GEVENA: In a seminar held on the sidelines of the 54th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), speakers from various backgrounds expressed grave concerns over India’s alleged misuse of its judiciary to suppress dissenting voices in the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir. The seminar, hosted by the World Muslim Congress and co-sponsored by the Universal Human Rights Council, shed light on the denial of fair trials to Kashmiri prisoners, sparking doubts about the impartiality of the Indian judiciary.
The event, presided over and moderated by the World Muslim Congress’s permanent representative to the United Nations Geneva, featured a distinguished panel of speakers. Among them were Barrister Abdul Majeed Tramboo, Tazeen Hassan, noted US human rights defender Marry Scully, Syed Faiz Naqashbandi, Altaf Hussain Wani, Advocate Parvez Shah, and Member of the Sri Lanka Parliament Wasantha Yapa Bandara.
The speakers drew attention to Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, emphasizing that “every prisoner is entitled to an impartial and public hearing when his or her rights are at stake.” They asserted that the right to a fair trial, recognized as a fundamental human right internationally, forms an essential pillar of justice and democracy.
Turning their focus to the dire situation faced by Kashmiri prisoners languishing in various jails, the speakers lamented the denial of fair trials to political activists, human rights defenders, and civil society activists in Kashmir. They criticized the Indian government for arresting top leaders of the Hurriyat movement and subjecting them to prolonged imprisonment without adequate opportunities to defend themselves in a court of law.
The panellists raised concerns about the conduct of judges in Indian courts, accusing some of acting more like prosecuting or police officers than impartial arbiters of justice. They underscored that judges should not take sides in legal proceedings and pointed out that, in the case of Kashmiri prisoners, Indian courts had failed to maintain the required level of neutrality to ensure justice.
Furthermore, the reopening of decades-old cases against Kashmiri leaders was cited as evidence of the politicization of Indian courts, with the speakers asserting that the judiciary appeared to be compliant with the current government’s agenda.
In a call to action, the speakers urged the international community to take meaningful notice of the situation in Kashmir. They emphasized that it was imperative for the global community to exert pressure on the Indian government to cease the alleged weaponization of the judiciary against Kashmiris. They argued that the weaponization of the judicial system had not only eroded the independence of the Indian judiciary but also cast a dark shadow over the entire Indian justice system.
