Compensation for human shield victim: No allegation against govt, fulfilled ‘obligation’ by filing FIR, says CM

Compensation for human shield victim: No allegation against govt, fulfilled ‘obligation’ by filing FIR, says CM

The Jammu and Kashmir government on Thursday cited various reasons as to why it had refused the State Human Rights Commission’s recommendation for compensation to a youth thrashed and used as a human shield by the Army last year in Kashmir’s Budgam district.

Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, also the state Home Minister, said in a reply to a written question from senior National Conference leader Ali Muhammad Sagar in the Assembly: “No allegations as regards the violation of human rights of the applicant have been levelled against the state government or any of its functionaries.

“The state government has discharged its obligation by registering an FIR number 38/2017 in the matter at Beerwah police station and consequently initiated investigation.

“That pending completion of the investigation in the matter, the recommendation with regard to payment of compensation to the complainant, shall tantamount to establish the guilt of the caused without affording him an opportunity of being heard.”

Farooq Ahmad Dar, a resident of Budgam, was used as a human shield and paraded through several villages of the central Kashmir district by Major Gogoi during the bypoll to the Srinagar Lok Sabha seat on April 9.

Gogoi, who was honoured by the Indian army for his “innovative action,”  had claimed that Dar was “instigating” a stone-throwing  mob and could have been their “ring leader.”

A report by the Jammu and Kashmir police in September, however, confirmed Dar’s claim that he had gone out to vote and was not throwing stones when Gogoi kidnapped and thrashed him and paraded him through several villages tied to the bonnet of his jeep.

Gogoi  was hailed as a “hero” by sections of the Indian  media who flashed pictures of Dar tied to the bonnet of Gogoi’s jeep referring to the Kashmiri man as ‘coward’ and ‘stone pelter’.

The state government, in its reply, also said the SHRC which had recommended Rs 10 lakh be paid to Dar had “lacked jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present matter” as the rights panel had itself  observed that it is “handicapped to go into the conduct of the Army.”

  • author's avatar

    By: KN Web Desk

    No biography available at this time

  • author's avatar

  • 3
    Shares
  • 3
    Shares

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.