SC declines SIT probe, says arrests not for dissent

Image
IANS New Delhi
Last Updated : Sep 28 2018 | 2:20 PM IST

In a 2:1 majority judgement, the Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere in the arrest of five activists in the Bhima Koregaon case in Maharashtra. It also declined to set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT), allowing Pune police to go ahead with its probe.

The house arrest of the five rights activists -- Sudha Bhardwaj, Varavara Rao, Gautam Navlakha, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira -- will continue for four more weeks, said a majority judgement, read out by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar also on behalf of Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

He said that in perusal of documents submitted before the bench it was not a case of arrest merely because of dissent or difference in political views.

In a dissenting judgement, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said liberty cherished by the Constitution would have no meaning if persecution of the five rights activists were allowed without a proper investigation.

Justice Chandrachud lashed out at the Pune police for going public with evidence and termed it as disconcerting behaviour.

Rejecting the plea seeking the SIT probe into charges that the five have links with banned CPI (Maoist) outfil and were allegedly involved in a conspiracy to kill sovereign leaders, the bench said: "The accused person cannot have a choice in the investigating agency."

However, Justice Khanwilkar said that the accused were at liberty to pursue appropriate legal relief.

As the bench extended its interim order putting them under house arrest, in his dissenting judgment Justice Chandrachud recalled the sequence of events when a senior police officer held a press conference and released letters.

Justice Chandrachud said that the impartiality of the Maharashtra Police was in doubt as it had tried to prejudice public opinion. He questioned "whether the Maharashtra Police can be trusted to carry out impartial investigation".

He ordered a court-monitored SIT probe and said that the technicalities of law cannot be allowed to override the substantive justice.

--IANS

pk-gt/in/mr

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Sep 28 2018 | 2:16 PM IST

Next Story