IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WRIT PETITION No 18672/2007 OF 2007 BETWEEN: Citizens for Justice and Peace …PETITIONER And 1. Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 2. The A.P Legislative Assembly, Assembly Buildings, Public Gardens, Hyderabad, represented by the Secretary 3. Syed Ahmed Pasha Qadri, S/o not known to the petitioner, Aged: Major; Occ: M.L.A., c/o 3-6-149, Hyderguda, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 4. Maqtada Afsar Khan, S/o not known to the petitioner, Aged: Major; Occ: M.L.A., c/o 3-6-149, Hyderguda, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 5. Moazzam Khan, S/o not known to the petitioner, Aged: Major; Occ: M.L.A., c/o 3-6-149, Hyderguda, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 6. Akbaruddin Owaisi, S/o not known to the petitioner, Aged: Major; Occ: M.L.A., c/o 3-6-149, Hyderguda, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 7. All India Majlis Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) a registered political party, having their office at 3-6-149, Hyderguda, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, represented by its President 8. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad .…RESPONDENTS AFFIDAVIT IN REJOINDER I, Javed Anand, aged about 58 years, r/o “Nirant”, Juhu Tara Road, Juhu, Mumbai - 400049, Maharashtra, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state as follows: 1. I am the Trustee of the Petitioner Organisation and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case. I am filing this affidavit in rejoinder on behalf of the Petitioner Organisation because our Secretary, Teesta Setalvad who is authorized to do so is out of station. I deny at the outset the contentions made in the counter affidavit of respondent no 4 and crave leave in future to also file additional contentions to substantiate our case should the need arise. I deny para by para the contentions made in paras one to ten of the counter affidavit dated October 27, 2007. 2. I strongly deny that the basis of this writ petition on behalf of our organization has been to distort facts under the influence of false propaganda. I say and submit that the contentions of the deponent repeated from his affidavit in WP No 17868/2007 stating inter alia that the demonstration against Ms Nasreen was a dharna or a peaceful protest that was “greeted by the institution of a criminal offence.” The incidents widely reported in the television and print media, that took place at Hyderabad relate to the attempts to disrupt a meeting held by Ms Nasreen and also included statements among others by respondents to this petition who are also elected representatives to the Andhra Pradesh legislature that in no way claimed or underlined the protest dharna to be a peaceful one. There were reports and audio visuals of objects being thrown at Ms Nasreen and even respondents making more than slightly intemperate statements including bold threats as what they would do with her! Adherements to the Indian Constitution, sworn by every member of the legislature, parliament or any other public servant, fundamentally means an adherence to values of a secular democracy and rule of law that assures and guarantees the registration of protest by democratic and peaceful means; the respect of vast and varied differences of opinion and the protection of life and property as well as equality before the law. For elected representatives to give a go by to the rule of law and issue threats that are violent and unlawful in nature is an unfortunate and regular development that has been condoned and not curtailed by our criminal justice system. The relevance of asylum or visa of Ms Nasreen is not the case in point. What is relevant are the essential values that Indian democracy negotiates within society among groups and between the state and citizens. 3. I say and submit that the issue of Ms Nasreen’s writings is wholly irrelevant to the debate that is essentially about the methods to be used in registering protest against views that are disagreeable to us as individuals or as a group; and whether or not these protests should be through peaceful and lawful means. I humbly state that it would have been possible to register a strong and moral protest against Ms Nasreen’s visit to Hyderabad by holding a mass demonstration that was silent and peaceful. I further say and submit that our organization is well aware of the conduct of police authorities against marginalized groups and has been at the forefront of the legal battle on the issue. 4. I say and submit that it is a sad case that in recent decades an utter decline in the rule of law and a failing criminal justice system has allowed self-acclaimed barterers of hatred and violence to enjoy uncurtailed freedoms and this has destroyed the confidence of many among the underprivileged sections. I say and submit that it is possible that many such proponents of hatred and division generate fear and hatred among sections of the people. The solution of a civilized society is and must be to deal with these aberrations through due process and implementation of the rule of law. What we witnessed in the violent and intemperate protests against Ms Nasreen in Hyderabad is a violation of this due process I humbly submit. 5. I say and submit that given the trends of this abuse of due process and the law by prominent persons, public servants and even elected representatives who are sworn to adhere to the Constitution, and the collapse of the criminal justice system that does not take to task elected representatives who thus abuse their power and status and affect public tranquility, affect harmony between communities and take recourse to coercive means, the prayers in our petition detailed in para 4, 5 and 6 of the petition become more relevant. It is also our humble contention that such intemperate behaviour from the narrow-minded leaders of the majority and minority communities has seriously impinged on public order and tranquility in recent decades. I say and submit that therefore the claim in the affidavit that we, as petitioners are groping for a non-existent right is ludicrous. I say and submit therefore that it is critical that the court intervenes, considers the prayers seriously and grants the reliefs therein. 6. I say and submit that the contentions made in paras 1 to 5 are true to my knowledge and made after careful consideration therein. Sworn and signed on this the 27th day of November, 2007 at Mumbai. DEPONENT. BEFORE ME ATTESTOR VERIFICATION I, JAVED ANAND, S/o Iftikar Ahmed, aged about 58 years, Trustee of the Petitioner Organisation r/o “Nirant”, Juhu Tara Road, Juhu, Mumbai - 400049, do hereby verify and state that the contents stated in the above paras of the counter affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information. Verified on this the 27th day of November, 2007 at Mumbai. DEPONENT..