The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Maharashtra government to hand over the entire case diary to learn how the investigation into riots in Bhima-Koregaon village expanded into the discovery of a “Maoist plot on the life of a sovereign head”, leading to the crackdown and arrests of rights activists across the country.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud reserved for final orders on Thursday on a petition filed by historian Romila Thapar and four others for a special investigation team probe into the circumstances leading to the raids and picking up of poet Vara Vara Rao, lawyer Sudha Bhardwaj and activists Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves and Gautam Navlakha.
The Maharashtra government accused them of links with the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist). Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the court of an impartial probe and asked them to be handed over from house arrest into custody.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the petitioners, described the arrests as a “test case”, foisted to learn the extent to which personal liberty of citizens could be shackled.
‘An amalgamation of ideology and lawlessness’
Senior advocate Harish Salve, for Tushar Damgude whose complaint resulted in the Bhima-Koregaon FIR in January, countered that “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”. Mr. Salve said the case represented an amalgamation of ideology and lawlessness.
“Unlawful activities cannot be tolerated. You can have any ideology, but it should not slide into unlawfulness. Contours where free speech ends and lawlessness begins should be marked,” he argued.
Mr. Salve said the court should examine whether this probe was merely an expression of hostility to a political ideology. “If, on the other hand, your lordships feel we are on the trail of unlawful activities, then let the investigation continue,” he submitted.
The prayer for setting up a special investigation team could not be a ritual incantation. PILs now came in a “cut-paste template” to the Supreme Court, he said.
Mr. Salve argued that a special investigation team was set up to ensure that an ongoing investigation was not derailed by persons in power or when there was no sanctity in an investigation. Here, the investigation was being done as per the book.
He said the question whether an individual was rightly arrested or not should be examined on a person-to-person basis. Courts below could dispassionately look into the allegations. For example, in the sensational 2G scam case, the trial judge waited for years and discharged the accused when no evidence was forthcoming.
“Our judiciary is robust. Our magistrates can deal with criminal law,” Mr. Salve said, raising the issue of petitioners directly having approached the apex court. “There are four tiers of appeal for the accused. Then your lordships are always there. Ultimately, it [this case] may land up here.”
‘Case if framed’
Mr. Singhvi alleged that the entire case was framed to create an air of prejudice.
“The FIR filed was on the Koregaon violence, but the five activists were picked up on August 28 for a Maoist plot on the life of a sovereign head. Maoist plot is not based on the FIR. This plot finds no mention in any record produced in court. You do not act like this if there is a Maoist plot against the Prime Minister,” he submitted.
Mr. Salve took strong objection to Mr. Singhvi’s references to a press conference held by Maharashtra Police ADGP (Law and Order) Parambir Singh. Mr. Singhvi said Mr. Singh had “flashed and circulated” documents allegedly to connect the arrested activists to Maoists.
Mr. Salve said the senior police officer should be allowed to file an affidavit in court on whether he did distribute any documents and which ones. He cannot be accused carte blanche, he objected.
Mr. Singhvi asked how a Mr. Salve’s client, a mere intervenor, could forward arguments in favour of the Maharashtra police. In reply, Mr. Salve said Mr. Singhvi’s clients were “third parties” and not the arrested activists.
At one point, Chief Justice Misra asked Mr. Singhvi to quit arguing as if in trial court on a remand application. “This is a writ petition under Article 32,” he observed.
Justice Khanwilkar said though the prayer may be for setting up of a special investigation team, the arguments made by the petitioners pressed for quashing of the charges itself.
