To protest is our democratic right, but keep emotions under control: Shahi Imam

It has been 33 years since the night of 22 May, 1987 when nearly 50 Muslim men from Hashimpura, a settlement in Meerut were rounded up and packed into the rear of a truck of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), an armed police of Uttar Pradesh. It was the blessed month of Ramadan and all the Muslims were fasting.

That night 42 of those on board the truck were killed in two massacres in neighbouring Ghaziabad district. One along the Upper Ganga canal near Muradnagar, the other along the Hindon canal in Makanpur, on the border with Delhi.

The cops had returned home after dumping the dead bodies into the canal. A few days later, the dead bodies were found floating in the canal and a case of murder was registered. 

Vir Bahadur Singh was the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh and Rajiv Gandhi was the prime minister of India when this incident took place. 

Not much has changed for the survivors and the relatives of the victims even today. The wounds are still fresh. Hashimpura remains devoid of basic municipal amenities, the erring silence on the narrow lanes of the locality amid the activities of a daily life speaks of the horror of the fateful day in 1987.

The massacre was the result of one among the many outcomes of the decision taken by the Rajiv Gandhi government to open the locks of Babri Masjid. After a month of rioting, the situation was tense in various parts of Meerut, and a lot spilled over in the nearby areas.

Timeline

May 22, 1987

Nearly 50 Muslims picked up by the PAC personnel from Hashimpura village in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
Victims later shot and bodies thrown into a canal. 42 persons declared dead.

1988

UP government orders CB-CID probe in the case.

February 1994

CB-CID submits inquiry report indicting over 60 PAC and police personnel of all ranks.

May 20, 1996

Charge sheet filed against 19 accused before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad by CB-CID of Uttar Pradesh police. 161 people listed as witnesses.

September 2002

Case transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court on a petition by the families of victims and survivors.

July 2006

Delhi court frames charges of murder, attempt to murder, tampering with evidence and conspiracy under the IPC against 17 accused.

March 8, 2013

Trial court dismisses Subramanian Swamy's plea seeking probe into the alleged role of P Chidambaram, then Minister of State for Home, in the matter.

January 22, 2015

Trial court reserves judgement.

March 21, 2015

Court acquits 16 surviving accused giving them benefit of doubt regarding their identity.

May 18, 2015

Trial court decision challenged in the Delhi HC by the victims' families and eyewitnesses who survived the incident.

May 29, 2015

HC issues notice to the 16 PAC personnel on Uttar Pradesh government's appeal against the trial court verdict.

December 2015

National Human Rights Commission is impleaded in the matter. NHRC also seeks further probe into the massacre.

February 17, 2016

HC tags Swamy's appeal with the other petitions in the matter.

September 6, 2018

Delhi HC reserves verdict in the case.

October 31, 2018

Delhi HC convicts 16 former PAC personnel for life after finding them guilty of the murder of 42 people.

New Delhi, Jun 15: After Two Indian officials working with Indian High Commission in Pakistan wet missing on Monday,  the Ministry of External Affairs summoned Pakistan's Charge d'affaires to India in the national capital and told them not to interrogate or harass Indian officials.

"Two Indian High Commission officials are missing since morning while on official work. The matter has been taken up with the Pakistani authorities," Akhilesh Singh, First Secretary and spokesperson, Indian High Commission, Pakistan, said.

According to sources quoted by PTI news agency, the MEA told the  Pakistan's Charge d'affaires to India that the responsibility of safety and security of Indian personnel in Islamabad "lays squarely with Pakistani authorities."

"Pakistan was asked to ensure return of two Indian officials along with official car to Indian High Commission in Islamabad immediately," sources added. 

The incident comes after two Pakistani officials at the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi were accused of espionage and deported.

The two officials have been missing since Monday morning. Officials said the issue has been taken up with the Pakistan government.

Earlier, a vehicle of India's Charge d'affaires Gaurav Ahluwalia was chased by Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) member.

In March, the Indian High Commission in Pakistan sent a strong protest note to the foreign ministry in Islamabad protesting against the continuing harassment of its officers and staff by Pakistani agencies.

New Delhi, Feb 17: The Supreme Court said on Monday that people have a fundamental right to protest against a law but the blocking of public roads is a matter of concern and there has to be a balancing factor.

Hearing pleas over the road blocks due to the ongoing protests at Shaheen Bagh against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a bench comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph said its concern is about what will happen if people start protesting on roads.

Democracy works on expressing views but there are lines and boundaries for it, the bench said.

It asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde and advocate Sadhana Ramachandran to talk to Shaheen Bagh protestors and persuade them to move to an alternative site where no public place is blocked.

The matter has been posted for next hearing on February 24.

People have a fundamental right to protest but the thing which is troubling us is the blocking of public roads, the bench said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said Shaheen Bagh protestors should not be given a message that every institution is on its knees trying to persuade them on this issue.

The apex court said that if nothing works, we will leave it to the authorities to deal with the situation.

Protestors have made their made their point and the protests have gone on for quite some time, it said.

Restrictions have been imposed on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch and the Okhla underpass, which were closed on December 15 last year due to the protests against CAA and Register of Citizens.

The top court had earlier said the anti-CAA protesters at Delhi's Shaheen Bagh cannot block public roads and create inconvenience for others.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by advocate Amit Sahni, who had approached the Delhi high court seeking directions to the Delhi Police to ensure smooth traffic flow on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, which was blocked by anti-CAA protesters on December 15.

While dealing with Sahni's plea, the high court had asked local authorities to deal with the situation keeping in mind law and order.

Separately, former BJP MLA Nand Kishore Garg has filed a petition in the apex court seeking directions to the authorities to remove the protestors from Shaheen Bagh.

One of the pleas has sought laying down of comprehensive and exhaustive guidelines relating to outright restrictions for holding protests or agitations leading to obstruction of public place.

In his plea, Garg has said that law enforcement machinery was being "held hostage to the whims and fancies of the protesters" who have blocked vehicular and pedestrian movement from the road connecting Delhi to Noida.

State has the duty to protect fundamental rights of citizen who were continuously being harassed by the blockage of arterial road, it said.

"It is disappointing that the state machinery is muted and a silent spectator to hooliganism and vandalism of the protesters who are threatening the existential efficacy of the democracy and the rule of law and had already taken the law and order situation in their own hand," the plea had said.

In his appeal, Sahni had sought supervision of the situation in Shaheen Bagh, where several women are sitting on protest, by a retired Supreme Court judge or a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court.

Sahni has said in his plea that protests in Shaheen Bagh has inspired similar demonstrations in other cities and to allow it to continue would set a wrong precedent.