Tuesday, 15 July 2008

Fabricated N.T. Sivadasan’s Report Paraded as NHRC’s Report

The Pondicherry police were caught red-handed in their collusion with trustees so IGP Meena and Mrs. Chhaya Sharma initiated enquiry proceedings by appointing Mr. N.T. Sivadasan as an enquiry officer. The details pertaining to N.T.Sivadasan’s enquiry is as follows:
  1. On 17.05.2005 women police were sent to our aged parents’ house informing them that their daughters should appear at the All Women Police Station immediately. We didn’t go.
  2. On 18.05.2005 Jayashree and Arunashri went to meet Mrs. Chhaya Sharma to enquire why such an enquiry is taking place, especially after she had informed them that report was already sent and had categorically desisted to help. On her table they saw the impugned report dated 10.01.2005 of Mr. Nagarajan which she tried to hide.
  3. On 18.05.2005 N.T. Sivadasan sent women police with SP Thamizharasi to Ambabhikshu House after 10.30 at night to serve notice of enquiry on us through intimidation. At 10.30 pm the door of the resident-complex closes and the watchman had to be roused for the police women to be able to meet us and forced us to receive enquiry summons.
  4. On 19.05.2005 five sisters went to the All Women Police Station, protested against the unjust service of notice and the constitution of an incorrect enquiry. N.T. Sivadasan simply refused to listen to us and threatened us to comply. We contacted NHRC and they asked us to participate so that the police may not harass us further.
  5. On 20.05.2005 backdated summons were issued by N.T. Sivadasan. SP Thamizharasi came again to serve this notice. We refused to accept since the date was wrongly mentioned. She rectified the date and we took notice.
  6. On 24.05.2005 all five sisters went to the All Women Police Station. N.T. Sivadasan was present along with SP Thamizharasi. We submitted our written complaints and present the long history of harassment faced by us. They heard us and told us that we shall be called again for further enquiry, especially when they will examine the accused men mentioned by us. As a precaution we also sent our statements to NHRC through RPAD to keep NHRC updated about us.
  7. On 29.05.2005 N.T. Sivadasan visited Abmabhikshu House for spot enquiry in our absence. He was seen with one Dilip Sharma, an Ambabhikshu resident. Dilip Sharma was taken as an inmate under dubious circumstances when Achyut Patel (Managing Trustee’s, late Harikant Patel, nephew) was caught for misappropriation of funds. Dilip Sharma is a known supporter of the trustees who approaches the Pondicherry police on their behalf for all their mischief.
This was the last that N.T.Sivadasan was ever heard or seen. We did not know the final outcome of this enquiry, until suddenly on 11.07.2008, N.T.Sivadasan’s report was filed by trustees in their M.P. No.1/2008 in CRP No.3314/2007. The manner of obtaining and filing this report is extremely interesting since it clearly exposes the collusion between trustees, the men causing us sexual harassment and Pondicherry police.
  1. On 14.01.2008 (after more than three years) Chandramani Patel, who attempted to molest Arunashri, filed an application through RTI before Pondicherry Police to obtain a copy of N.T. Sivadasan’s report. Procedurally RTI application should have been made to NHRC because report is claimed to have been submitted to NHRC.
  2. Pondicherry police furnishes a report to Chandramani with the most glaring errors which challenge the veracity of the report. Covering letter of SSP, Pondicherry, mentioned the date of submission of report by N.T.Sivasadan as 15.06.2005 whereas the report is dated 16.05.2005, one day before. This is not a typographical error because both the dates appear repeatedly in other places. How can a report made tomorrow be furnished today? Well all is possible in the kingdom of corruption and collusion.
  3. Chandramani handed over this report to the trustees who filed it in M.P. No.1/2008 in CRP No.3314/2007 and who have been parading this report  of N.T. Sivadasan ever since as NHRC’s report. 
Pertinent questions that arise are:
  1. Why no mention has been made of N.T. Sivadasan’s report in NHRC’s orders dated 07.11.2005 and 24.03.2006 if such a report had indeed been submitted before the NHRC?
  2. Why did Chandramani give report to the trustees?
  3. When exactly did the Pondicherry police fabricate this report for the use and misrepresentation of the trustees?
The nexus between the men who caused us sexual harassment, the Pondicherry police and the Ahram trustees is clearly exposed by this report of N.T. Sivadasan.

Produced below are the two orders of NHRC dated 07.11.2005 and 24.03.2006.