Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The plea for a probe by a Special Investigation Team into the BhimaKoregaon case was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Majority opinion, by CJI Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar, dismissed the plea while Justice DY Chandrachud dissented, holding the arrests to be baseless.
The judgement, authored by Justice Khanwilkar for himself and for CJI Misra, held that it was not a case of arrest for dissent and no particular facts show any kind of mala fide, on the part of the police, was established. The petition was dismissed off with a provision of liberty for accuse to approach the courts and with the grant of four weeks.
Justice Chandrachud dissented from the majority to hold that a court monitored investigation was necessary by SIT as the Maharashtra police was biased and the arrests were without any basis.
The petitionwas filed by five persons, led by Prof RomilaThapar,against the arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders including GautamNavlakha and SudhaBharadwaj citing Maoist links as the ground in the Bhima-Koregaon case. Protesting against the arbitrary arrests, the petitionersclaimed that the arrests were made without a shred of evidence and alleged the existence of an emergency-like situation in the country. Thus, the petitioners demanded a Court monitored SIT probe in the case.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Khanwilkar and Chandrachud, held that five rights activists– Arun Ferreira, Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves, GautamNavlakha and SudhaBharadwaj– should be confinedto their respective homes till the disposal of the petition.
Alleging the arrest to be an attempt to muzzle the voice of dissent, the petitioners seek an explanation from the Maharashtra government over the issue of arrests. The petition said that the use of draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against these 5 activists, with no history of indulging or instigating any violence,can be clearly termed as malafide and is an attempt to brow beat and intimidate the dissenting voices.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, petitioner’s council contended that the search and arrest were carried out in a blatant violation of procedure and the witnesses who attested the arrest and search memos were not local residents, instead they brought by Maharashtra police from Pune. Also, the Maharashtra police went to the press, alleging that the activists were involved in a plot to assassinate the PM, despite its absence in the FIR and the remand applications. He, therefore, contended that the attempt was to create an impression that the activists were terrorists even without the material on record to support such charges.
The Maharashtra Government, in their defence, stated that they had gathered enough evidence to establish links of the arrested activists with Maoist organization.
86540
103860
630
114
59824