Statement by Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association
Days after the startling revelation of the post mortem reports of Atif Ameen and Md. Sajid, which conclusively nailed the lie of the Delhi Police claims that the two boys were killed in cross fire, the security establishment has swung into damage control to ensure that no further information is made public. It is to be recalled that the post mortem reports could be made public only through the persistent efforts of RTI activist and Jamia student, Afroze Alam Sahil and the resolute resistance offered by the teachers and students of Jamia as well as other civil rights activists.
While the post mortem reports have made it amply clear that both Atif and Sajid have been shot from close range and possibly in captivity (as illustrated by the injury marks made by blunt force); the reports also raised several questions:
1) How was it that Inspector Sharma, who suffered gunshot wounds which could have easily been treated since none of the vital organs was effected by the shots, allowed to bleed to his death. Why was his hemorrhage not plugged immediately?
2) What were the metallic objects retrieved from the bodies of both Atif and Sajid, which also find mention in the post mortem reports?
3) Why were postmortems on Atif and Sajid’s bodies conducted only on the 22nd September, after full two days had lapsed, whereas that on Inspector Sharma was conducted the following day, on the 20th September?
Indeed, these were some of the key questions that were asked from the JP Trauma Centre in an RTI application filed by Afroze Alam on 23 March 2010. Alam had sought the Clinical treatment report of Inspector Sharma, copies of photographs and videography taken during the post mortem, forensic report and details of all samples and specimens collected from the body.
Responding to the application, the Trauma Centre in a fashion typical of its earlier responses has hid behind certain clauses of the RTI Act. The response received on 10th April 2010 cites its helplessness in providing the information as it falls, according to the Centre, under 8 (1) g and 8 (1) h. These are spurious grounds to keep information vital to the pursuance of truth under cover.
– Clause 8 (1) g says that such information “the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes” may be withheld. Now we would like to ask, how the publication of Inspector Sharma’s Clinical Reports would endanger someone’s life? Whose identity is the Trauma Centre so insistent on protecting? On whose instructions is it denying the petitioner information about the metallic objects recovered from the bodies of the slain youth?
– Clause 8 (1) h says that “information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders” can be withheld from the petitioner. Trauma Centre is NOT an investigating agency and can therefore not claim on its own that medico legal information will or will not impede investigation. It is clearly acting at the behest of those agencies which fear that the truth is too dangerous to be made public.
We demand that the JP trauma Centre immediately disclose all information. Further, reports such as Firearm Examination report, Ballistic Report, all clinical plates of the three deceased be made public.