NEW DELHI: A three-judge Supreme Court bench on Wednesday expressed contrasting perspectives on the sustained assertions of arrested rights activists within the “urban naxal” case that evidence in opposition to them was forged and Pune police’s claims linking them to the banned CPI (Maoist) had been unsustainable. The Pune police’s claims about “voluminous cogent evidence” saw a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud react in a diametrically opposite manner to arguments of the activists and the Pune Police.
When the Pune Police, through additional solicitor basic Tushar Mehta, tried to establish hyperlinks between the arrested activists — Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, Sudha Bharadwaj and Gautam Navlakha — and Maoists through taking the bench through a fats volume of documents allegedly recovered from seized pen drives, laptops and tough discs, Justice Chandrachud stated: “We can't sacrifice liberty on the altar of conjectures.”
When Mehta cautioned in opposition to jumping to conclusions after perusing only a few pages of the docket containing evidence in opposition to activists, Justice Chandrachud stated: “Of course we can take a holistic view after going through the entire set of documents that may be shown to us. We will look at the evidence, but with the hawk eye.”
Justice Chandrachud also stated: “We must differentiate between armed combat in opposition to the federal government and expression of dissent through a piece of folks because of generations of suppression. Please stay this distinction in thoughts whilst presenting evidence. The shoulders of all, be it the federal government or the Supreme Court, should be vast sufficient to take grievance and dissent.” Buoyed through those sympathetic observations, suggest Prashant Bhushan interjected Mehta and stated the letters and documents being cited had been “fabricated” evidence.
At this level, CJI Misra curtly instructed him that “we can't deal with your allegation that many of these letters are forged. We are on the preliminary level of finding whether the evidence makes up a prima facie case for police to arrest the petitioners”. The activists, through counsel A M Singhvi, Anand Grover, Ashwani Kumar, Rajeev Dhavan and Prashant Bhushan, made a combative presentation to show they're being centered for dissent in opposition to the ideology and practices of BJP-led governments and had been arrested to muzzle grievance.
“Systematically unverified stories had been leaked to the clicking through the Pune Police to tarnish our reputation and hang trial through media,” they alleged. Mehta contested their declare, pronouncing: “It is simply too serious an issue to be ridiculed like this. What I'm showing, as a nation we should be all in favour of it. The arrests are not remotely connected to their dissent in opposition to the federal government. But if some persons are energising a equipment for planned actions to purpose standard regulation and order problem within the country, we must look at those with a little more seriousness.”
Mehta accused activists of receiving money from CPI (Maoist) to raise issues in world fora to generate traction about regulation and order state of affairs after being instrumental in its deterioration. According to a file, which he learn out, the mandate was to fund regulation and order issues. “Frequent protests and chaos will progressively result in breakdown of regulation and order and this may increasingly have significant political ramifications within the coming months...,” he learn out.
Senior suggest Harish Salve, appearing for the complainant who lodged the FIR in opposition to the activists, requested the court docket that delicate parts of the investigation record and documents be saved beneath wraps as it's neither being fair to activists or the police. He argued that dissent must be expressed in a way that must be in sync with constitutional method.
When the Pune Police, through additional solicitor basic Tushar Mehta, tried to establish hyperlinks between the arrested activists — Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, Sudha Bharadwaj and Gautam Navlakha — and Maoists through taking the bench through a fats volume of documents allegedly recovered from seized pen drives, laptops and tough discs, Justice Chandrachud stated: “We can't sacrifice liberty on the altar of conjectures.”
When Mehta cautioned in opposition to jumping to conclusions after perusing only a few pages of the docket containing evidence in opposition to activists, Justice Chandrachud stated: “Of course we can take a holistic view after going through the entire set of documents that may be shown to us. We will look at the evidence, but with the hawk eye.”
Justice Chandrachud also stated: “We must differentiate between armed combat in opposition to the federal government and expression of dissent through a piece of folks because of generations of suppression. Please stay this distinction in thoughts whilst presenting evidence. The shoulders of all, be it the federal government or the Supreme Court, should be vast sufficient to take grievance and dissent.” Buoyed through those sympathetic observations, suggest Prashant Bhushan interjected Mehta and stated the letters and documents being cited had been “fabricated” evidence.
At this level, CJI Misra curtly instructed him that “we can't deal with your allegation that many of these letters are forged. We are on the preliminary level of finding whether the evidence makes up a prima facie case for police to arrest the petitioners”. The activists, through counsel A M Singhvi, Anand Grover, Ashwani Kumar, Rajeev Dhavan and Prashant Bhushan, made a combative presentation to show they're being centered for dissent in opposition to the ideology and practices of BJP-led governments and had been arrested to muzzle grievance.
“Systematically unverified stories had been leaked to the clicking through the Pune Police to tarnish our reputation and hang trial through media,” they alleged. Mehta contested their declare, pronouncing: “It is simply too serious an issue to be ridiculed like this. What I'm showing, as a nation we should be all in favour of it. The arrests are not remotely connected to their dissent in opposition to the federal government. But if some persons are energising a equipment for planned actions to purpose standard regulation and order problem within the country, we must look at those with a little more seriousness.”
Mehta accused activists of receiving money from CPI (Maoist) to raise issues in world fora to generate traction about regulation and order state of affairs after being instrumental in its deterioration. According to a file, which he learn out, the mandate was to fund regulation and order issues. “Frequent protests and chaos will progressively result in breakdown of regulation and order and this may increasingly have significant political ramifications within the coming months...,” he learn out.
Senior suggest Harish Salve, appearing for the complainant who lodged the FIR in opposition to the activists, requested the court docket that delicate parts of the investigation record and documents be saved beneath wraps as it's neither being fair to activists or the police. He argued that dissent must be expressed in a way that must be in sync with constitutional method.
Supreme Court judges split in ‘urban Naxal’ case
![Supreme Court judges split in ‘urban Naxal’ case]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
September 20, 2018
Rating:
