Human Shield: Here is why the government will not compensate Farooq Dar

JAMMU: Admitting that a police case was registered in police station Beerwa, the government on Thursday said the SHRC has directed for a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to Farooq Ahmad Dar, the victim of the incident.

The government said the police station received information about a video being uploaded on the social websites suggesting that on April 9, 2017, Dar was “tied with ropes on the bonnet of an army vehicle (Rakshak), followed by a Casper under threat, keeping him under wrongful confinement and making him a human shield etc”. On basis of this, an FIR was registered which carried the No 38 of 2017 under sections 342, 367, 506 RPC. “The investigation is yet to be concluded,” it said.

While admitting that the SHRC has recommended a compensation of Rs 10 lakhs in favour of Dar, the government said the recommendation was considered by the Empowering Committee in its 28th meeting on October 6, 2017. “the Empowered Committee observed that the grounds on which the compensation has been recommended by the Commission cannot be accepted,” the government told the assembly.

Here are the reasons why:

“That no allegations regarding violation of human rights of the applicant have been leveled against the State Government or any of its functionary. The State Government has discharged its obligation by registering an FIR No 38/2017 in the matter at P/S Beerwah and consequent, initiating the 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.”

“That as on date, there is no scheme or policy in vogue in the State, which could cover the payment of compensation like the present case.”

“That the SHRC in its recommendation dated July 10, 2017 has inter-alia observed that the Commission is handicapped to go into the conduct of the Army, who are allegedly responsible for the incident. Having so observed, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present matter.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here