Davinder Singh Bhullar - A victim of state terrorism





If you click on me, I will disappear.
don't click on post or copy

Brief description of Davinder Singh Bhullar in Punjabi;

ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਭੁੱਲਰ ਨੂੰ ਫਾਂਸੀ ਦਾ ਫੈਸਲਾ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਵੰਗਾਰ

ਐਡਵੋਕੇਟ ਜਸਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਮੰਝਪੁਰ
98554-01843
26 ਮਈ 2011 ਨੂੰ ਭਾਰਤ ਦੀ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰਪਤੀ ਪ੍ਰਤਿਭਾ ਪਾਟਿਲ ਨੇ 1995 ਤੋਂ ਦਿੱਲੀ ਦੀ ਤਿਹਾੜ ਜੇਲ੍ਹ ਵਿਚ ਬੰਦ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਦਵਿੰਦਰਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਭੁੱਲਰ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਪਰੀਮ ਕੋਰਟ ਵਲੋਂ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਫਾਂਸੀ ਦੇ ਫੇਸਲੇ ਖਿਲਾਫ ਕੀਤੀ ਅਪੀਲ ਨੂੰ ਖਾਰਜ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਹੈ। ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਭੁੱਲਰ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਦੀ 16 ਸਾਲ ਤੋਂ ਵੱਧ ਦੀ ਕੈਦ ਕੱਟ ਚੁੱਕੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਹੁਸ ਫਾਸੀ ਦੀ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਦੋਹਰੀ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਦੇ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਜਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ। 16 ਸਾਲ ਤੋਂ ਵੱਧ ਦਾ ਸਮਾਂ ਕੱਟੇ ਜਾਣ ਦਾ ਆਧਾਰ ਬਣਾ ਕੇ ਹੀ ਸੁਪਰੀਮ ਕੋਰਟ ਦੇ ਵਕੀਲ ਕੇ.ਟੀ.ਐੱਸ. ਤੁਲਸੀ ਵਲੋਂ ਪਿਛਲੇ ਦਿਨੀਂ ਸੁਪਰੀਮ ਕੋਰਟ ਵਿਚ ਰਿੱਟ ਦਾਖਲ ਕੀਤੀ ਸੀ ਜਿਸ ਉਪਰ ਸੁਪਰੀਮ ਕੋਰਟ ਨੇ ਕਾਰਵਾਰੀ ਕਰਦਿਆਂ ਦਿੱਲੀ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਛੇ ਹਫਤਿਆਂ ਦਾ ਨੋਟਿਸ ਕੀਤਾ ਸੀ ਕਿ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਭੁੱਲਰ ਨੂੰ ਇਤਨਾ ਲੰਮਾ ਸਮਾਂ ਜੇਲ੍ਹ ਵਿਚ ਕਿਉਂ ਰੱਖਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਨੂੰ ਦੇਖਦਿਆਂ ਹੀ ਭਾਰਤ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਨੇ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰਪਤੀ ਕੋਲ ਪਾਈ ਪਟੀਸ਼ਨ ਨੂੰ ਖਾਰਜ਼ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਫੈਸਲਾ ਲਿਆ ਹੈ। ਕਦੀ ਕਿਸੇ ਸਿੱਖ ਨੇ ਇਸ ਪਾਸੇ ਵਲ ਸੋਚਣ ਲਈ ਆਪਣੇ ਦਿਮਾਗ ਦੀ ਵਰਤੋਂ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਯਤਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਕੀ ਗੱਲ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਦੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਇੰਜੀਨੀਅਰ ਕਾਲਜ਼ ਲੁਧਿਆਣੇ ਦੇ ਹੋਣਹਾਰ ਵਿਦਿਆਰਥੀ ਤੇ ਪ੍ਰੋਫੈਸਰ ਨੂੰ ਲੰਬੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਤੋਂ ਤਿਹਾੜ ਜੇਲ੍ਹ ਵਿਚ ਡੱਕਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਹੁਣ ਫਾਂਸੀ ਲਗਾਈ ਜਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ।ਉਸਦਾ ਕਸੂਰ ਕੀ ਹੈ? ਕੀ ਉਸਦਾ ਕਸੂਰ ਇਹ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਸਿੱਖ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਸਿੱਖ ਵੀ ਉਹ ਜੋ ਆਪਣੇ ਗੁਰੁ ਦਰਸਾਏ ਮਾਰਗਤੇ ਚਲਦਿਆਂ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਦਮਨਕਾਰੀ ਨੀਤੀ ਦੇ ਵਿਰੁੱਧ ਆਵਾਜ਼ ਬੁਲੰਦ ਕਰਦੈ ? ਜਾਂ ਇਹ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਆਪਣੇ ਪਿਓ, ਮਾਸੜ ਤੇ ਦੋਸਤ ਨੂੰ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਵਲੋਂ ਖਪਾ ਦੇਣ ਦੇ ਵਿਰੁੱਧ ਬੋਲਦੈ ? ਜਾਂ ਉਹ ਅਜੇ ਵੀ ਸਮੱਰਥਾ ਰੱਖਦਾ ਹੈ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਹਕੂਮਤ ਦੇ ਜੁੱਤੀ-ਚੱਟਕਾਲੀ ਲੀਡਰਾਂ ਦਾ ਬਦਲ ਬਣਨ ਦੀ ?
ਪ੍ਰੋ ਦਵਿੰਦਰਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਭੁੱਲਰ ਨੂੰ ਜਨਵਰੀ 1995 ਵਿਚ ਜਰਮਨੀ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਨੇ ਸਿਆਸੀ ਸ਼ਰਨ ਦੇਣ ਦੀ ਥਾਂ ਡਿਪੋਰਟ ਕਰਕੇ ਲੁਫਥਾਨਸਾ ਏਅਰਵੇਜ਼ ਦੀ ਫਲਾਈਟ ਨੰਬਰ LH-760 ਰਾਹੀਂ ਭਾਰਤ ਵਾਪਸ ਭੇਜ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਸੀ ਅਤੇ 19 ਜਨਵਰੀ 1995 ਨੂੰ ਇੰਦਰਾ ਗਾਂਧੀ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਹਵਾਈ ਅੱਡੇਤੇ ਹਵਾਈ ਅੱਡਾ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਅਥਾਰਟੀ ਦੇ ਹਵਾਲੇ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਸੀ ਅਤੇ ਜਾਅਲੀ ਪਾਸਪੋਰਟ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨ ਐੱਫ. ਆਈ. ਆਰ ਨੰਬਰ 22 ਅਧੀਨ ਧਾਰਾ 419, 420, 468,ਤੇ 471 ਆਈ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ ਤੇ 12 ਪਾਸਪੋਰਟ ਐਕਟ ਅਧੀਨ ਕੇਸ ਦਰਜ਼ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਤੇ ਦਰਸਾਇਆ ਗਿਆ ਕਿ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਨੇ ਕਈ ਕੇਸਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਆਪਣੀ ਮੌਜੂਦਗੀ ਦੱਸੀ ਜਿਸ ਵਿਚ 11 ਸਤੰਬਰ 1993 ਨੂੰ ਮਨਿੰਦਰਜੀਤ ਬਿੱਟੇਤੇ ਹੋਇਆ ਹਮਲਾ ਵੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਸੀ ਅਤੇ ਇਸੇ ਕਾਰਨ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਇਸ ਕੇਸ ਦੀ ਜਾਂਚ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਇਕ .ਸੀ.ਪੀ. ਦੇ ਹਵਾਲੇ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਤੇ ਕੇਸ ਵਿਚ ਫਸਾ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਜਿਸਦੇ ਫੈਸਲੇ ਵਜੋਂ 25 ਅਗਸਤ 2001 ਨੂੰ ਦਿੱਲੀ ਦੀ ਟਾਡਾ ਕੋਰਟ ਵਲੋਂ ਫਾਂਸੀ ਦੀ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਗਈ ਜਿਸਨੂੰ ਸੁਪਰੀਮ ਕੋਰਟ ਨੇ 2:1 ਦੇ ਬਹੁਮਤ ਨਾਲ 22 ਮਾਰਚ 2002 ਨੂੰ ਸਹੀ ਕਰਾਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਅਤੇ 19 ਦਸੰਬਰ 2002 ਨੂੰ ਭਾਰਤ ਦੇ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰਪਤੀ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਭੁੱਲਰ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਫਾਸੀ ਦੀ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਨੂੰ ਖਤਮ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਪਟੀਸ਼ਨ ਪਾਈ ਗਈ ਅਤੇ ਅੰਤ 26 ਮਈ 2011 ਨੂੰ ਭਾਰਤ ਦੀ ਰਾਸ਼ਰਟਪਤੀ ਪ੍ਰਤਿਭਾ ਪਾਟਲ ਨੇ ਇਹ ਅਪੀਲ ਖਾਰਜ਼ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਫੈਸਲਾ ਦਿੱਤਾ
ਮੈਂ ਇਸ ਫੈਸਲੇ ਦੇ ਪੱਖਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਆਮ ਜਨਤਾ ਸਾਹਮਣੇ ਰੱਖਣ ਦਾ ਉਪਰਾਲਾ ਕਰ ਰਿਹਾ ਹਾਂ ਜੇ ਸਮਝੋ ਕਿ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੂੰ ਫਾਂਸੀ ਜਾਇਜ਼ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਉਸਨੂੰ ਜਲਦੀ ਫਾਂਸੀ ਲਗਾਉਂਣ ਲਈ ਦੁਹਾਈ ਪਾਓ ਪਰ ਜੇ ਸਮਝੋ ਕਿ ਫਾਂਸੀ ਦਾ ਹੁਕਮ ਗਲਤ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਇਸ ਦੇ ਖਿਲਾਫ ਉੱਠ ਖਲੋਵੋ ਤੇ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਤੰਤਰ ਨੂੰ ਇਸ ਸਿਅਸੀ ਕਤਲ ਨੂੰ ਕਰਨ ਤੋਂ ਰੋਕੋ
ਸਭ ਤੋਂ ਪਹਿਲੀ ਗੱਲ ਕਿ ਫਾਂਸੀ ਉਸ ਕੇਸ ਵਿਚ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਬਹੁਤ ਹੀ ਦੁਰਲਭ ਤੇ ਵੱਖਰਾ ਹੋਵੇ ਜਿਸਨੂੰ ਅੰਗਰੇਜ਼ੀ ਵਿਚ rarest of the rare case ਕਿਹਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਇਸ ਕੇਸ ਵਿਚ ਕੁਝ ਵੀ ਦੁਰਲਭ ਨਹੀਂ ਸੀ।ਸੁਪਰੀਮ ਕੋਰਟ ਦੇ ਤਿੰਨਾਂ ਜੱਜਾਂ ਦੇ ਬੈਂਚ ਵਿਚੋਂ ਐੱਮ.ਬੀ. ਸ਼ਾਹ ਨੇ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੂੰ ਬਾ-ਇੱਜ਼ਤ ਬਰੀ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਫੈਸਲਾ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਪਰ ਦੋ ਜੱਜਾਂ ਬੀ.ਐੱਨ.ਅਗਰਵਾਲ ਤੇ ਅਰੀਜ਼ੀਤ ਪਸ਼ਾਇਤ ਨੇ ਫਾਂਸੀ ਦੇ ਹੁਕਮ ਨੂੰ ਸਹੀ ਠਹਿਰਾਇਆ। ਜੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਕੇਸ ਬਾਰੇ ਨਿਆਂ ਦੇ ਧੁਰੇ ਉੱਤੇ ਬੈਠੇ ਤਿੰਨ ਜੱਜ ਹੀ ਇਕਮਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਤਾਂ ਉਸ ਕੇਸ ਨੂੰ ਦੁਰਲਭ ਕਿਵੇ ਕਿਹਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।ਇਹ ਕੇਸ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੇ ਇਲਾਵਾ ਅਮਰੀਕਾ ਤੋਂ ਹਵਾਲਗੀ ਸੰਧੀ ਅਧੀਨ ਲਿਆਂਦੇ ਇਕ ਹੋਰ ਖਾੜਕੂ ਭਾਈ ਦਇਆ ਸਿੰਘ ਲਹੌਰੀਆ ‘ਤੇ ਵੀ ਪਾਇਆ ਗਿਆ ਸੀ ਪਰ ਉਸਨੂੰ ਟਾਡਾ ਕੋਰਟ ਨੇ ਹੀ ਬਰੀ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਸੀ।ਕੀ ਜਿਸ ਕੇਸ ਵਿਚ ਸਹਿ-ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਠਹਿਰਾਏ ਗਏ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਨੂੰ ਬਰੀ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਉਹ ਦੁਰਲਭ ਕਿਵੇ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ?ਭਾਰਤੀ ਢੰਡਾਵਾਲੀ ਸੰਹਿਤਾ (I.P.C) ਦੀ ਧਾਰਾ 120-A ਵਿਚ 120-B ਫੌਜ਼ਦਾਰੀ ਸਾਜ਼ਿਸ ਦੀ ਪਰਿਭਾਸ਼ਾ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਗਈ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਅਧੀਨ ਦਰਜ਼ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਫੌਜ਼ਦਾਰੀ ਸਾਜ਼ਿਸ ਲਈ ਦੋ ਜਾਂ ਦੋ ਤੋਂ ਵੱਧ ਵਿਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣਾ ਜਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਦੱਸੋ ਫਿਰ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੂੰ ਇਕੱਲੇ ਨੂੰ 120-B ਵਿਚ ਕਿਵੇ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਤੇ ਇਹ ਕੇਸ ਦੁਰਲਭ ਕਿਵੇ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ?
ਇਹ ਸਾਰਾ ਕੇਸ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸਾਹਿਬ ਵਲੋਂ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਗਏ ਕਥਿਤ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ (confessional statement) ਉੱਤੇ ਹੀ ਖੜ੍ਹਾ ਹੈ ਜਿਸਨੂੰ ਤਸਦੀਕ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਕੋਈ ਵੀ ਗਵਾਹ ਜਾਂ ਸਬੂਤ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਖੜ੍ਹਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰ ਪਾਈ ਅਤੇ ਇਸ ਕਾਰਨ ਹੀ ਭਾਈ ਦਇਆ ਸਿੰਘ ਲਹੌਰੀਆ ਤੇ ਹਰਨੇਕ ਸਿੰਘ ਭੱਪ ਨੂੰ ਬਰੀ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਸੀ ਕਿ ਭਾਵੇਂ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸ਼ਾਹਿਬ ਦੇ ਇਸ ਕਥਿਤ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਵਿਚ ਲਹੌਰੀਆ ਤੇ ਭੱਪ ਦਾ ਨਾਮ ਵੀ ਦਰਸਾਇਆ ਗਿਆ ਪਰ ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਤਸਦੀਕ ਕਰਦੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਵੀ ਗਵਾਹ ਜਾਂ ਸਬੂਤ ਅਤੇ ਲਹੌਰੀਆ ਤੇ ਭੱਪ ਦੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਦੀ ਅਣਹੋਂਦ ਹੀ ਦੋਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਮੁਕਤੀ ਦਾ ਕਾਰਨ ਬਣਿਆ।
ਆਓ ਹੁਣ ਇਸ ਕਥਿਤ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਤੇ ਉਸਦੇ ਮੰਨਣਯੋਗ ਜਾਂ ਨਾ-ਮੰਨਣਯੋਗ ਹੋਣ ਬਾਰੇ ਚਰਚਾ ਕਰੀਏ। ਸਭ ਤੋਂ ਪਹਿਲੀ ਤੇ ਵੱਡੀ ਗੱਲ ਕਿ ਆਮ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਅਧੀਨ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਕੋਲ ਕੀਤਾ ਕਿਸੇ ਵੀ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਦਾ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿਚ ਮੰਨਣਯੋਗ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਰਾਜ ਵਲੋਂ ਬਣਾਏ ਗਏ ਟਾਡਾ ਐਕਟ ਦੀ ਧਾਰਾ 15 ਅਧੀਨ ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਸਵੈ-ਇੱਛਾ ਨਾਲ ਐੱਸ.ਪੀ. ਰੈਂਕ ਜਾਂ ਇਸ ਤੋਂ ਉੱਪਰ ਦੇ ਅਧਿਕਾਰੀ ਸਾਹਮਣੇ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਦਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਉਸ ਬਿਆਨ ਨੂੰ ਉਸ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਤੇ ਉਸਦੇ ਸਹਿ-ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਖਿਲਾਫ ਵਰਤਿਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ ਬਸ਼ਰਤੇ ਕਿ ਉਸ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਨੂੰ ਤਸਦੀਕ ਕਰਦੇ ਗਵਾਹ ਜਾਂ ਸਬੂਤ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕਰੇ। ਪਰ ਇਸ ਕੇਸ ਵਿਚ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਇਸ ਕਥਿਤ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਨੂੰ ਤਸਦੀਕ ਕਰਦਾ ਕੋਈ ਵੀ ਗਵਾਹ ਜਾਂ ਸਬੂਤ ਖੜ੍ਹਾ ਨਾ ਕਰ ਸਕੀ।ਦੂਜੀ ਗੱਲ ਇਹ ਕਿ ਇਹ ਬਿਆਨ ਵੀ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਲਿਆ ਗਿਆ, ਇਸ ਨੂੰ ਇਕ ਕੰਪਿਊਟਰ ਵਿਚ ਟਾਈਪ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਪਰ ਟਾਡਾ ਐਕਟ ਦੀ ਧਾਰਾ 15 ਮੁਤਾਬਕ ਜੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਮਕੈਨੀਕਲ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਨਾਲ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਲਿਆ ਜਾਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਇਸਨੂੰ ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਉਸੇ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਦਰਸਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕੇ ਪਰ ਇਸ ਬਿਆਨ ਨੂੰ ਨਾ ਤਾਂ ਉਸ ਕੰਪਿਊਟਰ ਵਿਚ ਹੀ ਰਹਿਣ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਅਤੇ ਨਾ ਹੀ ਉਸ ਦੀ ਨਕਲ ਕਿਸੇ ਫਲਾਪੀ ਵਿਚ ਪਾਈ ਗਈ।ਜਸਟਿਸ ਐੱਮ.ਬੀ ਸ਼ਾਹ ਮੁਤਾਬਕ ਟਾਡਾ ਐਕਟ ਦੇ ਨਿਯਮ 15(3)(b) ਅਧੀਨ ਇਹ ਜਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਜੋ ਵੀ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਅਫਸਰ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਰਿਕਾਰਡ ਕਰੇਗਾ ਤਾਂ ਉਸ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਦੇ ਥੱਲੇ ਇਹ ਸਰਟੀਫਿਕੇਟ ਦੇਣਾ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਸ ਦੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਹੱਥਾਂ ਰਾਹੀਂ (under his own hand) ਮਤਲਬ ਕਿ ਇਹ ਬਿਆਨ ਉਸਦੀ ਹਾਜ਼ਰੀ ਵਿਚ ਲਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਉਸ ਵਲੋਂ ਰਿਕਾਰਡ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸ਼ਾਹਿਬ ਦੇ ਇਸ ਕਥਿਤ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਥੱਲੇ ਡੀ.ਸੀ.ਪੀ ਨੇ ਇਹ ਸਰਟੀਫਿਕੇਟ ਆਪ ਨਹੀਂ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਸਗੋਂ ਕੰਪਿਊਟਰ ਟਾਈਪਿੰਗ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਸੀ। ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੇ ਖਿਲਾਫ ਫੈਸਲਾ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਜੱਜਾਂ ਨੇ ਵੀ ਇਸ ਘਾਟ ਨੂੰ ਮੰਨਿਆ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਹਿਸਾਬ ਨਾਲ ਇਹ ਘਾਟ ਕੋਈ ਅਹਿਮੀਅਤ ਨਹੀ ਰੱਖਦੀ।
ਜਸਟਿਸ ਸ਼ਾਹ ਨੇ ਇਕ ਗੱਲ ਬੜੇ ਪਤੇ ਦੀ ਗੱਲ ਕਹੀ ਕਿ ਇਕ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਜਿਸਨੂੰ 19 ਜਨਵਰੀ 1995 ਨੂੰ ਜਾਅਲੀ ਪਾਸਪੋਰਟ ਉੱਤੇ ਸਫਰ ਕਰਦਿਆ ਫੜਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਦੱਸੋ ਭਲਾ ਉਸਨੂੰ ਕੀ ਲੋੜ ਪੈ ਗਈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਆਪ ਹੀ 19 ਜਨਵਰੀ ਨੂੰ ਹੀ ਕਤਲਾਂ ਦੇ ਕੇਸਾਂ ਦਾ ਇਕਬਾਲ ਕਰਦਾ ਫਿਰੇ।
ਇਕ ਹੋਰ ਗੱਲ ਜੋ ਬੜੀ ਅਹਿਮ ਹੈ ਕਿ 22 ਜਨਵਰੀ 1995 ਨੂੰ ਦਰਸਾਇਆ ਗਿਆ ਕਿ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸਾਹਿਬ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਦੇਣਾ ਚਾਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਤੇ 23 ਜਨਵਰੀ ਨੂੰ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਦਰਜ਼ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਤੇ 24 ਜਨਵਰੀ ਨੂੰ ਕੋਰਟ ਵਿਚ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੂੰ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਪਰ ਉਹ ਕਥਿਤ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਕੋਰਟ ਵਿਚ ਮੈਜਿਸਟ੍ਰੇਟ ਸਾਹਮਣੇ ਪੇਸ਼ ਨਾ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਇਹ ਗੱਲ ਮੈਜਿਸਟ੍ਰੇਟ ਨੇ ਵੀ ਆਪਣੀ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਸਮੇਂ ਮੰਨੀ ਅਤੇ ਇਹ ਕੰਮ ਟਾਡਾ ਐਕਟ ਦੇ ਨਿਯਮ 15(5) ਦੀ ਉਲੰਘਣਾ ਹੋਈ ਜਿਸ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੁਅਰਾ ਕੋਈ ਵੀ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਉਸ ਇਲਾਕਾ ਮੈਜਿਸਟ੍ਰੇਟ ਦੇ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਅਧੀਨ ਆਉਂਦੇ ਇਲਾਕੇ ਵਿਚ ਇਹ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਦਰਜ਼ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਅਦ ਵਿਚ ਉਹ ਮੈਜਿਸਟ੍ਰੇਟ ਟਾਡਾ ਸਪੈਸ਼ਲ ਕੋਰਟ ਨੂੰ ਉਹ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਭੇਜੇਗਾ ਪਰ ਇਸ ਕੇਸ ਵਿਚ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦਾ ਕਥਿਤ ਇਕਬਾਲੀਆ ਬਿਆਨ ਸਿੱਧਾ ਹੀ ਟਾਡਾ ਸਪੈਸ਼ਲ ਕੋਰਟ ਨੂੰ ਭੇਜ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਆ।
ਏਨੀਆਂ ਜਿਆਦਾ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਊਣਤਾਈਆ ਹੋਣ ਦੇ ਬਾਵਜੂਦ ਵੀ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਦਵਿੰਦਰਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੂੰ ਫਾਂਸੀ ਦੀ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਦੇਣੀ ਕਿੱਥੋਂ ਤੱਕ ਜਾਇਜ਼ ਹੈ ?
ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੂੰ ਫਾਂਸੀ ਦੀ ਸਜ਼ਾ ‘ਤੇ ਸਹੀ ਪਾਉਂਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਦੋਹਾਂ ਜੱਜਾਂ ਦੀ ਮਾਨਸਿਕਤਾ ਇਸ ਗੱਲ ਤੋਂ ਸਾਫ ਝਲਕਦੀ ਹੈ ਜਦੋਂ ਉਹ ਕਹਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਮੌਤ ਦੇ ਵਪਾਰੀਆ ਦੇ ਮਨਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਮਨੁੱਖੀ ਜਿੰਦਗੀਆ ਦਾ ਕੋਈ ਸਤਿਕਾਰ ਨਹੀ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਅਤੇ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਲਈ ਮੌਤ ਦੀ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਹੀ ਢੁੱਕਵੀਂ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਕਿਉਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਅਜਿਹੇ ਜੱਜਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਘੱਟ-ਗਿਣਤੀਆਂ ਉੱਤੇ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਤਸ਼ੱਦਦ ਨਜ਼ਰ ਆਊਦਾ ਤੇ ਕਿਉਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਇਹ ਭਾਰਤ ਦੀ ਬਹੁਗਿਣਤੀ ਵਲੋਂ ਮੌਤ ਵਰਤਾਉਂਣ ਨਾਲਿਆ ਨੂੰ ਮੌਤ ਦੇ ਵਪਾਰੀ ਹੋਣ ਦਾ ਖਿਤਾਬ ਦਿੰਦੇ ਅਤੇ ਕਿਉਂ ਅਜੇ ਤੱਕ ਕਿਸੇ ਵੀ 84 ਦੇ ਸਿੱਖ ਕਤਲੇਆਮ ਜਾਂ ਗੁਜਰਾਤ 2002 ਮੁਸਲਿਮ ਕਤਲੇਆਮ ਦੇ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਫਾਂਸੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਗਈ।
ਭਾਰਤੀ ਹਕੂਮਤ ਵਲੋਂ ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੂੰ ਫਾਂਸੀ ਦੇਣ ਦਾ ਫੈਸਲਾ ਸਮੂਹ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਵੰਗਾਰ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਆਪਣੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੇ ਕੋਲ ਰੱਖ ਕੇ ਭਾਰਤ ਵਿਚ ਨਹੀਂ ਰਹਿ ਸਕਦੇ।
ਆਓ! ਦਿੱਲੀ ਦੀ ਇਸ ਵੰਗਾਰ ਦਾ ਢੁਕਵਾਂ ਜਵਾਬ ਦੇ ਕੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਵਰੋਸਾਈ ਪੰਜ-ਆਬ ਧਰਤੀ ਦੇ ਵਾਰਸ ਹੋਣ ਦਾ ਸਬੂਤ ਦਈਏ।
Davinder Pal Singh Bhuller was sentenced to death on 29 August 2001 after being found guilty of involvement in the 1993 bombing of the Youth Congress Office in the capital, New Delhi. Twelve people were killed and 29 injured in the blast. Davinder Pal Singh Bhuller sought political asylum in Germany, but was forcibly returned to India, where he was arrested on arrival at New Delhi airport in January 1995.

There are serious concerns that Davinder Pal Singh Bhuller may not have been given a fair trial. He was arrested under the now-lapsed Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, which has no provision for appeals to the High Court. He was found guilty solely on the strength of an unsubstantiated confession he made in police custody, allegedly under intense police pressure, which he later retracted. A second defendant Daya Singh Lahoria, in the case was acquitted because the only evidence against him was Davinder Pal Singh Bhuller's confession.





If we agree to split decision given by supreme Court even then the question arises whether in absence of any corroborated evidence, could such punishment of death sentence be passed to an accused who retracted later of confession under police pressure? Other than this confession of him, police couldn't produce a single witness against him but justice or injustice given to him.
If an accused confesses in Court of killing someone, even then the police has to prove whether he committed the crime or not, the accused could confess to finish his life also. Shall the Court accept his confession and award him the death sentence?
Alleging his framing in the Saini attack case, counsel said this had been done to prevent him from pursuing the case of his missing father, allegedly at the instance of the Punjab Police.
Counsel also alleged that his religious sentiments were hurt when he was not allowed to wear turban and "patka" inside the Vikaspuri Police Station in New Delhi last night.
Next none out of 133 witnesses appeared in Court recognized Mr. Bhullar at the spot of bomb blast. Why the benefit of doubt was not given to him? Why is he being kept behind bars unnecessarily as his father and nearer relative (Brother in law of his mother) along with three other persons of his village were abducted by Police and then his father and uncle were killed in police custody. Their dead bodies were also not given to the family. Out of other three one got insane, the hip bones of one person were so badly broken that he can not walk straight.
Sumedh Singh Saini, an IPS officer has been booked by CBI on these killings but they are given medals whereas an innocent person is kept behind bars for the last 15 years. Is it justified?
Indian government should not only set free Bhai Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar but should also give him justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumedh_Singh_Saini

[edit]Alleged human rights violations

Assassination attempt

In 1991 an unsuccessful assassination attempt was made on Sumedh Singh Saini by Khalistani insurgents Saini survived, with minor injuries, the bomb blast engineered to kill him.[13] He was later also accused of ruthless reprisals against the grand-parents, parents, aged and young women, little children and accomplices of alleged perpetrators of this attack.[3][14]
Sumedh Saini

[Punjab Vigilance Bureau chief Sumedh Saini, who has been accused by many Sikh community members, panthic organizations and people's struggles of being a serial human rights offender]

Saini is accused of human rights violations.[2] He is facing a CBI probe in relation to illegal arrest of some of the accomplices, relatives and father of Khalistan Liberation Force militant Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar. Based on Bhullar's own militant activity related confession, which he alleges that it was forcibly taken by the police during his police custody, he is currently on a death row in India.[15] Case investigation of elimination of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar's father and accomplices was originally being handled by the local police, but after feeling dis-satisfied from the investigation of Punjab and Chandigarh police and after observing that Saini can influence the case, court had handed over this investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.[3]
Preliminary inquiry conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, India's federal investigative agency, held Saini responsible for the kidnappings, torture and elimination of two Sikhs Balwant Singh Multani and Balwant Singh Bhullar. Both of these two Sikhs were kept in allegedly illegal custody and 'were tortured on the orders of and in the presence of Saini. Balwant Singh Bhullar was allegedly tortured to such an extent that he lost his mental balance.[4] Balwant Singh Bhullar was father of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar.[16] The CBI has registered a case of kidnapping and conspiracy with the intent to murder against Saini and three of his police reports.[5]
Also, a court has recently granted an exemption of personal appearance to Khalistani insurgent Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar in a case related to the attack on Sumedh Singh Saini because the counsel feared that Sikh militant might be murdered by the police while being brought from Delhi to Chandigarh.[17] Bhullar has been convicted and sentenced to death on the charges of terrorism under an Indian law TADA by Indian Supreme Court,.[13] TADA was called a draconian law by prominent Indians,[18] this law was later withdrawn[19] under pressure of different bodies of United Nations.[20]
Saini has also been charged in the kidnapping, illegal detention and disappearance of two businessmen and their driver. Saini, it is alleged, had a personal dispute with the victims. Victims were allegedly picked up by the police and were shown disappeared afterwards.[6][7][8]
Immediately after the 1991 Sikh militants attack on Saini, Sikh militant leader Balwinder Singh Jatana's 95 year old grandmother, maternal aunt, her teen-aged daughter and his polio ridden cousin were allegedly murdered and set on fire by the suspected agents of Saini.[14] Senior Superintendent of Police Ropar Mr Mustafa complained to Director General of Punjab Police that Saini himself set his farm house on fire and blamed it on Khalistan militants, allegedly murdered one Parminder Singh of Mohali in his custody and later threw his body in district Ropar and he ordered the elimination of Balwinder Singh's family.[14] It must be noted that Mohammad Mustafa, who allegedly made this complaint in a "confidential letter", denied having made such a compaint.[21]
"India owes justice to Prof Bhullar. Because SSP Sumed Singh Saini and his police associates picked up Prof Bhullar’s father Balwant Singh and his mother’s brother-in-law Manjit Singh and clandestinely liquidated them while three others picked up along with his father, were subjected to brutal torture? Out of them, Joginder Singh had become insane, Mohinder Singh’s hips fractured (now cannot properly walk) and Mukhtiar Singh’ legs broken. Indian justice system made mockery of their agony. Thus, justice to them remained elusive since then, while their perpetrators such as Sumed Saini and KPS Gill are being magnified day in, day out by the State. That not only the State had awarded Gold Medals to the killers in uniform of Sikh activists and but also reprieved their sentences."
The above was written in a letter to Shiv Raj Patil, Indian (congress) Minister for Home Affairs.
=================================================
His wife Navneet kaur reveals that her husband is suffering from many ailing deceases.
======================================================================
An Open Letter to Home Minister of India regarding Prof Bhullar who faces death penalt Submitted by admin on Sat, 2005-12-10 05:17. News & Views Read by IHRO chairperson on the eve of World Human Rights Day at a Seminar 'Death Penalty: A Crime Against Humanity' organised by PRF at English Dept Auditorium, Punjab University, Chandigarh

09 December 2005
Mr Shivraj Patil
Minister of Home Affairs
NEW DELHI
Re: Granting Amnesty to Prof Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
Who is facing Death Penalty
Dear Mr Patil:
To begin with, let me make it known that I am writing this letter on behalf of the Punjab Rights Forum (PRF), a league of like minded human rights, socio-economic and religio-political groups, including political parties, representing aspirations of the people of Punjab and Sikh Diaspora; for seeking amnesty to Prof Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, who is facing Death Penalty and agonising in Tihar Jail.
As you are aware, Mr Patil, that where the judicial process ends, President (Head of State)'s jurisdiction begins. In one's march to justice, President is the last resort in terms of the provisions of the Constitution of that country, as we also see in India and Pakistan. Generally, Heads of States are constitutionally empowered to mitigate the errors that sometimes creep into judicial pronouncements due to certain legalistic compulsions and political prejudices.
In view of this, we in 'Prof Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar Defence Committee,' representing the Sikh Panth, took up the case of Prof Bhullar with President of India in March 2003. The professor is facing gallows and has become victim of the fractured judicial judgement of the Supreme Court of India. The apex court, more than even the lower courts, took a starkly legalistic view on the death sentence given to Prof Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, in Delhi Bomb Blast Case, based on erroneous and fabricated confessional statement under TADA.
Davinder Pal Singh has been convicted of conspiracy based solely on a confession extracted under torture and repudiated by him. However, his alleged co-conspirator, Daya Singh Lahoria, was found not guilty. In criminal law, a conspiracy by definition requires at least two people. A conspiracy of one- as is the case here where Davinder Pal Singh's co-conspirator was found not guilty- is a legal fiction. Moreover, the confessional statement was signed by a thumbprint. For a man who is highly educated, the sign of a thumbprint implies duress. Furthermore, none of the 133 witnesses produced by the prosecution identified Professor Bhullar, while the case was in lower court.
Amnesty International, in its report, while recommending the Government of India to consider certain corrective measures, too, had urged the Government to "take immediate steps to abolish the death penalty totally, in furtherance of UN objective of ultimate abolition of capital punishment." Pending total abolition, AI had further asked the Indian Government to "ensure that the outstanding death sentences should be commuted, including that of Prof Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar."
In addition, on April 28, 1999, the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNHRC) overwhelmingly voted for a resolution that had called for a global moratorium on the death penalty. India is a signatory to both the UDHR and the ICCPR. Besides, the Constitution of India has enshrined the Right to Life as a Fundamental Right (Article 21). And importantly, the Evidence Act does not consider confessions made before the police officer as valid as has been in the case of Prof Bhullar.

We too appreciate the stand taken by the President and the Chief Justice of India against death penalty, as the policy of ' for tat' or 'bullet for bullet' is counter productive and a total negation of human rights and rule of law. You know the Preamble to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, too says, 'Whereas it is essential, if a man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by rule of law.'
That we all know that death penalty is used by some States to silence political resistance or to eliminate their opponents. And for this purpose, laws such as TADA are used where fair trial is not at all possible. If justice is secured only by an act of killing, how legitimate is the law (now repealed) that sanctions that sort of justice. We believe that God alone can take away life because He alone gives it. Why then, we arrogate to ourselves to finish it off, even though firmly believing that Ultimate Justice lies with God.
And to supplement this spirit, Article 51A of the Indian Constitution urges compassion and humanism as fundamental duties. The Constitutional power under Article 72 of granting amnesty is an executive act and not a judicial one. The reason why the Executive is given such power, says Mr Taft, Chief Justice, in American case (Ex parte Grossman, 27 US 87: 69 Law Edition 527), "(It) affords relief from undue harshness or evident mistake in the operation or enforcement of the criminal law."
Thus, you, sir, being Home Minister of India, should kindly correct, in the national interest, the blunder committed by the Judiciary in the enforcement of criminal law, (such as TADA) and recommend this case to the President of India for amnesty for Prof Bhullar.
We had earnestly hoped that President would uphold the dignity, independence and prerogative of his office and give a judicious and compassionate consideration to our representation, which was filed on behalf of the entire Sikh Panth, including Sikhs living abroad and that he would not allow his steps to falter in exercising compassionately and humanely the sacred and super power given to him by the Indian Constitution to grant amnesty to Prof Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar.
And that too when the entire Sikh community has been watching the Government of India's tactics of sending persons like Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh to the gallows and giving ministerial berths and offices to conspirators and murderers of thousands of Sikhs.
Do you know, Mr Patil that SSP Sumed Singh Saini and his associates allegedly picked up Prof Bhullar's father Balwant Singh and his mother's brother-in-law Manjit Singh and clandestinely liquidated them while three others picked up along with his father were subjected to brutal torture? Out of them, Joginder Singh had become insane, Mohinder Singh's hips fractured (now cannot properly walk) and Mukhtiar Singh' legs broken. Indian justice system made mockery of their agony. Thus, justice to them (including thousands of others) remained elusive since then, while their perpetrators such as Sumed Saini and KPS Gill are being magnified day in, day out by the State. That not only the State had awarded Gold Medals to the killers in uniform of Sikh activists and but also reprieved their sentences. Therefore, sir, we must realise that India owes justice to them, including Prof Bhullar.
Pascal has rightly stated, "Power without justice is soon questioned." Sikhs and other minorities have been subjected to repression and injustices of many kinds. Your government's wiser and enlightened timely step of amnesty to Prof Bhullar may not only give them a healing touch but may even persuade the governments to change their policies of repression and keeping innocent people indefinitely in prison for a long time or killing mere suspects in faked encounters.
Yes, Justice M. B. Shah tried to deliver justice by acquitting Professor Bhullar, stating that the conspiracy theory falls flat as the "rest of the accused who are named in the confessional statement are not convicted or tried," but all in vain, 'cause majority judgement prevailed. Two other judged united against the presiding minority judge, Mr Justice Shah.
In view of these facts, we petitioned to the President, APJ Abdul Kalam, to take a politically and constitutionally correct decision of not only commuting the death sentence but also of freeing Prof Bhullar and earn the warm gratitude of the crores of the Sikhs. His Excellency has wisely referred back to the Central Cabinet Prof Bhullar's case, along with some other cases, for reconsideration, expressing his desire against death penalty in such cases.
Now the ball is in your court, sir; hit it to keep up with the Sikhs, a brave and worldwide community with fervour because eighteen million Sikhs in India and abroad and millions of eminent persons in other civilised communities and countries firmly believe that Prof Bhullar is a victim of fractured judicial judgement of the Supreme Court of India due to political prejudices.
Moreover, the Indian leaders, including Mrs. Indira Gandhi, have time and again raised their voice against death sentence given to similar political offenders in other countries and have done their utmost to save them from the gallows. Many examples can be given from the time of appeal to Fascist leader Franco of Spain not to execute the Basque nationalists and Marxists to the example of Mrs. Indira Gandhi's appeal to save Prime Minister Bhutto of Pakistan from the gallows.
In our own country, CPI (ML) guerrilla leader Naghbushan Patnaik who refused to defend him or appeal for mercy was saved from the gallows because his act of murder was a political offence. It is a well-known fact in history that even the Russian Czar saved the eminent novelist Dostoevsky by issuing a reprieve a few minutes before he was to go to the gallows. We hope you will take a similar humane and compassionate view of the issue in question and act on the principles that our government has been preaching to other nations and Countries, including Pakistan as in the recent case of Sarbjit Singh alias Manjit Singh.
It is in view of these facts we respectfully appeal to you to take a politically correct decision, have compassionate attitude towards Prof Bhullar and not only to commute his death sentence but also set him free forthwith.
Thanking you,
Truly yours
D S Gill Advocate
Punjab Rights Forum
===========================================================
Parliamentary questions
2 February 2010
E-0232/10
WRITTEN QUESTION by Syed Kamall (ECR) to the Commission
Subject: Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar
A constituent has brought to my attention the case of Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar who my constituent claims is a Sikh political activist who went to Germany almost 15 years ago to seek political asylum, because he claimed that his life was in danger in India on account of his political activism. His asylum application was unsuccessful and he was handed over to the Indian police by the German officials.
My constituent has alleged that Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar has since spent 15 years in prison and, after his trial, was sentenced to death on 17 December 2002. My constituent also alleges that Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar has been held in solitary confinement for the past seven years while he waits for his sentence to be carried out.
My constituent would like to know what pressure the Commission is putting on the Indian Government and President to:
1.
Withdraw the death sentence imposed against Professor Davinderpal Singh.
2.
Carry out a full review of the Professor's case in accordance with international law.
Parliamentary questions
20 July 2006
E-3360/06
WRITTEN QUESTION by Robert Kilroy-Silk (NI) to the Commission
Subject: The detention of Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar
Following the Commission’s answer to my question E‑2310/06, will the Commission clearly state what representations it has made to the Indian Government about the detention of Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar?
================================================================
Voice raised in Canada Parliament...

Early Day Motion

EDM 1394
DOCTOR DAVINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR
17.01.2006
McDonnell, John
That this House urges the President of India to intervene in the case of Doctor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar, who was deported from Germany in 1995 contrary to Article 3 of the European Human Rights Convention and who has been facing a sentence of death in India since 2001, despite the serious doubts expressed by many, including human rights bodies and the most senior judge on the bench in his trial, about the manner in which his conviction was obtained including the use of torture; and urges the United Kingdom Government to do all it can in conjunction with the German Government and the European Union in making representations to the Indian Government to secure justice in this case.
Signatures( 16)

Status

======================================================
Letter from the German Parliament to President of India (English Translation)
SIKHE News Bureau
DEUTSCHER BUNDESTAG
Ausschuss für Menschenrechte
und Humanitäre Hilfe
- Die Vorsitzende -

11011 Berlin, 22. Januar 2003
Platz der Republik 1
Tel.: (030) 22 7-3 35 50
Fax: (030) 22 7-3 60 51

Seine Exzellenz
Herrn Präsidenten
der Republik Indien

Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam
Neu Delhi

Your Excellency,
I am writing to you on behalf of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid of the German Bundestag on a matter of extreme urgency, which is causing great concern in Germany.
In 1995, the Indian citizen Professor Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, a Sikh who had applied for political asylum in Germany, was deported from Germany to India. This deportation, as was subsequently recognised and confirmed by court ruling, should never have taken place, since the German authority carrying out the deportation had committed grave procedural errors.
Subsequent to his deportation, Professor Singh Bhullar was sentenced to death in India on August 2001 for his alleged involvement in a bomb attack. His appeal at the Supreme Court of India in March 2002 was also unsuccessful. Whilst two of the three judges upheld the death sentence, the presiding judge at the Supreme Court submitted a dissenting opinion, pleading for an acquittal, citing a lack of corroborative evidence for Professor Singh Bhullar's "confession".
In addition, Mr Singh Bhullar retracted his "confession", which he said had been extracted under torture. In another hearing at the Supreme Court on 17 December 2002, two of the three judges present again upheld the death sentence on Mr Singh Bhullar. We understand that Mr Singh Bhullar filed a petition to the Supreme Court on 16 January 2003, which has not yet been decided on by the court. If this last legal remedy fails, there is a risk that the death sentence might be enforced straight away.
Your Excellency, as you are aware, Professor Singh Bhullar filed a petition for a pardon to you on 15 January. I would like to stress that the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid strongly supports this petition. We urgently appeal to you to make use of your power to grant a pardon, so that Professor Singh Bhullar's death sentence is not enforced.

Yours sincerely

Sgd. Christa Nickels
Chairwoman of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid

==================================================================

Press Release


Another previous Gift of Life To Go To The Gallows Within Days.
Amnesty International’s report 20/01/2003 has been published today. It surmises that torture is still endemic in Punjab in India and mentions the Bhullar case, where torture was also reportedly used.
On 17 December 2002, several years after Professor Devinderpal Singh Bhullar first sought asylum from Germany, the Supreme Court of India, for the first time in its history decided to execute Devinderpal Singh Bhullar, despite a split verdict.
The presiding judge in the Supreme Court of India, Justice Shah, who found Bhullar not guilty, has asked in December 2002, that the death sentence be commuted "…considering the majority view also, in my opinion, if death sentence is altered to imprisonment for life, it would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice…" Justice Shah in 17/12/2002 judgment.
Yet India has still decided to go ahead with the execution.
Devinderpal Singh Bhullar, a Sikh political activist had sought asylum from Germany but was rejected. Bhullar was a known political dissident and had claimed that his life was at risk in India because of his political activism. His family were persecuted as evidenced by the ‘disappearance’ of his father, uncle and best friend.
Anti death penalty campaigners met Thomas Matussek, the new German Ambassador at his official residence in London this week. The hour-long meeting was extremely positive and demonstrated the German Governments' efforts to date in closely monitoring developments in Davinderpal Singh's case.
The ambassador emphasized the German Governments' abhorrence to capital punishment". He further stated that "the German Government have a good relationship with India and would use this to make its stand very clear to the Indian authorities". He said, "we share your view that the death penalty is a violation of one of the most elementary human rights".
==============================================================

Further information about the international campaign for justice for Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar can be obtained at http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022003/bhullar.htm
Written by;
Ajmer Singh Randhawa.