New Delhi:
Observing that a “clear-cut distinction” should be made “between opposition and attempts to create disturbance and overthrow governments”, the Supreme Court Wednesday said that it would look at the Maharashtra Police’s material on the Bhima-Koregaon case with a “hawk’s eye”.
The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud also extended till Thursday the house arrest of five activists and lawyers even as the Maharashtra police defended the arrests.
According to the Maharashtra police, material recovered from six alleged Maoist cadres arrested before them had thrown up “concrete material requiring and justifying” the arrests.
Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, Sudha Bharadwaj and Gautam Navlakha were arrested by Pune police on August 28 in connection with a meeting on the eve of the January 1 violence at Bhima Koregaon.
“Our institutions should be robust enough to accommodate opposition to the system or even this court…We can’t sacrifice liberty at the altar of conjectures. We will look at the material with hawk’s eye. That is the duty of the court,” said Justice Chandrachud.
Senior Counsel Harish Salve appearing for the complainant in the Bhima Koregan case sought to counter this and said the court should decide “whether systematic breakdown of law and order is within permissible limits of dissent”.
He also said that there was a difference between someone who is angry, saying burn the house down and, someone being part of an organisation which aims to create unrest trying to provoke. “A lot of it depends on who says and what is said and the context in which it is said.”
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Maharashtra government told the the court that the search of the laptop of Rona Wilson, who was one among six arrested in June, showed that he had saved a photograph under the name “M” and that the person was an underground Maoist cadre on whom the Chhattisgarh government had declared a bounty of Rs 40 lakh and Maharashtra Rs 50 lakh.
Mehta, who shared the case diary with the bench, also referred to a letter dated April 18, 2017, written by Wilson to one Prakash and an encrypted file saved under the name “finaldespatch.pgp” on his laptop. He said that of the six arrested, only two had applied for bail. “The rest know what was recovered from them”, Mehta submitted.
The letters which outlined the plan of action for the cadre said that “frequent protests and chaos will gradually lead to breakdown of law and order”, Mehta pointed out, adding this could not be called dissent.
When Mehta referred to a letter and raised suspicions about some activists going to Maoist-affected areas, Justice Chandrachud asked if he was saying that the institute which sent them was also involved. The ASG replied, “No”, to which Justice Chandrachud added that they don’t become part of a banned organisation just because a well-known institute sends people to an area to assess its social condition and stressed that the distinction must be made.
“I’m requesting your lordships to make that distinction”, said Mehta.
Addressing the court earlier in the day, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the petitioners raised questions on the police claim that one comrade Prakash who as identified as Saibaba had written letters to the five activists.
Singhvi asked how this could be, when Saibaba was in jail since March 2017 and added it was “cooked up evidence”.
He also disputed the Maharashtra police using witnesses from Pune to make arrests in Faridabad. He said: “What business do Pune Municipal corporation employees have in Faridabad?”
Singhvi said the five activists were arrested as “they had been writing strongly against the other arrests made in June”.
Senior Advocate Anand Grover who appeared for those arrested in June said the Pune police had lodged two FIRs on the Bhima Koregaon violence and said it is settled law that the second FIR cannot be used for starting a fresh investigation when the first is pending.
The police had not complied with any procedure while making the arrests, he said, adding it was a fit case for being sent for an independent investigation.
Senior Advocate Ashwini Kumar, who also spoke for the petitioners, submitted that the case was more about the constitutional guarantees to a citizen. “Action against citizens under stringent penal statutes such as the UAPA must pass the test of reasonableness, rationality and procedural fairness and mandated under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution”, he said.
“The facts on record including the manner in which criminal investigation is being conducted merits interference by this Hon’ble Court to protect the individuals conceived from oppressive prosecution and to ensure fair investigation under its own supervision.”
Seeking an independent inquiry, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan said the unfairness in the probe began with the police going to the media with the evidence. The accused were “five respectable people who had been writing for a long time”, he said, adding the case against them “is nothing more than a relentless pursuit of some people”.
“You target liberal and Left people”, he said, and added, “court will have to see if Pune police have targeted these people again and again and again”.(IE)
Comments are closed.