find no instances of a public prosecution leading to a conviction of those alleged to be responsible for fake encounter killings in Jammu and Kashmir. Human rights groups accused security forces of targeting suspected terrorists, insurgents and their suspected supporters. There were no widely accepted data on the magnitude of extrajudicial killings in Jammu and Kashmir, as estimates or reports depended on the political orientation of the source. However, according to Asia Centre for Human Rights (ACHR), only a minuscule percentage of encounter killings resulted in a trial or conviction. Some trials of security forces for alleged staged encounters in Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab have lingered for over a decade.

According to an NGO in Kashmir, security forces were responsible for seven extrajudicial killings in Jammu and Kashmir during the year. According to the Public Commission on Human Rights, it ordered 73 inquiries since the new Jammu and Kashmir government was elected in 2002, but by the year's end, it had only received information on six cases.

In January, members of the Rashtriya Rifles (RR) and the Special Operations Group (SOG) allegedly killed three persons in Shopian District of Kashmir and buried them without a proper investigation. Authorities ordered an inquiry but at year's end had not conducted an investigation.

There was a consistently high rate of encounter killings by law enforcement and security forces in the northeast--particularly in the states of Assam and Manipur--as law enforcement attempted to combat insurgent groups, many of whom financed their operations through criminal activities such as extortion, kidnapping and trafficking in narcotics.

On August 22, Maharashtra police shot and killed an alleged Pakistani national, Abu Osama, in what appeared to be a staged encounter. Several journalists claimed that the police arranged the encounter and that the person killed was associated with the July 11 perpetrators of the terror attack on Mumbai trains. There were no further developments in this case by year's end.

Human rights groups noted that police officials often refused to turn over bodies in cases of suspected staged encounters. The bodies were often cremated before their families could view them. Most police stations failed to comply with a 2002 Supreme Court order requiring the central government and local authorities to conduct regular checks on police stations to monitor custodial violence.

According to human rights activists, press reports, and anecdotal accounts, the bodies of persons suspected of terrorism and detained by security forces in Jammu and Kashmir often had bullet wounds or marks of torture, although according to the South Asian Human Rights Documentation Center (SAHRDC) and ACHR, the number of such incidents had declined in recent years in Jammu and Kashmir.

On January 12, according to press reports, security forces allegedly abducted and killed a youth in the Barramulla District of Jammu and Kashmir. The media reported that the youth was blindfolded and tortured. They subsequently arrested and tortured a second youth and gave him a gun in order to claim he was a terrorist. Jammu and Kashmir police filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the accused soldiers, and at year's end the army opened an investigation.

In January police ordered an inquiry and charged two RR soldiers for torturing and killing a Kashmiri, Fayaz Ahmad Bhat. On January 16, RR troopers picked up Bhat and Abdul Majid Parray in Baramulla District. Parray died as a result of torture the same day. Bhat's relatives later told the media that the army had tried to rearrest Bhat while he was recovering in a Srinagar hospital, apparently wanting him to change his statement. Army officers claimed that they wanted to move Bhat to an army hospital. Bhat later died in an encounter with the RR.

In early March police killed two suspected Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LET) terrorists in Delhi, claiming the two were responsible for the October bomb attack on a Hyderabad police station. The Hyderabad-based Civil Liberties Monitoring Committee reported that the encounter was staged.

Border Security Forces (BSF) operating along the Indo-Bangladesh border killed 17-year-old Musaruddin Molla while he was working in his field. According to the ACHR, to conceal his death, BSF officers allegedly took six cattle from their camp and accused Molla of stealing them. The case was under review at year's end.

There were no developments in the January 2005 killings of five passengers by soldiers on a moving train near Shikohabad railway station near Uttar Pradesh.

There were no developments in the July 2005 killing of three teenage boys by security forces who allegedly mistook them for terrorists in the Kupwara area of Kashmir.

In September 2005 Udayakumar, a citizen from Kerala, died in police custody allegedly due to torture during interrogation. According to the Confederation of Human Rights Organizations, police picked up Udaykumar for suspicious movements in a nearby park, questioned, beat, and killed him. After preliminary investigations, authorities arrested three police constables and charged two with murder. The Kerala Government announced compensation of $6,500 (Rs 287,000) to his family (see section 1.c.).

In August 2005 the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) recommended the prosecution of four army officers, including Senior Superintendent of Police Farooq Khan, for the killing of five civilians in a staged encounter death in 2000. The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled the related 2003 suspension of Senior Superintendent of Police Khan as illegal and reinstated him. On May 11, the CBI filed charges of murder, abduction with intention to murder, wrongful confinement, criminal conspiracy, and destruction of evidence against the officers. The investigation was ongoing at year's end.

Custodial deaths remained a serious problem, and authorities often delayed prosecutions.

According to data available with the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there were 121 custodial deaths in 2003, 94 in 2004, and 144 in 2005. On December 15, a court convicted three former Delhi police officers for their role in a 1987 custodial death of Mahender Kumar. Retired senior Delhi police officer Rishi Prakash Tyagi was sentenced with the death penalty and KP Singh and sub-inspector Tej Singh were sentenced to one and three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of $566 and $680 (Rs 25,000 and Rs 30,000) for shielding Tyagi and destroying evidence.

On May 9, the army began the court-martial of Brigadier Suresh Rao for allegedly ordering his subordinates to fake terrorist killings to garner awards, citations, and positive public relations.

From January 2005 through July of the year, the Home Ministry reported 139 deaths in police custody. However, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) confirmed 1,730 deaths in police and judicial custody during the same time period.

Although Andhra Pradesh police recorded an 11 percent decrease in custodial deaths in 2005 compared with the previous year, they also had the largest number of deaths in judicial and police custody with a total of 145. In 2004 in Maharashtra, according to media reports, Mumbai police transferred officers linked to encounter killings from the crime branch; as a result, staged encounter killings in Maharashtra reportedly decreased from 94 in 2001 to 13 in 2004. Figures for encounter killings in Maharashtra for 2005 were not available. The Kerala State Human Rights Commission registered 25 cases of custodial deaths from January to June, compared with 39 cases in 2005.

In an attempt to expedite prosecutions, in May 2005 authorities updated a law requiring a coroner to conduct a medical examination within 24 hours of a death in custody. However, by the end of the year, the law had not been implemented. From April 2003 to March of this year, the NHRC awarded $51,354 (Rs 2.3 million) in compensation for deaths in police and judicial custody.

Human rights activists reiterated during the year that there was uneven compliance with a 1993 NHRC directive requiring district magistrates to report to the commission all deaths in police and judicial custody. In January the Indian Center for Human Rights and Law (ICHRL) filed a petition with the Mumbai High Court against custodial deaths, arguing that police were not adhering to NHRC guidelines for custodial deaths. The lawyer representing the government of Maharashtra admitted that the Mumbai and Maharashtra police did not follow the guidelines.

In December 2005 media reported that Shivkumar Jaiswala, an alleged thief, died in custody in Mumbai. On January 2, another alleged thief, Prem Yadav, died in custody in Mumbai. No officers were suspended in connection with these cases, and human rights activists argued that the police response to custodial death appeared to vary according to the social and financial backgrounds of the victims. Media reported that Mumbai police routinely conducted internal inquiries into all custodial deaths, but no police officer was convicted of a crime in connection with the 15 cases reported since 2001. Official inquiries ruled that none of the 15 deaths was caused by torture.

On January 4, media and NGOs reported that Gurmail Singh died in the custody of the Railway Police after being arrested in connection with two bodies found near the Ghaggar railway station near Chandigarh. The Punjab State Human Rights Commission asked for a report on the incident, and a three-member board of doctors conducted the post-mortem, with the report later handed over to the family. The findings were not released at year's end, but the Railway Police denied allegations of torture, claiming instead that Gurmail Singh died naturally.

In March the Maharashtra Criminal Investigation Department (CID) arrested six police officials for the 2004 custodial death of Uday Bhandge, who was detained for stealing gasoline from a private automobile. Police officers held Bhandge and an accomplice at the Aundh Police Station overnight, although the car owner asked the police to reprimand the men and release them. The next morning Bhandge was found dead in his cell. Local residents and Bhandge's family alleged that Bhandge died from beatings received in the station. By year's end, there were no further developments in this case, which remained under investigation.

On April 7, Mumbai police suspended four police officers in the case of Premnath Janardan Rao, an accountant whom the Mumbai police initially said hanged himself on April 6 while in custody. On April 20, in response to a request by Rao's family, the Mumbai High Court ordered a second post-mortem of Rao's body and a magisterial inquiry; as of October police officials remained under suspension and the inquiry was pending.

In June NGOs and media reported that a 20-year-old male Dalit (formerly known as "untouchables" who fall outside of the caste system), Madan Lal, died while in police custody in Ferozepore, Punjab. Lal was arrested on theft charges and died within two hours of his arrest during interrogation. Authorities suspended two policemen.

In March 2005 the Maharashtra CID arrested four Mumbai police officers and charged them in the 2003 custodial killing of Khwaja Yunus, who was detained in connection with a bombing case. Police officers earlier claimed that Yunus had escaped from custody. In January the CBI filed charges against the police officers, who remained free on bail at year's end. In October the Division Branch of the Mumbai High Court ordered Maharashtra Director-General of Police P.S. Pasricha to transfer 10 police officers connected to the case out of Mumbai. He complied.

In May 2005 Mumbai police arrested two Railway Police Protection Force (RPF) constables for killing railway porter Vijay Singh. After the discovery of Singh's body on the terrace of the Mumbai Central Railway Police Station, police stated there was no record of his arrest, but eye-witnesses reported seeing the two constables taking him into custody. As of year's end, the trial against the two police constables was underway in a Mumbai court.

On April 30, army doctors found the body of Captain Sumit Kohli in Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir. The army said that suicide was the cause of death, while Kohli's family alleged that he was killed because he was scheduled to testify as a witness against another officer in a 2004 case of an encounter killing. The other officer had been accused of killing four porters in the Kupwara District of Jammu and Kashmir.

After the July 11 serial terrorist bombings on seven Mumbai commuter trains that killed approximately 200 commuters and injured more than 700, the media reported that the Mumbai police reinstated so-called encounter specialists by assigning two such officers to the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) investigating the bombings.

From May to August, newspapers and opposition parties in Kerala reported seven deaths in police custody of persons arrested for misdemeanor offenses. During the same period, another seven individuals drowned in separate incidents, allegedly while being pursued by the Kerala police. In August, following a media outcry, the government of Kerala announced a judicial inquiry into the deaths.

During the year, the Assam Rifles appealed the 2004 Manorama Devi rape and custodial death case to the Guwahati High Court in Assam, arguing that the state had no authority to handle a case involving the army. Manorama's family also appealed to the Guwahati High Court, asking that the findings of the commission and investigation by the Home Ministry in Delhi be made public. All appeals remained pending at year's end.

On September 20, police killed four persons (including a child) and injured 45 when they opened fire in an area of Delhi as demonstrators protested the government move to seal businesses illegally operating in residential areas.

During the year the killing of civilians continued in the course of counterinsurgency and counter-terrorism operations, including those that took place in Jammu and Kashmir (see section 1.g.). Human rights activists stated that accurate numbers were not available due to limited access to the region, but the ACHR alleged that 355 civilians were killed and 373 injured in police firing in 2005. The security forces often claimed that those killed were insurgents or civilians who died in crossfire. According to the NHRC, state governments had not investigated at least 3,575 previous deaths in custody cases.

Countermilitants were former separatist guerillas who surrendered but who were permitted by the Jammu and Kashmir government to retain their weapons and paramilitary structure and were inducted into police auxiliary units. Government agencies funded, exchanged intelligence with, and directed the operations of countermilitants as part of the counterinsurgency effort. During the year killings and abductions of suspected pro-government countermilitants continued to be a significant problem in Jammu and Kashmir, although the number of such instances declined substantially from the 1990s.

Violence, often resulting in deaths, was a pervasive element in Jammu and Kashmir politics (see section 3). Separatist guerrillas and terrorists attempted to kill numerous senior politicians, political workers and political activists.

In January insurgents attacked activists of Communist Party of India (Marxist) in Sophian district, Jammu and Kashmir, killing three persons.

Countrywide, there were allegations that military and paramilitary forces engaged in abduction, torture, rape, arbitrary detention, and the extrajudicial killing of insurgents and noncombatant civilians, particularly in areas of insurgency (see sections 1.b., 1.c., 1.d., and 1.g.). According to human rights activists and journalists, during the year a few Naxalites (Maoist guerillas) in eastern and central parts of the country (including Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, parts of Uttar Pradesh, and Maharashtra) who surrendered were allowed to retain their weapons and worked for the police as "anti-People's War Group (PWG) officers." Human rights groups alleged that police used former Naxalites to kill current Naxalites and human rights activists with Maoist links. Police denied the charges, attributing such killings to internal feuds within the PWG.

Unlawful killings due to societal violence, including vigilante action, continued. For example, in January clashes during a protest over the building of a steel plant on tribal land in Jajpur, Orissa resulted in the deaths of twelve members of an indigenous community and one police officer (see section 5).

In March approximately 200 villagers tried, sentenced to death, and publicly beheaded a family of tribals for practicing "black magic" in the Sonitpur district of Assam (see section 5).

In July in Tinsukia district, Assam, local police fired into a crowd and killed eight civilians during protests over the custodial killing of Ajit Mahanta. A military court sentenced an army officer involved in Mahanta's death to one-year forfeiture of service and another to two months' rigorous military imprisonment. The army compensated Mahanta's family $2,130 (Rs 94,000).

Dalits faced societal discrimination (see section 5).

In 2005 the NCRB reported that there were 26,127 cases against the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and 5,713 cases against the Scheduled Tribes (STs). While the average conviction rate for the crimes against the SCs was 29.8 percent, the average conviction rate for the crimes against the STs was 24.5 percent. About 55.1 percent of the total displaced persons in the country as a result of development projects were tribals although they constituted only 8.2 percent of the total population of the country according to the 2001 census.

b. Disappearance

Although government complicity was not always confirmed, scores of persons disappeared in strife and insurgency-torn areas during the year. According to Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) and other NGOs such as ACHR and SAHRDC, the number of newly reported disappearances has decreased compared with the early years of the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir. However, there was still virtually no information about the fate of individuals who disappeared since the beginning of the Jammu and Kashmir insurgency.

In 2003 the Jammu and Kashmir Government stated that 3,931 persons had disappeared in the state since the insurgency began in 1990, compared with an APDP estimate of approximately 8,000 to 10,000. In 2003 the government investigated the APDP list and concluded that 22 "disappeared" persons from a list of 116 had joined insurgent groups or were in Pakistan, while the police had located 43 persons in their homes. Of the rest, the government stated that six were dead, two were in custody with cases registered against them, and investigations were still ongoing in 13 cases. The APDP responded that only 22 had joined the insurgents, that those whom the government claimed were at home were actually still missing, and it demanded details in the cases of the six people whom the government claimed were dead.

In September 2005 ACHR reported that more than 6,000 cases of disappearances remain unresolved in the state. However, according to the director general of police in Jammu and Kashmir, seven persons disappeared in 2003; three persons in 2004; and two persons in 2005-06. According to APDP, 41 persons had disappeared through September. Reports varied widely on the number of disappearances that occurred.

According to former Jammu and Kashmir Deputy Chief Minister Muzaffar Hussain Beig, there were 14 cases of disappearances and 27 cases of custodial deaths in the four years preceding August. In January Manzoor Ahmed Khan disappeared from Kupwara in Jammu and Kashmir. His family registered a case with the police.

In April Ghulam Mohiuddin disappeared from Baramulla in Jammu and Kashmir. Ghulam's family alleged that he was arrested by the army and held in the Joint Interrogation Center in Baramulla. The army released Mohiuddin.

In May Ghulam Nabi Mir disappeared from Pulwama in Jammu and Kashmir. RR officers allegedly raided Mir's residence. The army denied arresting Mir and by the end of the year, he was still missing.

Human rights groups maintained that in Jammu and Kashmir and in the northeastern states, numerous persons continued to be held by military and paramilitary forces. Human rights activists feared that many of these unacknowledged prisoners were subjected to torture and that some may have been killed extrajudicially (see sections 1.a. and 1.c.).

The government maintained that screening committees administered by the state governments provided information about the unacknowledged detainees to their families. Other sources indicated that families could only confirm the detention of their relatives by bribing prison guards. During the year the screening committees released 140 persons detained under the 1978 Public Safety Act (PSA).

The government made little progress in holding hundreds of police and security officials accountable for serious human rights abuses committed during the Punjab counterinsurgency of 1984-94, despite the presence of a special investigatory commission. The CBI claimed to be pursuing charges against dozens of police officials implicated in the 1980s for hundreds of deaths and secret cremations. The NGO ENSAAF estimated that security forces extrajudicially killed and caused to disappear more than 10,000 Punjabi Sikhs and cremated 6,017 Sikhs in Amritsar alone in counter insurgency operations during the militancy.

In September Paramjit Kaur Khalra, the widow of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, filed a legal petition calling for the investigation and prosecution of former police chief Gill for the abduction, illegal detention, torture, and murder of her husband. According to ENSAAF and other human rights organizations, in September 1995 members of the Punjab police operating under Gill's command abducted Khalra for investigating and exposing the "disappearances" and secret cremations of thousands of Sikhs in Punjab by security forces. Gill's subordinates illegally detained and tortured Khalra for nearly two months, before killing him in 1995.

The NHRC continued to investigate 2,097 cases of murder and cremation that occurred between 1984 and the early 1990s. The NHRC asked families whose members had disappeared to provide evidence and ordered compensation to approximately 100 families. The NHRC has not released its findings, and no significant progress was made in bringing to justice those responsible for the killings.

On May 15, the NHRC ordered the Punjab Government to disburse monetary compensation of $5,700 (Rs 250,000) each to the next of kin of 45 persons whom the state government admitted were in police custody immediately before they were killed and illegally cremated. In August 2005 the Nanavati commission, tasked with conducting a re-inquiry into the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, released its report, citing several prominent Congress Party leaders for complicity in the violence and implicated law enforcement personnel in the deaths, accusing them of refusing to perform their duty to maintain law and order. The government also set up two committees to disburse financial compensation promised by Prime Minister Singh to the victims' families. The government approved an extra $158 million (Rs Seven billion) in compensation: $7,800 (Rs 344,000) for every family member killed and $2,800 (Rs 124,000) for those injured.

One human rights activist and lawyer from the state of Punjab reported filing 4,000 disappearance cases. However, only 10 to 12 of these cases had been prosecuted. In July 2005 the NHRC directed the CBI to give the Punjab government access to documents regarding the illegal killing and cremation of 64 persons by the Punjab police during the insurgency. On April 3, NHRC Chairman A.S. Anand stated that the Punjab State Government identified 570 persons who had been cremated secretly. On May 15, the NHRC directed Punjab authorities to pay $5,500 (Rs 243,000) to the survivors of 45 victims.

There were credible reports that police throughout the country often failed to file legally required arrest reports, resulting in hundreds of unresolved disappearances in which relatives claimed that an individual was taken into police custody and never heard from again. Police usually denied these claims, pointing to the lack of an arrest record.

Insurgents in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern states continued to use kidnappings to terrorize the population, obtain the release of detained comrades, and extort funds.

At the end of 2004, the government verified that few kidnappers were arrested or prosecuted. Insurgents and terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast killed some victims who had been kidnapped (see sections 1.a. and 1.g.).

On January 17, the Kuki Liberation Army (KLA) kidnapped Dr. Tongkhojang Lunkim, Chairman of Kuki Movement for Human Rights (KMHR) and demanded a ransom of $200,000 (Rs 8.8 million) in Manipur. The KLA released him on March 18.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The law prohibits torture and generally did not allow for confessions extracted by force to be admissible in court; however, authorities often used torture during interrogations to extort money and as summary punishment. There were allegations of confessions derived under torture. In some instances, these confessions were subsequently used as evidentiary support for an execution sentence. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 2005 mandated a judicial inquiry into any death or rape of a woman in police custody; however, human rights groups asserted that the new law had not decreased the prevalence of custodial abuse or killings.

The ACHR alleged that custodial deaths was a severe problem and that police regularly used torture. Because many alleged torture victims died in custody, and other victims were afraid to speak out, there were few firsthand accounts. Marks of torture, however, were often found on the bodies of deceased detainees. The prevalence of torture by police in detention facilities throughout the country was reflected in the number of deaths in police custody (see section 1.a.). Police and jailers typically assaulted new prisoners or threatened violence in exchange for money, favors, and personal articles. In addition, police commonly tortured detainees during custodial interrogation. Although police officers were subject to prosecution for such offenses, the government often failed to hold them accountable. According to Amnesty International (AI), torture usually took place during criminal investigations and following unlawful and arbitrary arrests.

NGOs asserted that custodial torture was common in Tamil Nadu. One human rights lawyer claimed that all police stations in Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, and Chandigarh have torture cells to "soften up" the accused prior to court appearance. However, increased reporting of custodial torture may be the result of greater awareness. In some cases, the state government provided compensation for victims. In July the Madras High Court ordered the state government to pay $6,666 (Rs 294,000) to a woman. The AHRC claimed that local police in Kerala continued to use torture and assault as a means of criminal investigation.

On September 23, three police officers arrested Saju, a private bus conductor, allegedly because of a complaint filed by the local telephone company. According to the AHRC, the police demanded a bribe of $68 (Rs 3,000). Police allegedly abused Saju when he refused to pay the bribe. Saju died while in police custody.

There were no developments in the February 2005 torture and killing of a Dalit youth by Jalandhar district police or the May 2005 alleged infliction of injuries against Mariappan by police in Tamil Nadu.

There were no developments in the August 2005 beating by assistant commissioner of police Arun Desai of Taj Mohammed in Mumbai.

There were incidents in which police beat journalists (see section 2.a.), demonstrators (see section 2.b.), and Muslim students (see section 2.c.). Police also committed abuses against indigenous people (see section 5).

There were no developments in the January 2005 beating of Roop Narayan Yadav.

In Jammu and Kashmir, torture victims or their relatives reportedly had difficulty filing complaints, as local police allegedly were instructed not to open a case without permission from higher authorities. In addition, under the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act of 1990, no "prosecution, suit, or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers of the act," without the approval of the central government. The act gives security forces the authority to shoot suspected lawbreakers and those disturbing the peace, and to destroy structures suspected of harboring violent separatists or containing weapons. Human rights organizations alleged that this provision allowed security forces to act with virtual impunity (see section 1.d.).

The rape of persons in custody was part of a broader pattern of custodial abuse. NGOs asserted that rape by police, including custodial rape, was more common than NHRC figures indicated. A higher incidence of abuse appeared credible, given other evidence of abusive behavior by police, and the likelihood that many rapes went unreported due to the victims' shame and fear of retribution. However, legal limits placed on the arrest, search, and police custody of women appeared to reduce the frequency of rape in custody. There were no recent NHRC data on the extent of custodial rape.

There were no developments in the February 2005 rape of a minor girl in West Tripura district and subsequent soldier's arrest.

The Ministry of Defense reported that it filed 17 rape cases and 10 murder cases against army personnel from 2003 to 2004. By year's end, one rape case and five murder cases had ended in guilty verdicts. In the remaining cases, the investigations remained ongoing or the charges were proved false.

There were no developments in the January 2005 rape case of 15-year-old Nandeibam Sanjita Devi by two members of the 12th grenadiers.

There were no developments in the February 2005 rape case involving the Assam Rifles constable and the 12-year-old girl in the Karbi Anglong district of Assam since the arrest of the soldier and two women who assisted the rape.

There were no developments in the September 2005 custodial rape of a widow detained on a murder charge by Bihar police.

There was a pattern of rape by paramilitary personnel in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast as a means of instilling fear among noncombatants in insurgency-affected areas (see section 1.g.), but these incidents were not included in NHRC statistics, as the NHRC does not have direct investigative authority over the military.

There were no developments in the January 2005 dismissal from military service of Major Rehman or the January 2005 court martial conviction of a rifleman accused of molesting an elderly woman in Pahalgam.

Unlike in previous years, there were no reports of psychiatrists issuing false insanity certificates for the purpose of committing wives of divorce-seeking husbands.

In 2004 the government gave the NHRC the authority to recommend interim compensation in cases relating to human rights abuses by the armed forces. Officers of the rank of colonel were designated at the command, corps, division and counter insurgency headquarters to monitor human rights issues. Under the guidelines, the NHRC cannot charge or investigate a member of the armed forces of a human rights abuse without government permission.

Prison and Detention Center Conditions

Prison conditions were harsh, life-threatening, and did not meet international standards. Prisons were severely overcrowded, and food and medical care inadequate. For example, in June a former inmate of Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai filed a complaint with the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) alleging that the prison's medical doctor ignored a prisoner suffering from chest pains who subsequently died. As of year's end, the MSHRC was investigating the complaint.

In March an NHRC report indicated that the country's prisons were overcrowded on average by 38.5 percent. According to the NHRC report, the country's prisons had a population of 324,852 persons and an authorized capacity of 234,462. Overcrowded prisons that exceeded the national average included Delhi (231 percent), Jharkhand (155 percent), and Chhattisgarh (125 percent). Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Sikkim, Gujarat, Orissa, Tripura and Andaman and Nicobar islands also exceeded the national average.

In December the government took steps to ease overcrowding in the Tihar jail in New Delhi. Steps included construction of new jails; holding special courts to try cases involving petty offenses; compiling a list of under-trial prisoners who were granted bail but could not be released; sending these lists to District and Sessions Judges for consideration of their cases on relaxed surety conditions; providing legal aid by the Legal Aid Advocates; and nominating counsel deputed by the Delhi Legal Services Authority to advise prisoners on moving appropriate applications before the High Court for their early release. As of November 29, there were 11,978 inmates in Tihar Jail with a total sanctioned capacity of 5,200.

According to one NHRC report, a large proportion of the deaths in judicial custody were from natural causes, in some cases aggravated by poor prison conditions (see section 1.a.). Tuberculosis caused many deaths, as did HIV/AIDS. The NHRC assigned its special rapporteur and chief coordinator of custodial justice to ensure that state prison authorities performed medical check-ups on all inmates. By year's end only a few examinations had been performed.

In an effort to avert suicides in police jails, Mumbai police installed close circuit televisions (CCTVs) in police lock-ups across the city. As of January nearly 25 percent of the 84 police stations had CCTVs.

There were no developments in the September 2005 Assam Human Rights Commission's request for appropriate action against jail authorities for mistreatment of Mithinga Daimary and Ramu Mech or the August 2005 death of Robin Handique in detention.

While local authorities often attempted to hide custodial killings, the NHRC and the courts investigated those cases brought to their attention and prosecuted some perpetrators. In most cases, the courts awarded monetary compensation of between $400 (Rs 17,600) and $2,200 (Rs 97,000) to the next of kin. NGO sources stated that relatives often had to pay bribes to receive the compensation awarded, and in many cases never received it at all.

By law juveniles must be detained in rehabilitative facilities, although at times they were detained in prison, especially in rural areas. Pretrial detainees were not separated from convicted prisoners.

Some NGOs were allowed to work in prisons, within specific governmental guidelines, but their findings remained largely confidential as a result of agreements made with the government. Although custodial abuse was deeply rooted in police practices, increased press reporting and parliamentary questioning provided evidence of growing public awareness of the problem. The NHRC identified torture and deaths in detention as one of its priority concerns.

According to the Home Ministry, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visited 61 detention centers and more than 9,000 detainees during 2005, including all 25 acknowledged detention centers in Jammu and Kashmir, and all facilities where Kashmiris were held elsewhere in the country. The IRC registered 554 new detainees and followed up on 1,240 old detainees. The ICRC was not authorized to visit interrogation or transit centers, nor did it have access to regular detention centers in the northeastern states (see sections 1.c. and 4). In August the government amended the 1993 Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), which eliminated the requirement of ascertaining prior notification for prison visits, enabling surprise visits, and empowering the NHRC to form an opinion on the actual conditions inside prisons.

d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention

The law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, but both occurred during the year.

Role of the Police and Security Apparatus

Although the governments of 28 states and seven union territories have primary responsibility for maintaining law and order, the central government provides guidance and support. The Ministry for Home Affairs controls most paramilitary forces, the internal intelligence bureaus, and the nationwide police service, and provides training for senior police officers of the state-organized police forces. The civilian authorities maintained effective control of the security forces. Members of the security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses.

Corruption in the police force was pervasive and acknowledged by many government officials. Officers at all levels acted with relative impunity and were rarely held accountable for illegal actions. When an officer was found guilty of a crime, the most common punishment was transfer to a different position or post. Human rights activists and NGOs reported that bribery was often necessary to receive police services.

By the year's end, police had not filed charges against Delhi police inspector Satya Raj, who in November 2005 demanded $600 (Rs 26,500) from a dead man's family for return of his body.

The NHRC reported that the majority of complaints it received were against police. According the Ministry of Home Affairs, the NHRC recorded 6,923 cases against the police; 35 against armed forces and 39 against the paramilitary forces for violation of human rights during the year.

In 2005 the government worked with a foreign government and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) on a two-year program to train and sensitize law enforcement officials and prosecutors in the country about victims of human trafficking and bring abusers to justice. Training material developed through this project was used to conduct courses for law enforcement officials in target states and worked on developing standard operating procedures and protocols to be used nationally and in police training academies.

On July 9, the media reported that police failed to act against thousands of Shiv Sena (a regional Hindutva party) members who were damaging buses and property after a statue of their party's founder's wife was found defaced with mud at a park in central Mumbai.

Arrest and Detention

The law requires that detainees be informed of the grounds for their arrest, be represented by legal counsel, and, unless held under a preventive detention law, arraigned within 24 hours of arrest, at which time the accused must either be remanded for further investigation or released. However, thousands of criminal suspects remained in detention without charge during the year, adding to already over-crowded prisons.

The law provides arrested persons the right to be released on bail, and prompt access to a lawyer; however, those arrested under special security legislation received neither in most cases. Court approval of a bail application is mandatory if police do not file charges within 60 to 90 days of arrest. In most cases, bail was set between $11 (Rs 485) and $4,500 (Rs 198,000).

By law, detainees should be provided an attorney and allowed access to family members. However, this was rarely implemented.

In 2004 the government repealed the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and replaced it with the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Nonetheless, SAHRDC reported that more than 1,000 persons remained in detention awaiting prosecution under lapsed special terrorism legislation, and that cases opened under POTA and Terrorism and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) continued through the judicial system.

TADA courts curtailed many legal protections provided by other courts. For example, defense counsel was not permitted to see prosecution witnesses, who were kept behind screens while testifying in court, and confessions extracted under duress were admissible as evidence (see section 1.c.).

POTA contained a sunset feature, which gave the central POTA review committee one year to review all existing POTA cases. The government established three central review committees to review the cases registered under POTA. The committees were required to review all cases registered under POTA by September 2005, but at year's end, numerous cases had not been reviewed and at least 400 persons remained under detention, according to AI. The sunset provisions also allowed the government to make new arrests under POTA, despite its repeal, if the arrests were tied to an existing POTA case. The government could issue a new indictment on a case opened five years earlier under POTA, even if the government was never associated with the case. It can also extend the one-year limit for reviews; however, at year's end, it had not done so. The law provides that the review committees constituted by the government shall review all cases registered under POTA by September 20, 2005. In June 2005 the POTA review committee reported that there were 11,384 persons wrongfully charged under POTA who instead should be charged under the regular law. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, following the repeal of POTA in 2004, three Review Committees reviewed 263 cases involving 1,529 accused persons and determined that there was no prima-facie evidence under POTA against 1,006 of them.

UAPA and POTA continued to be used to hold people in jail for extended periods prior to the filing of formal charges. Human rights groups reported that the revised UAPA contained important improvements over the POTA. For example, it does not allow coerced confessions to be admitted as evidence in court.

In February 2005 the NHRC announced comprehensive guidelines regarding arrest, which included establishing reasonable belief of guilt; avoiding detention if bail is an option; protecting the dignity of those arrested; not allowing public display or parading, and allowing access to a lawyer during interrogation. Police often ignored these guidelines.

In January after an eight-month review by a committee headed by Punjab Chief Secretary Jai Singh Gill, the Punjab Government released three former insurgents arrested for actions during the Khalistan movement in the 1980s. The committee recommended that 19 others remain in jail.

Police routinely resorted to arbitrary and incommunicado detention, denied detainees access to lawyers and medical attention, and used torture or ill treatment to extract confessions (see section 5). Human rights experts claimed that discrimination and custodial torture of those too poor to afford legal assistance was common. During the year the media reported that lower-caste individuals were more likely to be illegally detained than others. Human rights activists maintained that the government increasingly avoided prosecuting security officers involved in illegal conduct, by providing financial compensation to victims' families in lieu of punishment. In some instances victims or their families who distrusted the military judicial system petitioned to have their cases transferred to a civil court. The NHRC has no jurisdiction over any courts, including military courts.

In July Muhammad Saleem from Billawar in Jammu and Kashmir was sentenced to 15 years in prison for possession of binoculars, live AK 47 cartridges, and a wireless set. This was the first conviction under POTA prior to its repeal.

Through December 2005, 217 persons were arrested and remained in custody in Gujarat under POTA in connection with the 2003 killing of former Gujarat chief minister Haren Pandya, the 2003 Akshardham temple bombing, the 2002 Godhra train arson case, and the 2002 Tiffin bomb case. During the year the Tiffin bomb case trial was completed, leading to 12 acquittals and five convictions. In July the Supreme Court appointed a judge from the Delhi Sessions Court to review the evidence of nine major trials (the Godhra trial among them), which had been stayed by the Supreme Court since 2003. By year's end, the judge had not concluded his review. In July a POTA court in Ahmedabad convicted all six accused in the 2002 Akashardham temple terrorist attack, which killed 34 persons. Of the six accused, three were sentenced to death and one to life in prison. By the end of the year, the Godhra trial had not commenced.

Throughout the year authorities in Jammu and Kashmir repeatedly detained Kashmiri separatist leaders for short periods of time ranging from several hours to one day, usually to prevent their participation in demonstrations, funerals, or other public events. For example, on March 10, the police took Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (Nanji) convener Javid Ahmad Mir and twelve others into preventative custody for violating a prohibitory order in Srinagar. Press reported that Mir was protesting against human rights violations and fake encounter killings when the authorities arrested him. He was released shortly thereafter. On June 22, Mir was arrested briefly again on June 22 on the same charges.

On March 17, police took extremist Hurriyat Conference member Syed Ali Shah Geelani into preventative custody, along with four others, near Srinagar as he traveled to Baramulla to deliver a speech. Human rights groups asserted that the sole reason for the arrest was to ensure he did not address the assembly. He was arrested again on June 7 and held until June 29 for "inciting communalism". Jammu and Kashmir police arrested Geelani again on October 12 to prevent him from taking part in the funeral of a youth allegedly tortured and killed by Delhi police. The press reported that this was the seventh time during a 45-day period that the government placed restrictions on Geelani.

The National Security Act (NSA) permits police to detain persons considered security risks anywhere in the country--except for Jammu and Kashmir--without charge or trial for as long as one year on loosely defined security reasons. State governments must confirm the detention order, which is then reviewed by an advisory board of three high court judges within seven weeks of the arrest. NSA detainees were permitted visits by family members and lawyers, and must be informed of the grounds of their detention within five days (10 to 15 days in exceptional circumstances). On January 12, Lucknow authorities arrested a doctor from the King George Medical University in Uttar Pradesh, and charged him with arson and violence. After the state's chief minister, Mulayam Singh Yadav, warned that "trouble-makers" at the university would be punished, authorities charged the doctor on January 19 under the NSA.

Human rights groups alleged that the NSA allowed authorities to order preventive detention at their own behest after only a cursory review by an advisory board and that no court would overturn such a decision.

The PSA, which applies only in Jammu and Kashmir, permits state authorities to detain persons without charge and judicial review for up to two years. During this time, detainees do not have access to family members or legal counsel. According to the Office of Director General of Jammu and Kashmir Police, 473 persons in 2005 and 420 during the year were arrested under PSA. According to the ACHR, there were 140 foreign nationals in prisons in Jammu and Kashmir under the PSA.

On January 10, authorities released Sayeda Assiya Andrabi, the head of the all-female Dukhtaran-e-Millat, and eight of her associates. They had been arrested in September 2005 for campaigning against adultery, prostitution, and drug addiction. In August the Jammu and Kashmir High Court overturned the detention of seven persons held under the PSA, arrested for alleged involvement in militancy related incidents.

During the year the government released 140 persons held under the PSA.

In March the Chhattisgarh State Government enacted the Special Public Protection Act (SPPA), which HRW deemed "a vague and overly broad law that allows detention of up to three years for unlawful activities." HRW asserted that the law loosely defines what "unlawful activities" entails and threatens the fundamental freedoms and protections set forth in the constitution. The Public Union for Civil Liberties in India filed suit, alleging that the ordinance is "amenable to gross abuse and misuse, arbitrariness and partiality" and "can result in harsh and drastic punishment to innocent persons without hearing or remedy." HRW noted particular concern that the law also criminalizes any support given to Naxalites, regardless of evidence of duress.

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) remained in effect in Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, and parts of Tripura, and a version of the law was in effect in Jammu and Kashmir. Under AFSPA, the government can declare any state or union territory a "disturbed area." This allows the security forces to fire on any person in order to "maintain law and order" and to arrest any person "against whom reasonable suspicion exists" without informing the detainee of the grounds for arrest. Security forces are also granted immunity from prosecution for acts committed under AFSPA.

In June 2005 a Home Ministry committee reviewed AFSPA and submitted its report and recommendations. On October 8, confirming years of press speculation, the Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy Review Committee report was publicly released and recommended the repeal of the act and gave the central government power to send forces where required. The Jeevan committee recommended that inquires be allowed and offending soldiers not punished.

The law provides a person in detention the right to a prompt trial; however, due to a severe backlog, this was not the case in practice. Human rights organizations reported that 60 to 75 percent of all detainees were in jail awaiting trial, drastically contributing to overcrowding. Human rights organizations asserted that approximately 65 percent of those detained were found innocent. Due to persistent inefficiencies in the judicial system, there were numerous instances in which detainees spent more time in jail under pretrial detention than they would have if found guilty and sentenced to the longest possible term.

For example, on February 16, media reports indicated that authorities incarcerated Shanka Dayal for 44 years without trial in the Unnao District Jail in Uttar Pradesh. The report said that Dayal had spent 43 years in a mental asylum and his family believed he was dead. Similarly, authorities incarcerated Jaldhar Yadav 20 years in Bihar for "wrongfully restraining a person and causing hurt." Under the law, the maximum sentence for this offense is one year in prison or a fine of $45 (Rs 1,985) or both. The NHRC requested Assamese authorities to submit reports on five other pretrial prisoners detained at the LGB Regional Institute of Mental Health in Tezpur, Assam.

According to the ACHR, as of December 2005, there were 34,481 cases pending in the Supreme Court, approximately 3.5 million cases pending in the High Court, and approximately 25.6 million cases pending in the subordinate courts.

The country had 1,734 operational fast-track courts, which provided some relief to the backlog and contributed to the growing consensus to increase the number of fast-track courts throughout the country.

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

The law provides for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected this provision in practice; however, serious problems remained. In Jammu and Kashmir, members of the judiciary were subject to threats and intimidation by insurgents and terrorists.

The judicial system is headed by a Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over constitutional issues, and includes the court of appeals and lower courts. Lower courts hear criminal and civil cases and send appeals to the court of appeals. The president appoints judges, who may serve until the age of 62 on state high courts and 65 on the Supreme Court.

Trial Procedures

The criminal procedure code provides that trials be conducted publicly, except in proceedings involving official secrets, trials in which statements prejudicial to the safety of the state might be made, or under provisions of special security legislation. Sentences must be announced publicly, and defendants have the right to choose counsel independent of the government. There are effective channels for appeal at most levels of the judicial system, and the state provides free legal counsel to indigent defendants. Defendants were allowed access to relevant government-held evidence in most civil and criminal cases; however, the government had the right to withhold information and did so in cases it considered sensitive. In 2003 the Delhi High Court issued new witness protection guidelines to reduce the number of witnesses who recanted their testimony under threat from defendants. NGOs reported that the guidelines were not effective, and many demanded a central law on witness protection. Under these guidelines, witnesses could apply to the Member-Secretary of the Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for protection. Such recommendations are sent to the Legal cell of the Delhi police, who in turn informs the concerned districts. However, only six recommendations were forwarded to the Delhi police by the DLSA in one year due to lack of police resources. High-profile guilty verdicts involving powerful elites accused of murder, such as Manu Sharma or Santosh Singh, were reached based largely on the testimony of witnesses.

There was continued concern about the failure of the Gujarat government to arrest and convict those responsible for the widespread communal violence in 2002 following the burning in Godhra of the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express train, in which 59 men, women, and children died. In the days following the train burning, Hindu mobs killed hundreds of Muslims, displaced tens of thousands, and destroyed thousands of dollars worth of property.

In many cases attempts to hold perpetrators of the Gujarat violence accountable were hampered by the manner in which police recorded complaints. Victims related that police refused to register their complaints, recorded the details in such a way as to lead to lesser charges, omitted the names of prominent people involved in attacks, and did not arrest suspects, particularly supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). HRW alleged that instead of helping Muslims in finding their relatives' bodies, the Gujarat police victimized and harassed them. In August 2004 the Supreme Court instructed the Gujarat High Court to appoint a committee of high-level police officials to re-examine the 2,032 closed cases out of a total of 4,252 complaints filed and determine whether any should be reopened. In February Gujarat police informed the Supreme Court that they would reexamine the closure of 1,600 of the 2,032 cases, and reinvestigate some of the cases by filing fresh FIRs. The media reported that officials attempting to conduct a serious investigation into the incidents were promptly removed from the case.

The first of the convictions in post-Godhra riot cases came in 2003, when the Kheda district court sentenced 12 persons to life in prison. In December 2005 a special court in Gujarat sentenced 11 Hindus to life in prison for killing 11 Muslims in the 2002 violence. In other cases that concluded during the year, the accused were acquitted due to a lack of evidence, faulty investigations or because witnesses had been bribed or were afraid to testify. Human rights groups alleged that, with the exception of the high profile cases in which the Supreme Court has taken interest, accused persons were most likely to be acquitted.

In 2002, Hindu assailants burned the Best Bakery in Baroda, killing 14 persons. On February 24, the Mumbai retrial of the Best Bakery case found nine defendants guilty of murder by arson and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while another eight were acquitted. In March the Supreme Court convicted principal witness Zaheera Shaikh, whose family owned the Bakery, of perjury after she repeatedly changed her testimony, according to HRW and AI, due to intimidation by prominent members of the BJP. On March 29, Shaikh was sentenced to one year in prison and was serving the sentence in a Mumbai jail.

Police officials and local authorities allegedly unearthed mass graves from the 2002 Gujarat violence early in the year. It was alleged at the time of the violence that in several cases the police originally tried to bury and conceal evidence. For example in January, in Kalol, Gujarat, the investigating agency CBI arrested six policemen and two doctors for deliberately destroying evidence and thereby shielding the accused in the 2002 Randhikpur massacre.

In addition, some bodies from the Kidiad killings, where over 70 persons were burned alive in March 2005 in two cars at Limbadiya Chowki in Sabarkantha district, were found in the Panam dam. According to police records, a case of eight deaths was reported. Following the 2002 acquittal of all the accused in the Kidiad killings by a judge based in Godhra, the Supreme Court issued a notice in 2003, and the state government fired the two prosecutors involved in the case. An appeal was filed before the State High Court. A senior police official said it was still unclear whether the discovered remains belonged to riot victims or whether an older graveyard had been unearthed. The Gujarat police dismissed the unearthing of the mass grave as an unnecessary publicity campaign by victims' family members.

The other high-profile trial from the 2002 Gujarat violence, the Bilkis Bano gang rape case, was ongoing in a Mumbai court as of year's end (see Section 5).

The Gujarat government claimed that police had re-opened investigations against 5,384 persons in the city of Ahmedabad and 24,683 persons in the state as a whole. However, analysis by the Islamic Relief Committee of Gujarat revealed that only a small number of these investigations actually led to convictions. As of October there were fewer than 10 convictions out of 217 cases concluded in the lower courts of Gujarat. The Gujarat government's legal department advised against appealing most of the acquittals in the remaining cases. As a result, only a handful of cases were appealed to higher courts. All Gujarat-related cases are under investigation in an official inquiry conducted by retired Justices G.T. Nanavati and K.G. Shah. The inquiry included gathering and analysis of 20,940 oral and written testimonies, both individual and collective, from survivors and independent human rights groups, women's groups, NGOs, academics, and police officials.

HRW reported in 2005 that Hindu extremists threatened and intimidated victims, witnesses, and human rights activists attempting to prosecute those who committed crimes during the 2002 Gujarat riots. It asserted that instead of pursuing the perpetrators of violence, the Gujarat government nurtured a climate of fear. The report alleged that the Gujarat government launched selective tax probes against some Islamic organizations to pressure Muslim witnesses to withdraw murder and arson charges against Hindu nationalists. According to HRW's annual report published in January, "The Gujarat government again failed to investigate and prosecute those responsible for attacks on Muslims during the Gujarat riots of 2002." According to AI's May annual human rights report, "The perpetrators of human rights violations in India continue to enjoy impunity, particularly in Gujarat. The survivors of targeted killings and sexual violence in Gujarat in 2002 continued to be denied justice and reparation." The Gujarat government denied the charge.

On September 5, according to media sources, 12 Kamptapur Liberation Organization (KLO) leaders, six Maoist activists and one United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) cadre went on an indefinite hunger strike in the Jalpaiguri Central Jail, West Bengal, after their repeated requests for a speedy trial or bail during trial went unheeded. On September 18, 34 KLO prisoners in the same jail joined the hunger strike after some of their leaders fell seriously ill and were admitted to the hospital. About 300 members of the same groups all over the KLO in West Bengal went on a two-day hunger strike to protest the lack of progress in adjudicating the case.

Fast track courts concentrated on a specific type of case, allowing judges to develop expertise in a given area of law. These courts gave preference to cases pending for extended periods and often focused on civil issues. Court fees were generally lower for these courts, since trials were shorter.
As of October there were 1,734 fast track courts. A total of 18 million cases were pending in courts across the country, of which 16 million were criminal cases. There were approximately 10 judges for every million people.

Unlike in previous years, courts were regularly in session and the judicial system began to normalize in Jammu and Kashmir. Nevertheless, the judicial system was hindered because of judicial tolerance of abuses committed as part of the government's anti-insurgent campaign and because of the frequent refusal by security forces to obey court orders.

Due in part to intimidation by insurgents and terrorists, courts in Jammu and Kashmir were often reluctant to hear cases involving insurgent and terrorist crimes and failed to act expeditiously, if at all, on habeas corpus cases. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, there were currently 377 persons of unidentified ethnicity and Kashmiris and 136 foreigners in jails.

Political Prisoners and Detainees

While the government maintained that there were no political prisoners, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) claimed there were approximately 500 political prisoners in Jammu and Kashmir, and human rights activists based in the state placed the number at 150, although among these were persons whom the government claimed had engaged in violent acts.

The government permitted international humanitarian organizations, such as the ICRC, access to such persons on a regular basis.

There were no reports of political detainees during the year, although the government detained hundreds of suspected terrorists, insurgents, and separatists.

Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies

There are different personal status laws for the various minority religious communities, and the legal system accommodates religion-specific laws in matters of marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance. Muslim personal status law governs many noncriminal matters, including family law and inheritance (see section 5).

f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence

The law prohibits such actions, and the government generally respected these prohibitions in practice; however, at times the authorities infringed upon them. Police must obtain warrants to conduct searches and seizures, except in cases where such actions would cause undue delay. Police must justify such warrantless searches in writing to the nearest magistrate with jurisdiction over the offense. The authorities in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Manipur have special powers to search and arrest without a warrant.

The Information Technology Act grants police power under certain circumstances to search premises and arrest individuals without a warrant. The act specifies a one-year sentence for persons who fail to provide information to the government on request and a five-year sentence for transmitting "lascivious" material (see section 2.a.). The act also requires Internet cafes to monitor Internet use and inform the authorities of offenses (see section 2.a.).

The Indian Telegraph Act authorizes the surveillance of communications, including monitoring telephone conversations and intercepting personal mail, in cases of public emergency, or "in the interest of the public safety or tranquility." The central government and every state government used these powers during the year.

Although the Telegraph Act gives police the power to tap phones to aid an investigation, they were not allowed to use such evidence in court. The UAPA allows such evidence to be used in terrorist cases, and some human rights activists noted that the new UAPA ordinance confers additional powers on police to use intercepted communications as evidence in terrorism cases. While there were elaborate legal safeguards to prevent police from encroaching on personal privacy, there were no such protections in terrorist cases.

Seven states (Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh, and Maharashtra) enacted two-child laws for village council members with very low levels of enforcement. The laws provide government jobs and subsidies to those who have no more than two children and sanctions against those who do. National health officials in New Delhi noted that the central government was unable to regulate state decisions on population issues.

The law limits inheritance, alimony payments, and property ownership of persons from interfaith marriages and prohibits the use of churches to celebrate marriage ceremonies in which one party is a non-Christian. Clergymen who contravene its provisions could face up to 10 years' imprisonment. However, the act does not bar interfaith marriages in other places of worship.

g. Use of Excessive Force and Other Abuses in Internal Conflicts

The AFSPA and the Disturbed Areas Act remained in effect in the Jammu and Kashmir districts of Kathua, Udhampur, Poonch, Rajouri, Doda, Srinagar, Budgam, Anantnag, Pulwama, Baramulla, and Kupwara, where active and violent secessionist movements existed. The Disturbed Areas Act gives police extraordinary powers of arrest and detention, and the AFSPA provides search and arrest powers without warrants (see section 1.d.). Human rights groups alleged that security forces operated with virtual impunity in areas under the act. In January a committee headed by Supreme Court Justice Jeevan Reddy recommended the act be scrapped because the government had authority under UAPA to combat the insurgency in the northeast. At year's end, the act remained in force.

Accountability by the Jammu and Kashmir government remained a serious problem. Human rights groups estimated that 30,000 to 35,000 persons died during the two decades of conflict in Jammu and Kashmir. The Jammu and Kashmir governor, Lt. General S.K. Sinha, reported 39,000 deaths during the conflict. Security forces committed thousands of serious human rights violations over the course of the insurgency, including extrajudicial killings, disappearances (see section 1.b.), and torture (see section 1.c.). Killings of security force members by insurgents and terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir declined to 330 during 2005, according to home ministry statistics. As of August 2005, the Jammu and Kashmir police claimed fighting in Kashmir had resulted in the deaths of 167 security forces, 359 civilians, and 622 insurgents. According to the Jammu and Kashmir police, militants killed 385 civilians, security forces killed 554 terrorists, and insurgents killed 177 security forces. According to South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), as of December 18, there were 340 civilians, 166 security force personnel, and 592 terrorists killed as a result of terrorist violence.

There were continuing reports of civilians killed in cross fire in Jammu and Kashmir during the year. On February 22, four Kashmiri youth between the ages of eight and 18 were killed in cross fire between insurgents and soldiers in the Kupwara District in Northern Kashmir. The army stated that the killings occurred during a firefight when soldiers responded with rifle fire to an insurgent grenade. The killings sparked several days of antigovernment protests in the area. The Jammu and Kashmir chief minister and the army launched separate inquires into the matter. On February 26, the army stated it provided $4,800 (Rs 212,000) compensation to the families of each of the victims. The state government provided $2,400 (Rs 106,000).

Terrorists and insurgents operating in Rajouri, Poonch, Udhampur, and Doda areas of Jammu and Kashmir repeatedly targeted the minority Pandit (Hindu Brahmin) community, stabbing and killing entire families at a time in numerous incidents throughout the year. For example, in June insurgents killed one man and injured 13 persons, cutting the noses and ears from two victims in the Udhampur District.

Civic elections were held in February 2005 in Jammu and Kashmir. Despite threats and boycott calls, polling was largely peaceful, and the army and police presence was not large. After the declaration of results, terrorists killed two newly elected members and several of their relatives and friends. Several elected counselors resigned following threats from terrorists. Insurgents killed an official in Kulgam, a National Conference counselor in Ikhrajpora, and a People's Democratic Party (PDP) counselor in Beerwah, Budgam district.

Members of the security forces continued to abduct and kill suspected insurgents, and security forces were not held adequately accountable for their actions. Reliable data on such cases were difficult to obtain.

According to credible reports, in addition to harassment during searches and arbitrary arrests (see section 1.d.), security forces clearing minefields abducted and sometimes used civilians as human shields. Such abuses occurred mostly in the Kupwara and Doda districts.

In September security forces killed three members of a family in the Kokernag area of south Kashmir. In Kupwara, security forces killed a girl and her uncle when they were heading towards a nearby jungle to get firewood. The army issued its regrets and advised the people against venturing out during night hours.

On December 10, a soldier fired upon shopkeeper Manzoor Ahmad Wani at Mirmaidan village in south Kashmir. Wani had failed to immediately expose his arms from under his pheran (long Kashmiri robe) after a soldier asked him to do so. Wani was hospitalized.

On December 17, Rashtriya Rifles troops killed a 62-year-old village headman, Sanaullah Magray. The army said the killing was a case of mistaken identity and that the villager had entered an ambushed area and ignored warnings to stop. The government conducted an investigation, and the army ordered a separate inquiry into the incident.

Unlike in previous years, tension along the Line of Control (LOC) in Kashmir was minimal. The Home Ministry reported no cases of artillery shelling, mortar, or small arms fire across the LOC or on the Siachen glacier.

In February army personnel killed four youths playing cricket in Kupwara district. Massive protests followed the killing, and 15 persons were injured in police firing and use of tear gas. In September the Jammu and Kashmir government asked the district and session court to investigate the incident. On September 19, the army removed the unit's commanding officer, Colonel R.S. Guleria, for what was termed inefficiency and ineptitude. The NHRC asked the Jammu and Kashmir government to provide a detailed report of the killing. The government had not done so by the end of the year.

On May 21, the terrorist group Lashkar-E-Tayyiba (LET) killed seven persons and injured 25 in an attack on a Congress rally in Srinagar.

On May 3, AI reported the killing of at least 35 Hindus and the additional wounding of 10 others in a predominantly Muslim area of Jammu and Kashmir ahead of a meeting between the prime minister and Hurriyat leaders.

On July 8, the Jammu and Kashmir police claimed that rebel group Hizbul Mujaheedin detonated a powerful grenade in Kulgam that killed five people, including former National Conference (NC) legislator and state tourism minister Sakina Ittoo, and injured 50 others. The insurgents attacked Ittoo with a grenade as she was leaving a shrine in south Kashmir's Anantang District.

There were no developments in the November 2005 killings of two village men used as human shields by insurgents in Pattan, Kashmir.

There were no developments in the February 2004 killing of five civilian porters allegedly used as human shields by security forces in Kashmir.

In the northeast, human rights groups observed that violence persisted despite ongoing talks between separatist groups and state government officials and a 2004 government ceasefire. Factional violence between the National Socialist Council of Nagaland Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland Khaplang (NSCN-K) continued during the year, resulting in numerous deaths. Between July 2005 and June, government representatives and NSCN-IM leaders met in Amsterdam and agreed to extend the ceasefire.

In August the army operation against the banned ULFA group from Assam was suspended for one month to foster peace in the state. The decision to halt operations met a key demand of the ULFA, which responded to the suspension by announcing a "cessation of hostilities." However operations were re-launched in September as ULFA resumed violence.

According to the Home Affairs Annual Report, 76 districts in the nine states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal were affected by Naxalite (Maoist insurgent) violence.

Southern Chhattisgarh was a center of Naxalite violence, with over 300 insurgent-related casualties from January to August. A counterinsurgency movement among the region's tribal population called "Salwa Judem" began in June 2005 and was supported by the state government. Naxalite retaliations against the movement resulted in violent civil conflict in Dantewara district and a large number of civilian deaths.

On March 2, an estimated 500 Naxalites raided a small village in Dantewara district, killing four with axes and knives and abducting five. During the year there were several reported instances of Naxalites using landmines to target government vehicles and police personnel. Also in March Naxalites destroyed a railroad engine in an attempt to disrupt iron-ore shipments from the large government-owned Bailadila mines. On June 20, insurgents killed seven persons and injured two others at Chikuarguda village in the Konta region of Dantewara district after the villagers refused to support the Naxalites' planned attack on a camp of internally displayed persons (IDPs) (see section 2.d.). On July 17, Naxalites attacked an IDP camp in Arrabore, killing an estimated 20 to 30 inhabitants, including several infants. An estimated 75 persons were injured.

After the Naxalites shot and killed Congress legislator Chittam Narsi Reddy in Mahbubnagar District, Andhra Pradesh, in August 2005, the state government imposed a ban on the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-M) and seven Naxalite front organizations. After the ban, police arrested Vara Vara Rao, who had acted as the CPI-M emissary in earlier peace talks. Rao belonged to the outlawed People's War Group (PWG), which was a sub-group of CPI-M. Human rights activists claimed that the escalation in violence began in January when police shot and killed three Naxalites in Prakasan district. Reports of encounter killings were highest in Nizamabad District in 2005, where police shot and killed nine Naxalites. In September Naxalite guerrillas killed 10 persons in a midnight attack in the Ranchi area of Jharkhand. According to the SATP, in September 2005, cadres of the CPI-M killed 17 civilians at Belwadari village in the Giridih district, Jharkhand. According to SATP, as of December 11, 263 civilians and 121 security forces were killed in Naxalite-related extremist activities during the year.

The killing of civilians by Naxalites in Andhra Pradesh continued. ACHR estimated that Naxalite violence killed at least 460 persons in the first half of the year, including 90 security personnel, 189 suspected Naxalites, and 181 civilians. According to Andhra Pradesh police, the number of civilian killings committed by Maoists decreased to 42 during the year, compared with 211 in 2005. The police combing operations resulted in encounter killings of 110 Maoists during the year, compared with 124 in 2005.

On July 17, armed Naxalites attacked the Errabore Relief Camp in Dantewada district, killing approximately 30 unarmed civilians and injuring hundreds. The attackers abducted more than 45 persons and then reportedly released some hostages and killed six others, including security personnel. According to the police, all six hostages killed were surrendered Naxalites.

In December 2005 the People's Liberation Army (PLA) killed Manipur Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) T. Thangthuam, along with a constable, in an ambush in Manipur's Bushnupur District. Heavily armed insurgents in a truck overtook the police officer's vehicle in the Oinam Bazaar area and fired indiscriminately, killing the two on the spot. On August 16, five civilians, including two children, were killed and 50 others injured when suspected terrorists threw a powerful grenade in a temple in Imphal during a Hindu festival. On August 20, the Zomi Revolutionary Army killed two civilians and injured four when the cadres opened fire on a crowded church, targeting a patrol party of Assam Rifles in Churachandpur District.

On February 5, the army picked up Ajit Mahanta, a resident of Kakopathar, Tinsukia, Assam, on suspicion of having links to the ULFA. The next day his body was found in a gunny bag at Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. Mahanta's death caused widespread resentment, and on February 10, a mob of 10,000 persons gathered to protest and march to the Lajum police station when police opened fire, killing eight persons. Protesters stoned to death one soldier. The army gave monetary compensation to Mahanta's widow. The Assam government also announced they would compensate the widow and the families of those killed in the shooting. The Defense Ministry convened a court-martial, which found an officer and a rifleman guilty. The findings and sentence remained subject to confirmation by higher army authorities.

Between June 8 and 11, ULFA explosions in Assam killed five and injured 40.

In November three civilians-- including one woman and one child-- were killed and 11 injured when an explosion triggered by suspected ULFA militants at the railway station exploded in Guwahati, Assam.

Through December 18, SATP reported the following deaths as a result of insurgency-related violence: 91 civilians, 37 security forces, and 42 militants killed in Assam; 103 civilians, 37 security forces and 136 militants killed in Manipur; 10 civilians, one security force member, and 80 militants killed in Nagaland; 11 civilians, 19 security forces, and 30 militants killed in Tripura.

On February 28, according to AI, suspected Maoists belonging to the PWG set off a landmine in Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, killing 236 and injuring 30.

On March 3, Maoists disguised as a marriage party attacked a security check point in Jharkand and killed five security officers.

Between March 4 and 5, Maoists killed two Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM) workers in separate attacks in West Bengal and kidnapped 10 CPM members.

Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

The constitution provides for freedom of speech and expression; however, freedom of the press is not explicitly mentioned. The government generally respected these rights in practice. An independent press, a somewhat effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combined to ensure freedom of speech and of the press. Under the 1923 Official Secrets Act, the government may prosecute any person who publishes or communicates information that could be harmful to the state. However, no cases were reported during the year.

Designed to be a self-regulating mechanism for the press, the Press Council (PCI) is a statutory body of journalists, publishers, academics, and politicians, with a government-appointed chairman, that investigates complaints of irresponsible journalism and sets a code of conduct for publishers nationwide. This code includes a commitment not to publish stories that might incite caste or communal violence. The council publicly criticized newspapers or journalists it believed had broken the code of conduct, especially regarding communal violence or vandalism.

Independent newspapers and magazines regularly published and television channels regularly broadcast investigative reports, including allegations of government wrongdoing, and the press generally promoted human rights and criticized perceived government lapses. Most print media and 80 percent of television channels were privately owned. However, by law, only government-controlled radio stations were allowed to report news over the radio.

With the exception of radio, foreign media generally was allowed to operate freely, and private satellite television was distributed widely by cable or satellite dish, providing competition for Doordarshan, the government-owned television network. While the public frequently accused the government television of manipulating the news in the government's favor, some privately owned satellite channels often promoted the platforms of political parties their owners supported.

The government often held foreign satellite broadcasters, rather than domestic cable operators, liable under civil law for what it deemed objectionable content on satellite channels--notably, tobacco and alcohol advertisements and adult content.

AM radio broadcasting remained a government monopoly. Private FM radio station ownership was legal, but licenses only authorized entertainment and educational content. Local editions of foreign press were prohibited; however, the government allowed country-specific editions published by a local company, with no more than a 26 percent foreign partnership.

The authorities generally allowed foreign journalists to travel freely, including in Jammu and Kashmir, where they regularly met with separatist leaders and filed reports on a range of issues, including government abuses.

The Newspapers Incitements to Offenses Act remained in effect in Jammu and Kashmir, which allows a district magistrate to prohibit publication of material likely to incite violence; however, newspapers in Srinagar reported in detail on alleged human rights abuses by the government and regularly published separatist Kashmiri groups' press releases.

There were some attacks on the media that were apparently intended to harass or inhibit the free expression of opinions. For example, on February 9, members of the Kangleipak Communist Party in Imphal shot and injured Ratan Luwangcha, general secretary of the All Manipur Working Journalists' Union.

On June 10, unknown assailants attacked and killed Arun Narayan Dekate, a rural correspondent with the Marathi daily Tarun Bharat. According to press reports, Dekate had exposed and informed police about an illegal gambling racket headed by alleged gambling boss Dhampal Bhagat. Authorities arrested several suspects in the case.

In June an imam of a mosque in Kolkata (Calcutta) issued a fatwa (religious edict) against exiled Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, offering a reward of $1,100 (Rs 48,500) to anyone who smeared black paint on her face and drove her out of the country. The police commissioner reportedly summoned the imam, who denied issuing the fatwa.

In August the Punjab State Human Rights Commission sought an inquiry into the arrest of two journalists, Harjit Singh Kohli and Gurmit Mann, who were investigating the arrest of one girl and three boys in a police constable's residence. Police allegedly filed a falsified FIR against the journalists after they refused to hand over their notes.

There were no developments in the July 2005 harassment and intimidation of South Asia Tribune correspondent Arun Kumar Rajnath or the August 2005 arrest of Indian Express correspondent Gautam Dheer.

There were no developments in the June 2005 harassment of journalists in Meghalaya by police and the Meghalaya government or the August 2005 Tamil Nadu issuance of "breach of privilege" notices against journalists who published two controversial articles.

Violent intimidation of the press by terrorist groups in Jammu and Kashmir caused significant self-censorship, according to journalists based in the state. During the year the threat of losing government revenue contributed to self-censorship by smaller media outlets that relied heavily on state government advertising for their survival.

In February members of a breakaway faction of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front reportedly threatened editors of the newspaper Greater Kashmir for failing to cover adequately a general strike called by the group.

In May the main cable television operator in Kashmir stopped airing programs following threats from separatists. The cable company noted that separatists, thought to be members of a little-known group called the Al-Madina Regiment, complained of the "depraved nature" of the programming. A larger insurgent group, Hizbul Mujahideen, denied that any separatists were involved and accused local officials of orchestrating a shut-down to divert attention from a sex scandal.

The government maintained a list of banned books that may not be imported or sold in the country. Censors claimed that some books, such as Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, aggravated communal tensions. In March 2004 the Maharashtra state government filed criminal charges against a foreign professor for allegedly slandering Shivaji, a 17th century Marathi warrior, and his mother in his book. The case remained open at year's end, and the Maharashtra state government continued to ban the book. In January the Maharashtra state government banned another book on Shivaji by the same author, published in 2001, for fear it would create communal tension. In September 2005 the Kolkata (Calcutta) High Court removed the April 2004 West Bengal government ban on Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen's autobiography, Dwikhandita, Amaar Meyebela.

In March and April the government of Rajasthan banned Haqeeqat (Reality), a Hindi translation of a controversial anti-Hindu book by Kerala-based evangelist M.G. Mathew, claiming it would incite communal violence, and held Samuel Thomas, president of Emmanuel Ministries International (EMI), a Christian charitable institution, in judicial custody from March 17 to May 2 for distributing the book (see section 2.c). The book Wo Sharm Se Hindu Kahate Hain Kyon? (Why Do They Say With Shame They Are Hindus) was banned at the same time as Haqeeqat.

A government censorship board reviewed films before licensing them for distribution, censoring material it deemed offensive to public morals or communal sentiment.

Internet Freedom

The Informational Technology Act provides for censoring the Internet on public morality grounds, and defines "unauthorized access to certain types of electronic information" as a crime. According to Reporters Without Borders, this law theoretically allowed police to search the homes or offices of Internet users at any time without a warrant, but that claim had not been tested in court. The government retained the right to limit access to the Internet, specifically information deemed detrimental to national security.

On July 13, the Department of Telecommunications asked Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block several Web sites. The known list of blocked domains included blogspot.com, typepad.com and geocities.com, which terrorists allegedly used. The block was lifted after two days.

Academic Freedom and Cultural Events

The government continued to apply restrictions to the travel and activities of visiting experts and scholars. In 2003 the Ministry of Human Resources Development (HRD) passed academic guidelines requiring all central universities to obtain HRD permission before organizing "all forms of foreign collaborations and other international academic exchange activities," including seminars, conferences, workshops, guest lectures, and research. These guidelines remained in force during the year. In most cases, the HRD ultimately permitted the international academic exchanges to take place after bureaucratic delays. However, in 2005 the Ministry of Home Affairs denied visas to six foreign scholars because the government was "not in favor of undertaking the proposed research project." During the year, the Ministry of Home Affairs denied 21 scholars visas.

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

The law provides for freedom of assembly and association, and the government generally respected this right in practice.

Freedom of Assembly

The authorities normally required permits and notification prior to holding parades or demonstrations, and local governments ordinarily respected the right to protest peacefully, except in Jammu and Kashmir, where the local government sometimes denied permits to separatist parties for public gatherings and detained separatists engaged in peaceful protest. During periods of civil tension, the authorities may ban public assemblies or impose a curfew under the Criminal Procedure Code.

There were some instances of demonstrations where security forces either claimed harsh tactics were warranted or failed to protect demonstrators from violence.

On January 1, police shot 12 adivasis (tribals) in Kalinga Nagar, Jajpur District, in Orissa. The police shooting occurred when 600 tribals gathered to block the construction of a boundary wall at a Tata Corporation steel plant. When police tried to break up the demonstrations, the tribals attacked the police with arrows and stones, killing one policeman. The police responded by firing tear-gas shells and rubber bullets and opening fire with bullets. In addition to the 13 deaths, 25 people were wounded in the clash. The government of Orissa ordered the suspension of the district administration police chiefs and announced a compensation of $11,000 (Rs 485,000) for the victims' families.

In March police fired into a crowd of protesting fishermen, killing one and severely injuring several others, at Gangavaram Port in Andhra Pradesh. The fishermen were demanding compensation for restrictions on fishing in the area. In June the government agreed to a compensation plan.

In May the NHRC requested that Mumbai and Delhi Police provide a "factual report" to justify using a lathi, a bamboo stick used for crowd control, against students protesting medical school admittance quotas in New Delhi and elsewhere.

In June police fired on demonstrators who were protesting custodial killings in Pattan town in north Kashmir, killing two and injuring 25, sparking attacks on police stations and highway blockades.

In September two persons reportedly were killed and at least thirty policemen were injured during a traders' protest against the ongoing sealing drive in New Delhi. The chief minister Sheila Dixit, ordered a magisterial inquiry into the incidence of violence.

There were no developments in the May 2005 killing of a nine-year-old girl by police who were attempting to disperse a clash between villagers in Srinagar.

There were no developments in the June 2005 Orissa police shooting, when protesters stormed a police station demonstrating against the delay in the arrest of a molester of minor girl.

There were no developments in the August 2005 killing by police of two people in Bihar who were protesting the removal of a bus stand following the death of a child in a bus accident.

Freedom of Association

The law provides for the freedom of association, and the government generally respected this right in practice.

NGOs must secure approval from the Ministry of Home Affairs before organizing international conferences. Human rights groups contended that this provided the government with substantial political control over the work of NGOs and restricted their freedom of assembly and association. NGOs alleged that some members from abroad were denied visas arbitrarily.

c. Freedom of Religion

The law provides for secular government and the protection of religious freedom, and the central government generally respected these provisions in practice; however, it sometimes did not act effectively to counter societal attacks against religious minorities and attempts by state and local governments to limit religious freedom. This failure resulted in part from legal constraints inherent in the country's federal structure and in part from shortcomings in the law enforcement and judicial systems. There is no state religion, although the fact that the majority of citizens are Hindus at times adversely affected the religious freedom of others. Some Hindu hardliners interpreted ineffective investigation and prosecution of their attacks on religious minorities as evidence that they could commit such violence with impunity.

Some human rights groups alleged that there were ideological ties between the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the BJP state governments that may have influenced the BJP's response to acts of violence against religious minorities.

Legally mandated benefits were assigned to certain groups, including some groups defined by their religion. For example, educational institutions administered by minority religions were allowed to reserve seats for their co-religionists even when they received government funding. Benefits accorded Dalits (formerly known as "untouchables") were revoked once they converted to Christianity or Islam, but not to Buddhism or Sikhism, ostensibly because once a Dalit converted to Christianity or Islam, he would no longer technically be a Dalit, although such caste distinctions informally existed in both religions.

The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act of 1988 criminalizes the use of any religious site for political purposes or the use of temples to harbor persons accused or convicted of crimes. While specifically designed to deal with Sikh places of worship in Punjab, the law applies to all religious sites. The Religious Buildings and Places Act requires a state government-endorsed permit before construction of any religious building. The act's supporters claimed that its aim is to curb the use of Muslim institutions by Islamic extremist groups, but the measure became a controversial political issue among Muslims.

The states of Arunachal Pradesh, Chattisgharh, Madhya Pradesh, and Orissa have laws against forcible conversions. Gujarat passed anti-conversion legislation which has never been enacted as the state government has yet to publish the regulations needed for enforcement.

In 2003 Gujarat passed a "Freedom of Religion" Act that provides penalties of up to three years in prison and a fine of $1,000 (Rs 44,000) for the use of inducement or force for religious conversion. On September 19, the state assembly passed the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill. The amendment claimed that Buddhists and Jains were subsets of Hinduism, despite the 1992 National Commission for Minorities Act that identified Buddhism as a separate religion and Supreme Court action in the current year recognizing the sovereign identity of Jains. The amendment states that there would be no government intervention if a person changes from one sect to another (i.e. Shia to Sunni or Protestant to Catholic, or Hindu to Jain.)

In March the Rajasthan government introduced and the state assembly passed legislation banning conversions by "force, allurement, or fraudulent means," but by year's end it was not signed into law after both the state governor and President Abdul Kalam refused to endorse the legislation.

In July the states of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh enacted changes to existing anti-conversion laws requiring prior permission of district authorities before any conversion takes place. The new amendments also excluded Christians intending to "reconvert" to Hinduism from the prior permission requirement. Chhattisgarh's legislation would protect Hindu "purification rallies," which were large public events where Hindu activists "re-convert" entire villages of Christian tribal people. At year's end, the amendments were not operational.

On May 22, the Tamil Nadu Assembly repealed the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Act, 2002.

While there were some reported arrests throughout the country, there were no convictions under anticonversion laws during the year.

Reports from faith-based NGOs and the media indicated that there were four arrests in Andhra Pradesh, 14 in Chhattisgarh, 28 in Madhya Pradesh, two in Orissa, and one in Uttar Pradesh between July 2005 and June. In most cases, the people picked up under the conversion laws are released on bail after spending a night in police custody. Faith-based NGOs allege that this is a systematic strategy to discourage Christian prayer meetings.

There is no national law barring a citizen or foreigner from professing or propagating his or her religious beliefs; however, the law prohibits visitors in the country on tourist visas from engaging in religious proselytizing without prior permission from the Ministry of Home Affairs. During the year state officials continued to refuse permits to foreign missionaries to enter some northeastern states, on the grounds of political instability in the region. Missionaries and religious organizations must comply with the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) of 1976, which restricts funding from abroad. The government can ban a religious organization that violates the FCRA, provokes intercommunity friction, or has been involved in terrorism or sedition.

The legal system accommodates minority religions' personal status laws, and there were different personal laws for different religious communities. Religion-specific laws are paramount in matters of marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance. The personal status laws of the religious communities sometimes discriminated against women.

Some laws, such as the repealed POTA, while not specifically written to target a minority group, affected particular ethnic or religious groups. A July 2004 study carried out by the NGO People's Tribunal in 10 states found that 99.9 percent of those arrested under POTA were Muslims.

In response to EMI headquarters' distribution of Haqeeqat, deemed disrespectful of Hindu beliefs, a prominent Hindu leader offered a bounty of $26,000 (Rs 1.15 million) for the mission archbishop's "head on a plate." According to the media, Hindu activists attacked a school run by EMI and burned an effigy of its founder. In February, the Government of Rajasthan suspended the registration of EMI property and froze its assets. By year's end, EMI's bank account had been re-opened and its registration had been restored (see 2.a.).

In April communal clashes between Hindu and Muslim residents of Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, which stemmed from the use of loudspeakers during a religious festival, resulted in two deaths and eight injuries. An NCM investigation determined that the Uttar Pradesh administration initially did not take appropriate steps to prevent the violence. The police launched a judicial inquiry.

From March 2 to 4, groups of Hindus attacked and destroyed Muslim shops and vehicles in two towns in central Goa. The group protested the illegal construction of a mosque by recent Muslim immigrants.

On March 7, three bombs exploded at the Sankat Mochan temple and railway station in Varanasi, killing at least 23 people and injuring several others. The Uttar Pradesh chief minister claimed police killed one alleged attacker, a member of the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba terrorist group.

On May 1, police shot and killed two Muslims during protests over the removal of a Muslim shrine in Vadodara, Gujarat. In the violence that ensued, police injured another 60 persons, mostly Muslims. Unknown assailants stabbed and killed two Hindus. According to the media, the police reportedly dealt heavy handedly with Muslim rioters.

On September 8, two bombs attached to bicycles exploded in Malegaon, Maharashtra, killing 37 people and injuring 125, most of them Muslim worshipers leaving a mosque after Friday prayers. On October 30, authorities arrested a member of the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) for his alleged involvement with the blast.

The Gujarat government paid a total of $3,400 (Rs 150,000) to the next of kin of each person killed in the 2002 violence and paid approximately $447,000 (Rs 19.7 million) towards relief and rehabilitation, according to Chief Minister Narendra Modi. NGOs and newspapers criticized the Gujarat government for discriminating between Hindus and Muslims in dispensing compensation. In November the central government announced payment of approximately $15,909 (Rs 700,000) to each of the families of the Gujarat riots as compensation. By year's end, this had not been implemented.

Societal Abuses and Discrimination

Tensions between religious groups, while rare, continued during the year. Attacks on religious minorities occurred in several states, which brought into question the state governments' ability to prevent sectarian and religious violence or prosecute those responsible.

Several human rights and religious freedom NGOs, including the All India Christian Council and the All-India Catholic Union (AICU) expressed concern over growing anti-Christian violence in several states governed by the BJP, some of whom had affiliations with fundamentalist groups associated with the RSS. In November 2005 the AICU reported that there were approximately 200 attacks against Christians throughout the country during the year.

On January 16, Hindu fundamentalists burned the houses of three Christian families of Matiapara village in Jaipur, Rajasthan. The police did not initially accept the FIR filed by the pastor and members of the church. However, the police did accept a FIR from Hindus accusing the pastor of forcible conversion. Both complaints were forwarded to the court. The police allegedly harassed the pastor and his acquaintances. The Orissa State Human Rights Commission conducted an investigation into the incident, which had not been concluded at the year's end.

In March media reported that Hindus set a Christian church on fire at Gunthaput village in the Orissa district of Koraput. The All India Christian Council approached the District Collector for redress.

Muslims in some Hindu-dominated areas continued to experience intimidation and reported a lack of government protection, resulting in their inability to work, reside, or send their children to schools. In some areas, primarily in Gujarat, Hindutva, groups displayed signs stating "Hindus only" and "Muslim-free area." Hindutva is the ideology that espouses politicized inculcation of Hindu religious and cultural norms above other religious norms. There were also allegations of prohibitions on the Muslim call to prayer.

There were no developments in the February 2005 killings of Gilbert Raj or Dilip Dalai.

Hindu organizations frequently alleged that Christian missionaries forced or lured Hindus, particularly those of lower castes, to convert to Christianity. In Christian majority areas, there were occasional reports that Christians harassed members of other communities.

There were no reports during the year of anti-Semitic acts against the country's small Jewish community which constituted 0.76 percent of the total population.

For a more detailed discussion, see the 2006 International Religious Freedom Report.

d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration, and Repatriation

The law provides for freedom of movement, and the government generally respected this in practice; however, in certain border areas the government required special permits.

Security forces often searched and questioned occupants at vehicle checkpoints, mostly in troubled areas in the Kashmir Valley or after major terrorist attacks. The government also completed construction (except in areas of difficult terrain) of a 330-mile security fence along the LOC in Jammu and Kashmir, causing occasional difficulties for local residents, as it cut through some villages and agricultural lands. The government erected the security fence to stop arms smuggling and infiltration by Pakistani-based terrorists or insurgents. The government attributed a decline in insurgent crossings during the year in part to the fence.

Under the Passports Act of 1967, the government may deny a passport to any applicant who "may or is likely to engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India." In the past, the government used this provision to prohibit foreign travel by some government critics, especially those advocating Sikh independence and members of the separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir.

Unlike in previous years, there were no reports of the government using the issuance of passports or travel documents to restrict travel of separatist leaders in Jammu and Kashmir. However, citizens from Jammu and Kashmir faced extended delays, often up to two years, before the Ministry of External Affairs would issue or renew their passports. Government officials also regularly demanded bribes before issuing passports from Jammu and Kashmir that required special clearances. Applicants born in Jammu and Kashmir--even the children of serving military officers born during their parents' deployment in the state--were subjected to additional scrutiny, requests for bribes, and police clearances prior to passport issuance.

There was no law banning forced exile; however, there were no reports of forced exile during the year.

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

According to the Norwegian Refugee Council, at least 650,000 persons were displaced due to conflicts in Jammu and Kashmir, Gujarat, and the northeast (see sections 1.a., 1.c., and 1.g.). Approximately 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits (Hindu Brahmins), who were forced to flee the Kashmir Valley in the early 1990s after the outbreak of separatist violence, remained in IDP camps in Jammu and New Delhi, some 15 years after the start of the insurgency; they were unable to return to their homes in Jammu and Kashmir because of safety concerns, including the on-going killings of Hindus in the state.

The NHRC reported that the Pandit population in Jammu and Kashmir dropped from 15 percent in 1941 to 0.1 percent during the year. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs Annual Report for 2005, there were 55,476 Kashmiri Pandit migrant families of which 34,088 resided in Jammu, 19,338 in Delhi, and 2,050 in other states. There were 230 migrant families living in 14 camps in Delhi and 5,778 families in 16 camps in Jammu. The government p