Conclusion

Victims and human rights activists have either exhausted Indian national remedies or proven them to be protracted and ineffective, like the High Court and NHRC. As advocate R. S. Bains told me, “On paper, India is a perfect state.”[139] However, the experiences of the Sikhs highlight the limitations of the Indian judiciary in enforcing fundamental rights.

Because of police harassment and the inefficiency and corruption of the lower courts, the writ of habeas corpus provided the last remaining judicial avenue of redress. The failure of the judiciary to address human rights violations discouraged many Sikhs, including High Court lawyers, from filing petitions. Some Sikhs, however, put aside the other hardships brought on by the disappearances and braved the police harassment, delay, fatigue, and financial drain in a last ditch effort to gain recognition of their loss.

But the judiciary put the finishing touches on police impunity. Most High Court justices ignored the police’s ability to manipulate evidence and witnesses and told petitioners to approach the lower courts and other authorities, well aware of the failure of those options. The justices’ refusal to distinguish between innocent Sikhs and militants, the communalism on the bench, and the justices’ desire to protect police morale led them to “sweep the matter under the carpet.”[140]

Advani’s police amnesty proposal further aims to impose a suffocating blanket of impunity. His proposal not only violates Indian pardon and amnesty law, it also contravenes the right to equal protection of the laws and the right to seek redress for violations of fundamental rights, guaranteed in Articles 14 and 32 of the Indian Constitution, respectively. Article 14 ensures equal protection of the laws, suggesting that all victims must have an equal right to seek justice.[141] The amnesty proposal would abridge this right based on the identity of the accused. Article 32 guarantees victims the right to seek redress for violations of fundamental rights, regardless of the identity of the perpetrators of these violations. Thus, if the government were to withdraw cases from the judicial system, these victims would have no legal remedy.

How, then, can the families of the disappeared receive some justice? Because the perpetrators of these abuses have blanket impunity from the Indian government, there is no hope of receiving official acknowledgment in the current atmosphere. For this reason, any truth commission would also lack legitimacy. Hence, the potential responses of the government are already limited by the unlikelihood of a fair truth commission, failure to access secret police files, and the failure to remove military and political figures involved with the abuses.[142]

Selective prosecutions in foreign countries, under civil remedies such as the United States’ Alien Tort Claims Act,[143] or universal jurisdiction, could turn the tide of opinion in India. Embarrassment, the legitimacy of the U.S. and foreign courts, and simple international recognition and acknowledgment of the abuses committed by the State in Punjab would prevent India from denying the abuses. Once this is accomplished, a truth commission could contribute to the remedial discourse by examining systemic complicity.[144] Other remedies like reparations, national monuments, parks, and social and economic support of families of the disappeared, could provide further redress to the victims of Punjab.

This Article has attempted to record Paramjit Kaur’s desire to “put before the people - people should know this for sure - what justice this Court gives us.”[145] As reflected in their collective experience, the victims have not received justice. Instead, the people have lost all avenues for redress in India and have had to resign themselves to placing the abuses behind them and salvaging a future. This Article is also an attempt to record and increase awareness of their plight, so that the petitioners do not give up their struggle. Paramjit Kaur’s words serve as fair warning: “I have no hope. In ten to fifteen years, we will also sit down and give up. How much can we do?”[146]