Disha Agrawal | ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad | 6th June 2020
Romila Thapar V. Union of India[1]
Introduction
Romila Thapar,a renowned historian and a social activist , with other four eminent personalities Devaki Jain, Prabhath Patnaik, Satish Deshpande and Maja Dharuwala filed Petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation. The petition was filed challenging the arrest of five social activist under Article 14, 19,12 which deals with right to equality, right to freedom of speech and right to freedom of life and liberty respectively. The petitioner prayed through this petition for the establishment of Special Investigating Team (SIT) for their case, as they were of thought that police has been played a biased role in the investigation and fabricated them in this case.
Facts
On 28th August, 2018 five social activists namely, Gautam Navalakha, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, P.Varavara Rao and Sudha Bharadwaj arrested them by Maharashtra Police, hereinafter referred as a social activists. On 2nd January, 2020 FIR was lodged alleging that some hindutva instigated the violence. The social activists were arrested on the counter FIR lodged on 8th January, 2018, stating that they were the part of some banned terrorist organisation. Arrest was made on the basis that they are supposed to have connection with banned Extremist group CPI or they are the active members of Maoist who triggered Bhima Koregaon Violence. Bhima Koregaon Violence took place on 2nd January, where due to stone pelting attack one person died and approx. 300 were arrested. And these five were among those arrested person only.
The petitioner contented that the FIR, on the basis of which they are arrested, is made with mala fide motive in relation to Bhima Koregaon Violence, to suppress them in raising their voice . They further contended the petitioner were working for the betterment of society, their arrest is simply an abuse of Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act (UAPA) because the arrested person has no criminal history in connection with any involvement in violence.
According to the petitioner the Maharashtra police were biased in investigation, so they prayed in the petition for the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in order to get fair investigation reports. Their contention of police being biased and deliberately pulling social activist in this case , so that they can divert the public/ media from the actual culprit and restrain the voice of reality.
Issues
- Whether the Maharashtra police was biased in investigation and there should be Special Investigation Team (SIT) or not?
- Whether their arrest suffered from the lack of evidence and the arrest was arbitrary?
Judgement
The judgement was given in 2:1 ratio of majority. The majority of opinion given by Justice Khanwilkar and D.P. Mishra. They dismissed the petition of appointing Special Investigation Team (SIT), relying on the precedent of Supreme Court, that the accused has no say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency[2]. The court observed that the case is already pending the lower court for the judicial remedies and the accused can pursue in accordance with the law. And court emphasised that the Supreme Court is not giving any opinion about the innocence or guilt of the social activists but only dismissing the petition and granting the accused to pursue legal proceeding.
Further the court held that the investigating officers are successful in proving that the contention made by the petitioner that the arrest was suffered from the lack of evidence. The arrest was not made in the view of different views but due to links and involvement in the Elgaar Parishad Meeting. Court ordered for the expansion of the house arrest who were already arrested and the house arrest of other three.
The dissenting opinion of Justice D Y Chandrachud, that he do not deny with the majority opinion that accused do not have any say in the matter of investigating opinion. But he do feel that there was biased investigation done by Maharashtra Police, making the arrest arbitrary and court can intervene when there is a lapse in system. He criticizes the conduct of police of releasing the material evidence and distributing letters to the press. He held that the court should not dismiss the petition and appoint an investigating agency so that there will be fair investigation. He observed that the act of police was infringement of fundamental rights of the arrested person, as the arrest was politically motivated and arbitrary. But the case was dismissed with the majority of 2:1 in the court.
Conclusion
The judgement in this case turned the whole point of view, where the dissenting opinion of Justice D Y Chandrachud point towards that how the rights of the party are infringed in the legal system . It has been evident here that how the system becomes the enemy of law and how the system itself suppressed the voice of freedom and liberty.
[1] (2018) 10 SCC 753
[2] Narmada Bai V. State of Gujarat ((2011) 5 SCC 79)
Leave a Reply