- 270 Posts
- 28 Comments
Happy New Year to all.This year i can pray only one thing before you to not be any sorts of slave of any people including yourself in any manner whether it may be ideologically,socially,politically,emotionally or mentaly.Today,with a hope to not be slave,i have lodged case against the chairperson of Bihar Human Rights Commission before the National Human Rights Commission.I know nothing is going to happen.But i also know that only lodging case is a sense which realizes me that i am not slave because this gives self-satisfaction.
I have decided to continue cutting all sorts of relationship with any as usual to not be any sorts of slave,but i have also decided to fight this case at least against brutal principal and obstacle people of the way .I need economically help.So this may be that i can’t be able to move Supreme Court after High Court this time and i may have to wait for some years till the time of being a lawyer.But i have lost my believe even on Supreme Court.
The Complaint is below:-
Rahul kumar
________________________________________
Complaint against the chairperson of Bihar Human Rights Commission-Regarding
1 message
________________________________________
Rahul kumar Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 7:34 AM
To: chairnhrc@nic.in, covdnhrc@nic.in
Cc: jrlawnhrc@nic.in
To
The Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission
New Delhi
Date:-1/1/2013,Tuesday
Sub:-Complaint against the chairperson of Bihar Human Rights Commission-Regarding
Ref:- Order passed by the aforesaid commission on 31.10.2012 on the petitioner’s File No. 3687/11
Sir
With due respect,the petitioner would like to draw your kind attention towards the baseless,prejudicially affected and one-sided decision given by the chairperson of Bihar Human Rights Commission on 31.10.2012 on the petitioner’s File No 3687/11.
The matter of the petitioner is as under:-
The petitioner was the student of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,Birauli,Samastipur,Bihar.When he was in class Tenth,one boy of class Sixth namely Sanjeev Suman became his friend.The petitioner was admitted in class Eleventh on 6.7.2011 in science against his desire of opting Humanities due to a philosophical article titled:-VISION 2047 by the principal by slapping the condition of expulsion in the case of opting Humanities .The petitioner was thinking and working against corruption existing in the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,Birauli,Samastipur.When he entered in Eleventh,the principal of the said school started to torture him mentally,emotionally and ideologically.In this context,he refused to allot Humanities due to aforesaid article,he kept the petitioner trapping in unnatural offence without justification with his friend namely Sanjeev Suman who was helpful in his project of said philosophy.Again,the respondent principal imposed the condition of expulsion in the case of living in tension on 23.8.2011.So the petitioner became bound to ran away from the school on 24.8.2011 and made complain against the respondent principal to the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,Headquarter on 25.8.2011.After complaining against respondent principal,the said respondent trapped the petitioner on 14.9.2011 in unnatural offence with said boy namely Sanjeev Suman and expelled but objection was not proved.Again,when the father of petitioner went to school to issue SLC(School Leaving Certificate) on 28.9.2011 as the respondent principal expelled the petitioner,the respondent principal compelled the father of petitioner to submit application for SLC by saying that SLC would be issued only when the father of petitioner would submit application and even If the father of petitioner would not submit application,the respondent principal would not keep the petitioner in school.So the father of petitioner became bound to submit application under such circumstances.
The petitioner made complain to the Bihar Human Rights Commissioner as well as before you(Case No.267/4/30/2012/OC of dt.28.1.2012 and Case No.753/4/30/2012/OC of dt.21.3.2012 ) against ill behaviour of the respondent principal,whereupon the National Human Rights Commission forwaded the matter to the Secretary,ministry of Human Resource and Development for appropriate necessary action and disposed the same.The secretary,Ministry of Human Resource and Development forwaded the matter to the commissioner,Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and no action is taken at ministry level.Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,Headquarter appointed an Assistant Commissioner of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,Regional Office,Patna namely Sri AK Tiwari to enquire into the matter and Sri AK Tiwari submitted report without enquiring the petitioner only enquiring the accused and his sides and the Headquarter accepted the one-sided report submitted by AK Tiwari and disposed of the matter.
The respondent Bihar Human Rights Commission enquired into the matter through the principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya .After obtaining the enquiry report,the matter was heard and disposed of vide order dt.31.10.2012 with an observation:-
“On perusal of the documents it appears to the commission that matter involves many disputed questions and even if the applicant’s version that he was expelled from the school is assumed to be true,the impugned action against the applicant would appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure.The commission is not inclined to make any kind of intervention in the matter;though erroneously.’’
But, The respondent principal submitted distorted report to the Bihar Human Rights Commission by manufacturing many forge papers in back date against the petitioner.The respondent principal utilized under pressure the boy namely Sanjeev Suman,his mother Pintu Kumari,two teachers namely Pradeep Kumar Acharya and Ghanshyam Choudhary to forge documents against the petitioner and principal managed to some officers of collectorate,Samastipur to do forge complain against the petitioner to the District Magistrate,Samastipur.Forge Paper is also prepared against the petitioner addressed to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Dt-Samastipur.
By the all above activities against petitioner,the following fundamental rights of the petitioner have been violated:-
(i)That, the expulsion or forcibly compelling to receive SLC is also violative of section 16 of RTE Act,2010.Also,the violative of article 21 of Indian constitution which says about right to education,right to live with human dignity etc.
(ii)That, mental harassment of the petitioner through issuance of SLC against his will and by trapping in such allegation with a very much helpful friend falls within the teeth of section 17(1) of RTE Act,2010. Also falls within article 21 of Indian Constitution which says about freedom from torture,right to live with human dignity etc.Trapping falsely without evidence with the friend of the petitioner also falls within right to privacy under article 21.
(iii)That, refusing to allot Humanities by the principal due to an article is the violative of right to freedom of expression under article 19(1)(a)
(iv)That, the respondent principal is liable to be punished as per section 17(2) of RTE Act,2010 and section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act,2000 for mental harassment of the petitioner.Also,under various sections of IPC,the respondent principal is liable to be punished.
(v)That, trapping on ground of caste(as the petitioner has no such family and social relationship with the said boy) is violative of right to equality under article 15(1) of Indian Constitution.
(vi)That, the planted victim namely Sanjeev Suman was helpful for the project/philosophy of petitioner.The respondent principal has tried to stop the expression of the petitioner by trapping with his friend,which is violative of article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution.
Sir
Some given below evidences are helpful to understand how all papers are forge
(i)The complaint of Master Sanjeev Suman done to the principal is of dated:-22.9.2011 as this is filed as the enclosure of complaint of Sh.PK Acharya,TGT English/House Master of Udaygiri B Hostel of said school of dated:-22.9.2011.As PK Acharya(Pradeep Kumar Acharya) has underlined some words and signed in the complaint and this is said that ‘’through the housemaster’’ but principal has signed on 20.9.2011.This is written by the brother of Sanjeev namely Sanjeet Kashyap and no sign of Sanjeev is present.Overall,this is of after complaining against principal to his headquarter and after 6 months.
(ii)The complaint of Smt.Pintu Kumari,the mother of Sanjeev,done to the District Magistrate,Samastipur is done on 23.9.2011 but applicant has signed on 23.8.2011-one month before.The complaint is sealed on 26.9.2011 instead of 23.9.2011. Overall,this is filed after complaining against principal to his headquarter and after 6 months.
In the order of DM office of dated:-29.9.2011,principal has written that a report is submitted to DM office on my withdrawal by my parents request.Principal has sent me this report through RTI which is of dated 19.10.2011 but in the order of 29.9.2011,principal has signed on 18.9.2011.In the report of dated:- 19.10.2011,principal has written Sanjeet Kashyap in place of Sanjeev Suman.
(iii)The complaint of Smt.Pintu Kumari,the mother of Sanjeev,done to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Samastipur is signed by applicant on 23.9.2011 but one official has signed on 21.9.2011.No seal,date and case No is present in this complaint. Overall,this is filed after complaining against principal to his headquarter and after 6 months
(iv). The complaint of Smt.Pintu Kumari,the mother of Sanjeev,done to the principal of dated:-22.8.2011 is of after 5 months and after lodging email complaint to the regional office of dated:-17.8.2011 and no sign of principal is present.
(v).The complaint of PK Acharya done to the principal of dated:-22.9.2011 is of after complaining against principal to his headquarter and after 6 months and no sign of principal is present.
(vi).The complaint of GS (Ghan Shyam)Chaudhary,PGT Maths/house master of Arawali A done to the principal regarding the daily behavior is of 24.8.2011-on the day of petitioner’s absconding and after of 5 months.Respondent Principal was not present on the day till 11 P:M but he has signed on the complaint.
(vii) No sign of planted victim boy namely Sanjeev Suman is present in the application of his mother filed before respondent No.5 of dated:-6.7.2011 for house changing.
(viii)The planted victim namely Sanjeev Suman Complained on 22.9.2011 but the mother of Sanjeev complained to principal on 22.8.2011 and 6.7.2011 on the basis of the statement of her son.How she complained before,where no statement was present of her son?The complaint to Sub-Divisional Magistrate (same complaint is filed to the District Magistrate) had been prepared on 21.9.2011 as typist has written the said date and one official has signed on the said date.But the child complained on 22.9.2011.How the complaint to Sub-Divisional Magistrate (same complaint is filed to the District Magistrate) had been prepared before ,where no statement was present of her son?How the complaints done to Sub-Divisional Magistrate and District Magistrate are prepared before the complaining of the child to the principal of dated:-22.9.2011?
(ix) That child said nothing against the petitioner in his written statement of dated:-22.9.2011 which can prove unnatural offence. Not a single student has claimed the petitioner and presented as an eye-witness.Only sleepings are narrated as the other students’s version.Then how,the mother of child went to complain baselessly?In the complaint of Respondent 11 and respondent 12,whatever is said on the basis of the statements of child is not said in the statements of the child of dt.22.9.2011.
(X)The complaints of Smt.Pintu Kumari done to Sub-Divisional Magistrate and District Magistrate are totally different from her complaint done to the principal.How this happened?
(Xi) There are many contradictory statements in a particular complaint.One line of one complaint crosses the other lines of the same complaint.Also,the lines of that complaint,doesn’t match to all others complaints/reports filed in the same matter.
(Xii) If this is assumed that the petitioner was expelled then this is done also after complaining against principal and after 6 months.The petitioner stated before the commission that he was expelled after 6 months and after complaining against principal to his headquarter.So how this was disciplinary action?If the respondent No.5 didn’t expell the petitioner,then also he trapped the petitioner in that wrong allegation of unnatural offence after complaining against the respondent No.5 as mostly papers have been manufactured in the date of after complaining against principal and in this way,bounded a father to take SLC by taking complain from the child,his housemaster namely PK Acharya and forcing his mother to complain to District Magistrate,Samastipur and Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Dt-Samastipur.
(xiii).There were many complaints against the petitioner including complaints to DM and SDM but not a single action was taken against him [as principal wrote in his report] .So this was evident that these are manufactured when the petitioner complained against respondent principal to the commission because TC had been issued to the petitioner that time and the petitioner was no more in school so no action was taken.
(XIV) This point may be noted as the commission said that if this is assumed that petitioner was expelled then this would appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure that the petitioner was expelled on 14 Sept 2011[which he has written in his complaint of dated:-19.12.2011 done to the commission ] but complaints of that mother to SDM and DM are of dated:-23.9.2011 ,that child and PK Acharya are of dated:-22.9.2011.By the phone recordings of principal,statements of students of the school,evidence through media,statements of students,emails sent to the principal,call details record etc,this is evident that the petitioner was expelled on 14 Sept 2011.
(xv)The principal has accepted in his RTI response of 8.10.2012 that he has received petitioner’s email article of VISION 2047.This proves,he refused to allot petitioner humanities due to this article because he has said before Human Rights Commission and an Assisstant Commissioner, who was enquiry officer, that he has not received such article.
(XVI)The said principal has accepted in this RTI response that he has received an email article related to philosophical reason of living with the boy with whom the petitioner was trapped.This proves,without considering his favour and evidence,the petitioner was trapped.
(xvii)In this RTI response,the principal has accepted that he has received petitioner’s email article sent before expulsion by requesting him to not expell and some articles sent after expulsion requesting him to take back his decision and stating his decision wrong.This proves,the principal expelled the petitioner as he is saying,he didn’t expell him.This proves,he forced the petitioner’s father to write application for SLC as he is saying that the petitioner’s father himself gave application.This also proves that the principal has forged documents against him in back date after my approaching to Human Rights Commission.
(xviii)There are more than 10 voice clips of principal.In one voice clips,this is evident that he is going to expell the petitioner because the petitioner have complained against him.In remaining voice clips,this is evidents that he has forged documents against the petitioner in back date after his approaching to Human Rights Commission and he has done wrong.
(xix)More than 90 students,including more than 50 eye-witnesses (students of JNV Samastipur who were present in school that time ) have supported the petitioner .This proves,the petitioner is right and his accused are wrong.
(XX)By the response of contempt Notice sent to the DM,Samastipur,this is evident that complaint has been prepared against the petitioner later articifially and no complaint was done in so called back date as this is said that the information is taken of the matter from the principal in regard of the petitioner’s contempt notice .This means,no paper against the petitioner was filed before DM so the matter has to be informed by the principal to the DM/DM office.In this response,this is said that action is taken against the petitioner.This means, the petitioner was expelled and then the petitioner’s father was forced to write application.In the RTI response of the said office,this is evident that the officers of said office are either involved in forgery to protect himself or hide the conspiracy of principal to protect him.This is evident that if action is taken against the petitioner ,then this was wrong as principal and DM office replied wrongly in response of my question what action is taken,what the petitioner’s father accepted,how action taken without medical test and favour of petitioner was right etc that information sought is not information under RTI Act,2005.
(xxi)There is need to trace many public registar,which can clear all actual happenings.SMS detail record/call detail record/fax detail record and email detail record may prove helpful to give evidences in the petitioner’s support.
(xxii)The said mother has not replied contempt notice sent twice.This proves,if complaint is done to the DM and SDM against the petitioner after 6 months,having no action taken,this was conspiracy and wrong.
(xxiii)The petitioner has a voice clip of said boy supporting the petitioner and opposing those who tortured.Unfortunately,this was deleted.But this can be traced from the hard drive of the concerned mobile which the petitioner has.
(xxiv)Media has given the petitioner evidence.As principal accepted before the editor and his team of Hindustan Muzaffarpur that he trapped the petitioner and expelled on the basis of the written complaint of the said mother done to the principal.This proves,firstly principal expelled and then forced the petitioner’s father to write application to remove evidence.This also proves,no more complaint was done against the petitioner to the principal like of Said boy,2 teachers and complaints of said mother to the DM and SDM as there was only coomplaint of the said mother and only to principal.
(xxv)There must be medical examination of victim and accused under section 164 A of CrPC and Guidelines of National Human Rights Commission.
Sir
please see faults in the statement of impugned order of the commission one by one:-
1.The chairperson wrote:-The complaint is directed against the alleged expulsion of the applicant.
Faults:- The complaint was directed to take action against accused(principal).No only alleged expulsion,other ill behaviours of the accused had been narrated in the complaint.
2.The chairperson wrote:-The applicant has submitted that his father was forced to submit application.He also submitted that the accused has forged documents against him after his approaching to the commission.
Faults:- There is no clarification whether the father of applicant was forced to submit application or not,whether documents were forged against the applicant or not.
3.On perusal of the documents,it appears to the commission that the matter involves many disputed questions.
Faults:-What disputed questions the matter involves,there is no clarification.
4.Even if the applicant’s version that he has expelled from the school is assumed to be true,the impugned action against the applicant would appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure.
Faults:-As the learned commission itself said that the accused has submitted the application of the father of applicant for issuance of SLC in his report among other things and stated that this is not a case of expulsion .But if the applicant was expelled,no application should be submitted.But the application is submitted.This means,the accused forced to submit application to hide his crime.This means,the applicant is right and documents have been forged against him.
Sir
The learned Bihar Human Rights Commission has not followed below provisions of protection of Human Rights Act,1993.
(i)That,the learned commission ought to have enquired into the petitioner’s complain either by its own agency or any other independent agency under section 14 of protection of Human Rights Act,1993.
(ii)That,the learned commission is a creation of statute and during hearing it has to exercise its own power for trial under section 12 to section 18 of the protection of Human Rights Act,1993.
(iii) That,the learned commission passed order solely on the basis of perusal of distorted report submitted by respondent principal.But under section 12 to section 18 of Protection of Human Rights Act,1993,the commission has judicial power like court.
Sir
By all above facts,this is evident that the order has been passed wrongly.
Therefore,you are requested to recommend to take action against the chairperson of Bihar Human Rights Commission and look into my matter once .
Thanking You
Yours
Rahul Kumar
S/O-Jagannath Ray
Vill + Post-Sughrain
Via-Bithan
Dt-Samastipur
State-Bihar
PIN-848207
Read Comments