Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 640 of 2023
Date of judgement: 28-07-2023
Court: Supreme Court of India
Justice: Aniruddha Bose, Sudhanshu Dhulia
Introduction:
In 2018, a case was registered under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) against Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, Varavara Rao, Sudha Bharadwaj, and Gautam Navlakha. The Maharashtra Police had accused them of having Maoist links and plotting to overthrow the government. In August 2018, they were arrested for their alleged involvement in the Bhima Koregaon violence that year.
Facts:
Vernon Gonsalves and Anr filed a petition before the Supreme Court of India challenging their arrest and seeking quashing of the FIR against them. The petitioners contended that the allegations made against them were conspiracy theories and baseless and that the prosecution had failed to establish any prima facie case against them. They also argued that their arrest was illegal and violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
The Maharashtra Government, on the other hand, defended their actions, stating that there was sufficient evidence against the petitioners to justify their arrests. The government also argued that the case fell under the category of “terrorist activities,” which warranted police action without a warrant.
Issues Raised:
1. Whether the arrests of Vernon Gonsalves and others were justified under the provisions of the UAPA?
2. Whether their prolonged detention violated their fundamental rights?
Claimant’s Argument:
–The petitioners contended that the allegations against them were baseless and that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against them.
– They argued that their arrests were illegal and violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
Defendant’s Arguments:
– The Maharashtra Government defended the arrests, claiming there was sufficient evidence against the petitioners to justify their detention.
– They argued that the case fell under the category of “terrorist activities,” which required police action without a warrant.
The Judgement:
In October 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the UAPA while also directing the state government to release the activists, citing their prolonged detention as a violation of their basic human rights. The court found that the accused were entitled to default bail since the investigation could not be completed within the statutory deadline of 90 days, and their prolonged detention was not justifiable.
The judges also criticized the Maharashtra Government for delaying their trial and for submitting multiple supplementary chargesheets, which delayed the proceedings. The court directed that all their bail applications be considered afresh, and they be released on bail without delay.
Conclusion:
The case of Vernon Gonsalves and Anr vs State of Maharashtra is significant in the context of the UAPA, which has been criticized for its broad and vague provisions that violate freedom of speech and expression. The judgment reaffirms the importance of the right to bail and the requirement to follow constitutional procedures during an arrest.
Written by Mary Christine Delicia M an intern under legal vidhiya.
0 Comments