'Might Set Wrong Precedent': Supreme Court Doubts Earlier Order Allowing House Arrest For Bhima Koregaon Accused Gautam Navlakha

The Supreme Court on Friday doubted its November 2022 order allowing human rights activist and Bhima Koregaon-accused Gautam Navlakha to be released from detention and placed under house arrest on grounds of his deteriorating health. Such an order, the court orally observed, might set the 'wrong precedent'. A bench Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala was considering Navlakha’s application seeking to shift his house arrest location in Mumbai. The septuagenarian has been in custody since August 2018 for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 after being arrested in connection with the 2018 caste-based violence that broke out at Bhima Koregaon in Pune, and for allegedly furthering the agenda of proscribed far-left outfit Communist Party of India (Maoists) and conspiring to overthrow the government.Today, the division bench agreed to adjourn the hearing for eight weeks until the end of October, after it was informed that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had not yet filed a counter-affidavit in response to Navlakha's plea for a shift in location. On his behalf, the urgency of his application was highlighted, saying that he would have to vacate his current residence soon. On the other hand, Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju once again reiterated the central agency's concerns over the order of house arrest. The law officer argued -"This is an unusual order of house arrest. Probably the first of its kind...And this plea for house arrest was on grounds of his sickness. He said one lady would stay with him. But she is not staying with him most of the time, when in jail, there would be a force to look after so many people."To this, Justice Sundresh replied that the court had its 'reservations' about its earlier order (which was passed by a bench headed by Justice KM Joseph, who has since retired) and shared his anxieties that such an order for one person might set the wrong precedent. The judge said - "Prima facie we have our reservations, but a lengthy order has been passed...Without going into the merits of the case, this might set a wrong precedent. [His plea] may have one hundred percent merit and we are not saying anything on that. But to facilitate this, and do this for one person...Might have a...Alright, you file your affidavit."During the hearing, ASG Raju also claimed that Navlakha is now required to pay one crore to meet the expenses for round-the-clock surveillance at the location where he is house-bound. This figure, was however disputed by Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the embattled activist. She argued that the central agency's calculation of the amount payable was wrong and contrary to the relevant rules. Besides this, she also informed the bench that a deposit of eight lakhs had already been made by Navlakha towards surveillance and security expenses in terms of the court's order in April.Notably, there was a heated exchange between the two senior lawyers about the period of adjournment, with the additional solicitor-general strongly urging the court to hear the plea within a month's time. In contrast, Ramakrishnan pointed out to the bench that the Bombay High Court is currently hearing Navlakha's bail plea, to justify her appeal for an eight-week-long adjournment. Noting that the petitioner would have to file a rejoinder after the central agency submits its counter-affidavit, the bench acceded to her request.ASG Raju protested. "Kindly consider...He is on house arrest, which according to me, is unwarranted. Initially granted on health grounds..." "Their own medical examination confirms his ailment," Ramakrishnan countered."We can file the affidavit in two weeks. Your Lordships may keep the matter after four weeks," Raju suggested.Ramakrishnan disagreed with this suggestion, asking the law officer why the NIA had not filed its counter-affidavit when time was granted for this purpose, on the last occasion. "Alright, we will hear it," Justice Sundresh intervened, "We have our reservations. Let's see."Background Gautam Navlakha, an activist and senior journalist, along with 15 others have been accused by the National Investigation Agency of being responsible for the January 2018 caste violence at Bhima Koregaon in Pune, although one of them – Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist Father Stan Swamy passed away in July 2021. The Pune police and later, the NIA contended that inflammatory speeches at Elgar Parishad – an event to commemorate the two hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Koregaon Bhima – triggered the violent clashes that broke out between Maratha and Dalit groups near the village of Bhima Koregaon in Maharashtra. This led to the 16 activists being arrested for allegedly conspiring and planning the violence and charged with various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act based on letters and emails primarily retrieved from their electronic devices. In April of last year, the Bombay High...

'Might Set Wrong Precedent': Supreme Court Doubts Earlier Order Allowing House Arrest For Bhima Koregaon Accused Gautam Navlakha

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

'Might Set Wrong Precedent': Supreme Court Doubts Earlier Order Allowing House Arrest For Bhima Koregaon Accused Gautam Navlakha

Awstika Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers