Romila Thapar & Others v. Union of India & Others

Advertisements

BACKGROUND

The case of Romila Thapar vs. Union of India holds significant importance in relation to the arrest of activists. Romila Thapar and other petitioners approached the Supreme Court of India to challenge the unlawful detention of five human rights activists, namely Gautam Navlakha, Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves, and Arun Ferreira, by the Maharashtra police under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The main focus of this case revolves around the wrongful application of the draconian law UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) to arrest human rights activists. It highlights the misuse of the law, emphasizing the concern regarding the unjust targeting of activists. In this case, the petition sought the establishment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) by the court to ensure a fair investigation into the charges pressed against the five activists by the Pune police. Additionally, the petition challenged the violation of Articles Romila Thapar, Devaki Jain, Satish Deshpande, Prabhat Patnaik, and Maja Dharuwala, highlighting that the accused were denied their entitled rights as stated in these articles.

FACTS

On August 28, 2018, five human rights activists Gautam Navlakha, Sudha Bhardwaj, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, and Varvara Rao were arrested by the Maharashtra Police. According to the Maharashtra Police, these activists were accused of organizing the Elgaar Parishad event in January 2018, which allegedly led to the Bhima Koregaon Violence. The Bhima Koregaon Violence is an incident held on January 2, 2018, where a gathering witnessed stone pelting, resulting in one fatality and the arrest of approximately 300 people in connection with the incident. These activists were assumed to be part of the banned organization that is the communist party of India (Maoist). As a result, these individuals were collectively charged under the Unlawful Activities prevention act (UAPA).

Accordingly, a joint writ petition was filed through public interest litigation by some eminent personalities of the country Romila Thapar, Devaki Jain, Satish Deshpande, Prabhat Patnaik, and Maja Dharuwala with the demand for a special investigation team for conducting an investigation.  These people challenged the arbitrary arrest of the arrestees before the supreme court of India. The petitioner claimed that the Maharashtra police intentionally failed to follow all the procedural protocols while arresting the arrestees by violating fundamental rights guaranteed under  Articles 19,14,&21 of the constitution of India.

ISSUES

1. Whether the court will permit establishing a Special investigation team?
2. Can the behest of the next friend of the accused can entertain the same prayer?
3.  Can the accused persons be released after the impression of being trapped in? 

ARGUMENTS

PETITIONERS

The petitioner in the present case presented the stand that the five-person have not been named in the FIR which was logged on 8th January 2018 & 28th August 2018. It was specifically made against violence. The accused were not present during the event which was referred to in the FIR.  There is a Lack of evidence, and no legal criminal history was found that shows any involvement of the accused in the violence hence there was misuse of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the arrested activists.  Two FIR was registered for the same incident which is impermissible. Further, the petitioner stated that the offense under UAPA has been added without due Authorization of competent authority. The petitioners also contended that the persons who were arrested are well-known for their track record of human rights activism and the actions of Maharashtra police of not conducting a fair and proper investigation, in order to malign the reputation and to create negative public opinion against the arrestees, hence it is unjust to put those activists behind bars on the basis of unsubstantial allegations, without any evidence against them.

RESPONDENT

The respondent in the present case was of the stand that the conducted investigation is responsibly & impartially carried out, strictly under the applicable provisions of Crpc. It was contended before the court that the arrest of the accused persons was made under the light of the shreds of evidence that were found against them while conducting the investigation. according to the police investigation report, it was established that these activists had affiliations with the Communist Party of India (Maoists), an organization that had been banned and labeled as a terrorist organization. The report also indicated that these individuals were identified as members involved in the Bhima Koregaon Violence incident. The respondent put forth the argument that the accused individuals were part of an orchestrated criminal conspiracy and provided support to the Pune event organized by the Elgaar Parishad through a front organization known as “Kabir Kala Manch.” the respondent stated that the question of appointing the special investigation team or to allow investigation under the monitoring of court should be eschewed. According to the respondent, there is no right for the accused to seek relief of investigation of the crime through an independent agency even strangers to the offense under investigation or next friends of the accused to seek relief of investigation cannot be permitted. As per the Respondent’s claims, numerous documents were discovered that allegedly demonstrated the active involvement of the activists in activities against the interests of the country.

JUDGEMENT

After listening to the arguments from both sides and examining the evidence the verdict was delivered with a ratio of 2:1, with the majority opinion provided by Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra and Justice A M Khanwilkar, while Justice D Y Chandrachud dissented from the majority view. on the basis that there was sufficient and relevant evidence revealing the possibility of the arrested accused being members of the Communist Party of India (Maoists), which is a banned organization in India. Furthermore, the court ruled that the matter at hand solely pertains to the connection with the proscribed terrorist organization and not to different viewpoints or ideologies. In the case of Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and others, the Supreme Court of India observed that the petitioners do not have the authority to select their preferred investigating agency. Accordingly, by a majority judgment of 2:1, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for the establishment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT). The Supreme Court extended the period of house arrest for the activists by four weeks from the date of the judgment, allowing them to seek bail in lower courts. The court rejected the petition and granted the investigating officer the authority to take necessary actions in accordance with the law. Justice D.Y.CHANDRACHUD  has a very disagreeing view, in this case, he raised concerns about the impartiality of the Maharashtra Police, stating that there were sufficient doubts in this regard. He noted that the remedies sought by the petitioner were not related to the remedies available under criminal procedure. He expressed the belief that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was necessary in this case to ensure a fair and impartial investigation. He argued that the court should monitor the investigation itself.

In my opinion, whatever verdict is given by the court is a concrete step that is taken is promoting the misuse of power carried out by the authority, somewhere it is degrading our constitutional values which are Equality before the law and Equal protection of the law. I strongly agree with the views presented by the current Chief Justice of India D.Y CHANDRACHUD. Though the judgment, in this case, is considered as a landmark established by due procedure of law.

REFERENCE

 http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/jTp3FHHu (2018)10 SCC 753.

This Article is written by Devyani Kapse of ILS Law College Pune, an Intern at Legal Vidhya.

Admin