De-mythifying Ambedkar

Iconoclast projects Ambedkar as a man of flesh and blood, who reflected the times in which he lived and endeavoured to achieve his goals. In contrast to the hyperbole often associated with his legacy, Teltumbde eradicates any element of myth and eulogy to convey the essence of the man behind the legend. Iconoclast projects Ambedkar as a man of flesh and blood, who was a product of his times and one who endeavoured to achieve his goals.

Quoting Teltumbde . “A biography often becomes a eulogy, an unquestioning celebration,” Teltumbde remarked. “That wasn’t the book I wanted to write, especially today when Ambedkar’s legacy is being co-opted across the political spectrum. “But upon reflection” – he continued, explaining the prefix ‘reflective’ before the biography – “I agreed to look at him not as a god to be worshipped, but a case study. If we are to be inspired by him, we must see him as a real person.”

Surgically, Teltumbde has both de-mythified and demystified Ambedkar who was often confusing and inconsistent figure. For example, Teltumbde recounts Ambedkar, writing a book supporting Partition and the creation of Pakistan, only to retract this position in a second edition.

In this work, Ambedkar is presented not as a deity of devotion but as an important case study for the present generation to learn from. The author traced the methodology with which he evaluated the Buddha, whom he regarded as his master, to present Ambedkar’s life and legacy with a critical analysis rather than mere eulogy.

Distinctive character of Ambedkar

Teltumbde recounts that there were several leaders who worked on different issues that ailed society but these leaders directed movements by the upper castes and did not concern with the caste exploitation of the majority of their own people. This realisation gave birth to the non- Brahmin movement of Jyotiba Phule and later to Dalit movements in various provinces with varying visions and approaches.

The book unravels that after the 1930s, Ambedkar overshadowed other Dalit leaders and ovements that mushroomed across various regions, becoming the most impactful leader for Dalits, who constituted one-sixth of India’s population However, despite his stature, he was casteinto into oblivion by the ruling classes after his death. Dalits had to struggle tooth and nail to erect his statues, and it took a decade even before a marker was established at his cremation site.

Ambedkar as distinguished from other leaders, singularly characterised the caste system as the main obstacle in India’s progress and demanded its annihilation. He characterised castes as not only a social evil but also a religious evil, and spoke of dynamiting the Hindu Dharmashastras that sustained it. After realising the impossibility of this task, he concentrated on the political solution and came in confrontation with stalwarts like Mahatma Gandhi. Even in his intellectual navigation, he challenged giants like Bertrand Russell and John Maynard Keynes. It is this very rebellious attitude towards established icons and ideas that makes him an iconoclast.

The author narrates, Ambedkar’s sheer hatred for Communism in his writings, quoting his stating that Communists had disregard for the Constitution and parliamentary democracy. He is also critical of Ambedkar’s silence against the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha and concludes that his goal was to alienate Communists or Marxist thinkers.

Distorted role in authoring the Constitution

Teltumbde also recounts how Ambekar’s role as architect behind the Constitution is a myth which had to be dispelled. This was evident in Ambedkar’s sentiments in the years after the Republic was formed. “Ambedkar said he was used as a hack to get the support of the Dalits for the book, and he would be the first one to burn the constitution.”

While Ambedkar did indeed make the most significant contribution among the seven members of the Drafting Committee, it is important to understand that he was not solely responsible for writing the Constitution. TT Krishnamachari, a member of the Drafting Committee,

acknowledged in November 1948 that the “burden of drafting this [revised] constitution” fell largely on Ambedkar because other members were unable to make “substantial contributions” due to “death, illness, and other preoccupations.” Additionally, Ambedkar’s role in piloting the draft constitution is evident from the Constituent Assembly debates, where he actively defended and explained its various provisions.

Ambedkar himself expressed anger with being labelled the “architect” of the Constitution. In a debate in the Rajya Sabha on September 2, 1953, he responded to a member’s remark by saying, “I was a hack. What I was asked to do, I did much against my will… My friends tell me that I have made the Constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it. It does not suit anybody.”

Important historical coverage

In detail, the author unravels the pro-caste policies of Mahatma Gandhi like his stand during Poona pact, which deprived Dalits of political power. Extensive coverage given to subject of annihilation of caste. In detail, the book describes how Ambedkar located the evils of caste  system in the Vedas, Shastras and Puranas. The book traces Ambedkar’s antagonism with Hinduism in retrospect to death of Ramabai and what drew him into Buddhism. Important reference to the temple entry Satyagrahas like the one at Mahad and the struggles of untouchables in Nasik and Pune. In immaculate depth, the author navigates how and why Ambedkar resorted to taking refuge in Buddhism.

Important aspects delved into in the book are aspects from the pre-independence era when episodes of class-caste struggle are explored, electoral politics, manifesto of Independent labour party, Annihilation of caste, the Moonje factor, Ramabai, Communal award, anti-Khoti bill, Manmad conference, bills of 1937 and 1938, tryst with parliamentary democracy and backward castes are markers. There is also a detailed look at how the Round Table Conference, Cripps Mission, Gandhi-Irwin pact and second World War shaped Ambedkar’s path.

The author also recounts details around the popular Strike of the Municipal Workers Union, where Ambedkar united with the Communists. Regretfully, the Communists did not acknowledge Ambedkar or his party, the Indian Labour Party. The book narrates Ambedkar’s ’travesty with post-  independence India in ‘Taste of Swaraj.’, dealing with his reaction to the ‘Constitutional state, Tricolour, Socialism, Buddhism embracement, Hindu code bill, Scheduled ‘caste refugees, and the 1951 elections.

Inspiring the modern generation

The book unravels the historical processes crucial for the new generation who risk falling into the trap of a blind-ed devotion to Ambedkar, unable to diagnose their own condition, the factors responsible for their plight, or what hinders their movement. Iconoclast paves the way for them to revisit him with a critical perspective, a process which can shape their politics and develop strategies for the future. Vested interests have promoted Ambedkar in a way that encourages his followers to merely glorify him rather than assess his ideas critically. Ambedkar’s ideals projected without the right guidance, has bred crass opportunism by this generation which can be seen in the significant support that Dalits have extended to the BJP, which glorifies Brahmanism.

Opponent to Brahmanical fascism

Teltumbde concludes that had he lived today, Bhimrao Ambedkar would undoubtedly been a serious threat to this regime and would likely have found himself imprisoned under draconian laws like UAPA, possibly even as the co-accused in the Bhima-Koregaon case.

Teltumbde reveals how Ambedkar was head and shoulders opposed to hegemonic Brahmanism, which the current regime glorifies. No one more acutely slapped the politics of the Sangh Parivar as sharply as he did when he stated, “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country.… Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.” Tragically, in today’s scenario calling for his symbolic reincarnation among his followers, he would find no one morally abiding with him. Even the so-called Ambedkarites would not support him for not dancing in tune with their brand of Ambedkarism.

Flaws in the book

This book does not however adequately unravel Ambedkar’s negation of revolutionary class struggles or collusion with reformism, particularly in the Workers front projecting Ambedkar as a social revolutionary, rather than a social reformer. There are no words or analysis, no criticism of how Ambekar did not give a cutting edge to the class struggles or Communist influenced movements or the glaring contradictions between Ambedkarism and Marxism.

Icon-isation of the Iconoclast

In this concluding chapter Teltumbde concludes that Ambedkar’s conflating with the struggle of an entire people is unparalleled. In history. He also asserts that the icon was plagued with his share of limitations.

Significant parts are Teltumbde’s narration of the 1953 land Satyagraha in Marathwada, which he praised for taking up issue of land to the landless. It went on to unravel the subsequent Satyagrahas in 1964-65 engulfing Punjab. Madras, Mysore, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra. They heroically withstood attempts of the state to shatter it, with 3,50,000 people imprisoned., which was unprecedented in India. It was the turning point in Dalits asserting their right to procure a concrete share of the wealth and not be restricted within the periphery of mere socio-cultural aspirations.

He also encompasses the formation of RPI, impact of Dalit Panther movement in 1973, role of Kanshiram, the Hindutva counter revolution, individual and collective empowerment of Dalits, impact of Ambedkar’s Praxis and Cultural state of Society today.

The author reflects on how the movement Ambedkar built is in tatters, with leaders thriving on the Ambedkar cult systematically patronised by the ruling classes. They have made the Marxists and Communists their prime target, instead of the Brahminic zealots. This has origins in the anti- communist slant of Ambedkar, who spoke against Marxism and Communism. The author professes that even after seven decades, Dalits are alienated from non-Dalits, and the Ambedkarite Dalit movement, with factor of untouchability, still intact. In view of the author, Ambedkarism has been the root cause of splits within the Dalit movement, be it Dalit Panthers or RPI. The Congress by projecting Ambekar as chief mentor the Constitution, made the Dalits embrace it as a holy text.

(The author is a freelance journalist)

The post Iconoclast: Path breaking biography of BR Ambedkar projects his human essence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Friday, November 25, the Supreme Court rejected the National Investigation Agency’s appeal against the Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail to Anand Teltumbde in the Elgar Parishad case.

The division bench said that it will not interfere with the High Court order. “We will not interfere. Dismissed,” the Court said, as per Bar&Bench.

The activist and academic, who is 72, will now be granted bail. “Observations of HC shall not be taken as definitive conclusion in all instances,” a bench chaired by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli further declared, as provided by LiveLaw.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) moved the present appeal before the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Bombay High Court granting bail to the Dalit rights activist in the case relating to his alleged role in the Bhima Koregaon violence of 2018. The case against Teltumbde by the NIA was that he was one of the convenors of the December Elgar Parishad event, where he also had made provocative speeches leading to riots on January 1, 2018. 

In connection with the Elgar Parishad case, Teltumbde has been imprisoned since April 2020. On November 18, the Bombay High Court granted him bail. However, the National Investigation agency (NIA) requested that the High Court’s judgment be stayed so that it may dispute Anand Teltumbde’s bail in the Supreme Court. The High Court had stayed its order for a week to enable the NIA to file appeal before the Supreme Court.

In their plea to the Supreme Court, the NIA claimed that Teltumbde’s bail was improperly granted by the High Court, following a “mini trial and roving inquiry.” It was pointed out that while hearing the bail petition, the High Court examined in detail as many as five documents seized during investigation along with three statements. The NIA further argued that the High Court examined each document in great detail and made observations that would affect the trial and investigation.

It was suggested that if Teltumbde were to be granted bail, NIA’s efforts would be fatally wounded.

In an appearance on behalf of the NIA, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati argued that the communications retrieved from Teltumbde unmistakably indicated plans to disrupt law and order.

“Then one letter says to celebrate naxalbari movement and how Comrade Anand gave inputs for the same and how to increase student participation,” the ASG said, as per Bar&Bench.

“What is the role attributable to him? Specific role to him to bring UAPA Sections into action… we are seeing (only) Dalit mobilisation etc,” the Court asked.

“Even without terrorist activity, coordinating with proscribed organisation etc is also an offence,” the ASG replied, as per Bar&Bench.

She said that Teltumbde was associated with CPI(Maoist), a banned organisation,

“In this matter there are charges under as many as 8 Sections of UAPA…The High Court errs in this that it says that the material that the prosecution has shown does not inspire confidence qua Section 15, 18 and 20,” ASG Bhati submitted. She went on to cite several documents revealing Teltumbde’s ‘deep involvement” with with CPI(M), as provided by LiveLaw.

“CPI(Maoist) was declared as a proscribed organization since there were hundreds of attacks across the country specially targeting the security forces,” Bhati explained, as per Bar&Bench.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who was arguing on behalf of Teltumbde, told the court that none of the documents had been found on Teltumbde. The emails that Teltubmde is said to have sent have allegedly been found on Rona Wilson’s Computer. Teltumbde was also alienated from his brother Milind Teltumbde, a Maoist commander who was killed in a clash with security forces last year, according to Sibal. Sibal stated, “I haven’t seen him in thirty years,” as per LiveLaw.

Judgment of the High Court:

A Division Bench of Bombay High Court has granted bail to Dalit scholar and former IIT professor Anand Teltumbde who was booked under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act (UAPA) in the Bhima Koregaon case.

The bench comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav had reserved the order last week after having extensively heard Teltumbde’s appeal against Special NIA Court’s order dated July 12, 2020 rejecting his bail. The 72-year-old scholar has been in custody since April 14, 2020 when he was arrested by the NIA.

His bail has been decided on merits whereby the court has held that offences under section 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act) and 18 (conspiracy) of the UAPA are not made out against him and only sections 38 (offences related to membership of a terrorist organization) and 39 (Offence relating to support given to a terrorist organization) were made out. While the bail has been granted, the same has been stayed for a week upon NIA’s request to allow it to appeal before the apex court.

The judgment can be read here:

Brief Background of the Case:

The case against Teltumbde is that he was the convenor of Elgar Parishad conference held on December 31, 2017 which led to clashes in Bhima Koregaon resulting in one person’s death. When the police probed further and the NIA took over the case, it was alleged that there was a conspiracy to assassinate the Prime Minister. The NIA also alleges that Teltumbde is an active member of CPI (Maoists) and also linked him to his late brother, Milind, who was the Secretary of the (Maharashtra-Madhya Pradesh-Chhattisgarh) unit of the banned CPI(M). He was shot  at last year by security forces. Teltumbde asserted that he is critical of maoist ideology and that he had broken contact with his late brother for 25 years.

In his petition, Dr. Teltumbde denied the prosecution’s allegation that he was a convenor of the Elgar Parishad. The petition pointed out that he disagreed with the contents of the pamphlets and agendas of the Elgar Parishad, and wrote an article that clearly established the intellectual independence and disconnect of Dr. Teltumbde with Elgar Parishad or Bhima Koregaon, reported The Leaflet.

Chronology of the Case:

In October 2019, bail applications of three social activists, including Dr Teltumbde were rejected by the Bombay High Court

In April 2020, Dr. Teltumbde had to surrender to the NIA for allegedly being a senior member of the banned CPI (Maoist) and working in urban areas.

In September 2021, a special NIA court rejected Dr. Teltumbde’s bail on medical grounds. Dr. Teltumbde had raised the contention that he suffered from chronic asthma, chronic cervical spondylitis, supraspinatus tendinopathy, and prostatomegaly.

On December 1, 2021, the special NIA court denied Dr. Teltumbde’s interim bail application to be with his 90-year-old mother in the wake of the death of his brother Milind Teltumbde, a top Naxal leader, in an encounter with security forces. On March 6 this year, the Bombay High Court granted the activist’s plea to visit his mother, while also directing the Maharashtra government to consider Dr. Teltumbde’s health in respect of his mode of conveyance.

On March 31, Dr. Teltumbde moved the Bombay high court with the plea that he was wrongly charged under the UAPA, and contended that the NIA had failed to directly attribute to him any particular act of violence in the actual case. In April, Dr. Teltumbde approached the NIA’s special court seeking discharge against the charges imposed on him on the ground that the NIA had not yet produced any material before the court to actually prove that he was a member of the CPI (Maoist). 

On November 11, a division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Milind N. Jadhav concluded hearing arguments pertaining to Dr. Teltumbde’s appeal challenging his rejection of bail by the NIA special court in July last year.

The division bench thereafter reserved the matter for orders. On November 18, 2022 the bench of the Bombay High Court granted bail to Dr Anand Teltumbde on merits.

Senior counsel Mihir Desai and advocate Ms Devyani Kulkarni appeared for Dr Teltumbde.

Related:

“No prima facie case,” says Bom HC granting bail to Anand Teltumbde on merits

The Flaws in the prosecution case: Anand Teltumbde’s bail plea

Bhima Koregaon case: Prof Anand Teltumbde granted bail on merits by Bom HC

Anand Teltumbde declared Person of the Year 2020 

Facing a vindictive state Anand Teltumbde speaks to Teesta Setalvad

The post Supreme Court upholds Anand Teltumbde’s bail, Says will not Interfere appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Bombay High Court, on November 18, granted bail to Prof. Anand Teltumbde, accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, making it the first judgement, among 16 accused, to be granted on merits. The bench comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav held that no prima facie case was made out against Teltumbde to establish that he was involved in any terrorist acts. Charges had been invoked against him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court held that offences under section 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act) and 18 (conspiracy) of the UAPA are not made out against him.

Dr Anand Teltumbde (appellant), a Dalit scholar and former IIT professor, was in appeal before the court against the order passed by the Special NIA court on July 12, 2021, whereby the trial court had denied him regular bail.

However, the path-breaking bail order of the Bombay High Court, has been stayed by the court for a week as the NIA sought time to move the Supreme Court in appeal against the order. This means the appellant will not be released from prison until the outcome of the NIA’s appeal against bail. He is currently lodged at the Taloja Prison, Navi Mumbai.

The Case

The case against Teltumbde is that he was the convener of Elgar Parishad conference held on December 31, 2017 which led to clashes in Bhima Koregaon resulting in one person’s death. When the police probed further and the NIA took over the case, it was alleged that there was a conspiracy to assassinate the Prime Minister. The NIA also alleges that Teltumbde is an active member of CPI (Maoists) and also linked him to his late brother, Milind, who was the Secretary of the (Maharashtra-Madhya Pradesh-Chhattisgarh) unit of the banned CPI(M). He was shot  at last year by security forces. Teltumbde asserted that he is critical of Maoist ideology and that he had broken contact with his late brother for 25 years.

Senior Advocate Mihir Desai appeared and argued for the appellant, assisted by advocate Ms Devyani Kulkarni, while Special Public Prosecutor Sandesh Patil appeared for the National investigating Agency (NIA) and J.S. Lohakare, APP for the State of Maharashtra.

Findings 

• Association with the CPI(Maoist) organization:

The court carefully perused through documents submitted by the NIA to ascertain whether a prima facie case can be made out against the appellant or not. Amongst the documents submitted were the NIA’s compilation of the letters addressed to the appellant by one Prakash and the other one by the Director of the Institute where the appellant is employed. The former letter states that the Central Committee (CC) is pleased with the progress that (Comrade Anand) has made on the Dalit campaign and it calls upon to explore more opportunities to propagate the issue on the international front. The latter letter contains the details of all the appellant’s travel itinerary and expenses which are reimbursed by the Institute. The court held that Prima facie reading of both the letters reveal that Appellant has travelled extensively from 11.07.2016 to 05.03.2020 while on leave and being out of office on his own expenses or on the expenses of his employer institute on at least 64 occasions. (Para 18.1.1)

The NIA had also submitted letters where the appellant is referred to as Comrade Anand, and letters that have been shared by other accused wherein the appellant is referred to, before and after the Bhima Koregaon incident. (Para 18.2)

In pursuance to this line of argument, the court observed that the Appellant is a man of intellectual prominence in the field of Dalit ideology / movement and merely because he is the elder brother of wanted accused Milind Teltumbde who had gone underground 30 years ago to espouse the cause of CPI(Maoist) cannot be a sole ground to indict the Appellant and link him to the activities of CPI(Maoist). On reading the letters as it is we cannot presume that Appellant is an active member of CPI(Maoist) without there been any other material to corroborate and support such a theory. Thus, the prima facie role of the Professor could not be established before the court.

In regards to the accounts statements submitted by the NIA, the court held that those statements were unsigned, and proofs of certain transactions were missing. Hence, again, a prima facie case court not be established. (Para 18.5)

• Association with the Elgar Parishad programme:

The NIA had submitted to the court that the invite for the Elgar Parishad programme had the name of the appellant. On this particular accusation, the court observed that there were more than 100 names mentioned as ‘Nimantrak’ i.e. inviter. The court then found that, NIA had indicted the role of Appellant and some others as accused whose names appear in the pamphlet but not all inviters who are facing similar allegations as that of Appellant, on the basis of this document.(Para 18.4.1)

• Association with younger brother, Milind Teltumbde

The NIA had referred to three statements of witnesses recorded in support of its case and show that the appellant were in constant touch with his younger brother. After perusal of the three statements, the court had observed that there is lack of concrete evidence to show the same. Through the statement, it could only be proved that the appellant was a participant with the CPI(Maoist), which would attract the provisions of Sections 38 and 39 and not Section 15 of the UAP Act.(Para 19)

The bail plea

According to the bail petition, the prosecution claimed that it was found during the Swargate Police Station, Pune investigation, the appellant and other accused individuals planned the Elgar Parishad meeting in Pune on December 31, 2017, using the Bhima Koregaon Shauryadin Prerna Abhiyan (or “BKSPA”), to advance the goals of the outlawed group of Communist Party of India (Maoist)[1]. However, the prosecution claimed that the Elgar Parishad was organized by Dalit and human rights organizations, where the appellant and other accused persons attempted to gather a crowd in order to “foster animosity” against the government, after the case was turned over to the National Investigation Agency (or “NIA”), according to the petition.

The petition drew attention to the inconsistency by pointing out that the chargesheet submitted by the NIA does not identify BKSPA as a frontal organization of the CPI (Maoist), and yet the Elgar Parishad was established per the CPI(Maoist)’s instructions.

Further, the petition highlighted that the statements of persons recorded under Section 161 (examination of witnesses by police) of the Criminal Procedure Code and named in the list of prosecution witnesses provided that the donations for the Elgar Parishad were made by volunteers and individuals from the public. The prosecution’s claim that the program was supported by the CPI (Maoist) to pursue its own objective is refuted by the witness statements, according to the petition. The appellant refuted the prosecution’s assertion that he served as the Elgar Parishad convener in his petition. In the petition, it was said that he disapproved of the pamphlets and goals of the Elgar Parishad and that he had written an article demonstrating his intellectual independence and separation from either Bhima Koregaon or the Elgar Parishad. The petition further alleged that there was no proof or witness testimony demonstrating his participation as a convener or in the Elgar Parishad’s planning.

The prosecution’s claim that the appellant attended an Elgar Parishad gathering on December 31, 2017, was vigorously refuted in the bail motion. The petition claims that the appellant left Pune, where the event was held, before it even started. The appeal petition emphasized that none of the witnesses corroborated the prosecution’s assertions that any of the artists at Elgar Parishad uttered hateful or inflammatory remarks.

The petition noted that the NIA used lengthy quotations from documents, books, and articles explaining the operation of the CPI (Maoist) that were freely available online in the second supplementary chargesheet, alleging that these materials were incriminating and had been taken from co-accused researcher and activist Rona Wilson. The appeal petition, however, remarked that the prosecution fails to specify any act or omission that can be attributed to the appellant or other co-accused persons in formulating, directing, participating, or implementing the policy of CPI (Maoist).

The petition provides an in-depth explanation refuting the prosecution’s allegations of the appellant’s role in propagating the agenda of CPI (Maoist) through international conferences, communication with other co-accused persons, receiving funds from the CPI (Maoist) and conducting fact-finding missions as a part of frontal organisations of the CPI (Maoist).

The decision of the Court:

At the outset, the court noted that as per section 43-D(5) of UAPA, it cannot grant bail, “if, on a perusal of the case diary, or the charge-sheet, it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”

After perusing the material placed on record and the chargesheet, the Bombay High Court noted that prima facie the five letters cited against the appellant, allegedly recovered from co-accused Rona Wilson’s laptop would fall under the “realm of presumption” which would need “further corroboration.” The court reached the prima facie opinion that, on the basis of material placed before us by NIA, it cannot be concluded that Appellant has indulged into a terrorist act. Thus, the material placed on record prima facie did not inspire lead to the court prescribing the punishment for the appellant under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA. The court also observed that the case of the appellant was not identical to that of Jyoti Jagtap or Hany Babu, as contended by the NIA, since only 5 documents (letters) and 3 key witness statement are used against the appellant.

“25. In view of the above discussion and findings, we are of the prima facie opinion that on the basis of material placed before us by NIA which has been looked into by us, it cannot be concluded that Appellant has indulged into a terrorist act. The material placed on record prima facie does not inspire confidence to bring the Appellant’s act as alleged for the punishment prescribed under Sections 16, 18and 20 of the UAP Act as they read,” the court held. (Para 25)

The Court quashed the impugned order of July 12, 2021 of the Special Court denying bail to the appellant. The Court ordered that the appellant be granted bail on his executing PR bond of Rs.1,00,000/-with one or more solvent local sureties in the like amount and imposed the following conditions for bail:

1. Appellant shall not tamper with the evidence of prosecution nor influence the prosecution witnesses;
2. Before his actual release from jail Appellant shall furnish his contact numbers, both-mobile and landline and permanent residential address to the Investigating Officer and the learned Special Court before which the case of Appellant is pending
3. Appellant shall attend the concerned police station where he resides, initially for a period of one year, once in a fortnight and thereafter on every first Monday, till conclusion of trial
4. Appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of State of Goa and if he desires to travel within India he shall seek prior leave and permission of the Trial Court;
5. Appellant shall deposit his passport held by him before his actual release from jail, with the designated Special Court.

It will be three days before Dr Anand Teltumbde, a renowned academic will know his fate. On November 25, the Supreme Court of India will hear the NIA appeal against the Bombay High Court order.

The order of the Bombay High Court may be read here.

The post “No prima facie case,” says Bom HC granting bail to Anand Teltumbde on merits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

During the hearing of his appeal petition for bail before the Bombay High Court, Dr. Anand Teltumbde, the 71-year-old Dalit scholar, academic and activist charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (‘UAPA’) for allegedly being a senior member of the banned organization, the Communist Party of India (Maoist) (‘CPI (Maoist’), has highlighted several of the serious contradictions in the narrative presented by the prosecution. 

These contradictions revolve around the prosecution’s story and witness statements, and unsubstantiated allegations of Dr. Teltumbde’s involvement with the CPI (Maoist) and the planning of Elgar Parishad. 

The investigation conducted by Swargate Police Station, Pune has been analysed in depth: the prosecution had first alleged that Dr. Teltumbde and other accused persons organised the Elgar Parishad meeting in Pune on December 31, 2017, through the Bhima Koregaon Shauryadin Prerna Abhiyan (‘BKSPA’) to further the agenda of the banned outfit. However, according to the petition, there was further embellishment to these facts after the case was handed over to the National Investigation Agency (‘NIA’). The prosecution taken over by the NIA thereafter alleged that the Elgar Parishad was organised by Dalit and human rights organisations, during which Dr. Teltumbde and other accused persons made attempts to gather a crowd in order to create “hatred against the government”. 

Drawing out this contradiction, the petition pointed out that the charge sheet filed by the NIA does not mention BKSPA at all as a frontal organisation of the CPI (Maoist), or that that the Elgar Parishad was organised on the directions of the CPI (Maoist). 

Further, Anand Teltumbde’s appeal petition highlighted that the statements of persons recorded under Section 161 (examination of witnesses by police) of the Criminal Procedure Code. These witnesses named in the list of prosecution witnesses stated that that the donations for the Elgar Parishad were made by volunteers and individuals from the public. The statements of the witnesses, thus, contradict the story of the prosecution that the program was funded by the CPI (Maoist) to further its own agenda, the petition stated. 

In his petition, Dr. Teltumbde also denied the prosecution’s allegation that he was a convenor of the Elgar Parishad. The petition pointed out that he disagreed with the contents of the pamphlets and agendas of the Elgar Parishad, and wrote an article (which is available in the public domain) that clearly established the intellectual independence and disconnect of Dr. Teltumbde with both the Elgar Parishad or the subsequent events/protests at Bhima Koregaon. The absence of evidence or witness statements indicating his involvement as a convenor or in the planning of the Elgar Parishad therefore asserted in the petition. 

The bail petition vehemently denied the prosecution’s allegation of Dr. Teltumbde’s participation in the event of Elgar Parishad held on December 31, 2017. According to the petition, Dr. Teltumbde had left Pune, where the event was held, before it had even commenced. Significantly, the appeal petition pointed out that none of the witnesses support the prosecution’s claims of hateful or provocative speeches made by any of the performers at Elgar Parishad. 

By an order dated January 24, 2020, the Union Government issued an order directing the NIA to take up the investigation of the present case. This was two years after the Elgar Parishad and the matter had been investigated by the Pune police. Teltumbde, in his application, stated that the NIA has failed to provide any evidence of the rationale behind including (adding) offences under the Indian Penal Code and UAPA, and dropping them “in an arbitrary manner without any application of mind”. 

The petition has also noted that in the second supplementary charge sheet, the NIA has referred to lengthy quotes, documents, books, and articles explaining the working of the CPI (Maoist), freely available on the internet, and alleged the materials to be incriminating, as seized from co-accused, researcher and activist Rona Wilson. The appeal petition, however, remarked that the prosecution (NIA) has failed to specify any act or omission that can be attributed to Dr. Teltumbde or other co-accused persons in formulating, directing, participating, or implementing the policy of CPI (Maoist). 

Further, the petition denied the prosecution’s allegation of Dr. Teltumbde’s membership to a frontal organisation of the CPI (Maoist) and/or furthering or implementing the ideology of the CPI (Maoist). Rejecting the prosecution’s claim that the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights and the Anuradha Gandhy Memorial Committee are frontal organisations of the CPI (Maoist), the petition emphasised that the two organisations are not banned under any law as frontal organisations of the CPI (Maoist). 

The petition provides an in-depth explanation refuting the prosecution’s allegations of Dr. Teltumbde’s role in propagating the agenda of CPI (Maoist) through international conferences, communication with other co-accused persons, receiving funds from the CPI (Maoist) and conducting fact-finding missions as a part of frontal organisations of the CPI (Maoist). 

Dr Teltumbde, as the appellant had prayed that since almost all the evidence is in the form of electronic records, where most of the incriminating documents and letters are typed and without any signature, the requirements under Sections 67 (proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced) and 73 (comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved) of the Indian Evidence Act are not complied with.

The petition has referred to the writ petition filed by Wilson, on whose computer the incriminating evidence was found. According to Wilson’s petition, through remote access, malware was installed on his computer through which incriminating evidence was planted. The petition has highlighted the detailed reports by M/s Arsenal Consulting, a digital forensics firm, on the manner in which the malware came to be planted and how it was used for the delivery of documents and other acts.

Referring to the incriminating letters as ‘false and fabricated’, the petition further claims that the prosecution has failed to corroborate the content(s) of the letters and has not concluded an investigation to verify the veracity of the documents.

Therefore, according to the bail plea, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that a prima facie case is established against Dr. Teltumbde. The petition states that there is no evidence that corroborates the contents of the alleged letters or the statements of the witnesses. It further emphasised that the entire evidence is hearsay, based on suspicions, and hence, inadmissible. 

The petition also notes that the charge sheet filed in the present case runs to thousands of pages and the prosecution intends to examine over 200 witnesses. Pleading Dr. Teltumbde’s fundamental right to a speedy trial, the bail application apprehends that the trial will take years to complete and that the denial of Dr. Teltumbde’s bail will mean his continued incarceration for years. This is a serious assault on personal liberty, the petition argues. 

In his bail petition, Dr. Teltumbde submitted that he is targeted by the investigating agency on account of his writings and work on caste and land struggles, and the violation of democratic rights of the marginalised in India. Dr. Teltumbde further contended in his petition that he does not have any criminal antecedents, and since the investigation is over and the chargesheet has been filed, no purpose will be served in keeping him in custody.

In conclusion, the petition prayed to quash the order of the Special Court dated July 12, 2020, and to release the appellant on bail on such terms and conditions as the high court deems fit.

Chronology

In August

In October 2019, bail applications of three social activists, including Dr Teltumbde were rejected by the Bombay High Court

In April 2020, Dr. Teltumbde had to surrender to the NIA for allegedly being a senior member of the banned CPI (Maoist) and working in urban areas.

In September 2021, a special NIA court rejected Dr. Teltumbde’s bail on medical grounds. Dr. Teltumbde had raised the contention that he suffered from chronic asthma, chronic cervical spondylitis, supraspinatus tendinopathy, and prostatomegaly.

On December 1, 2021, the special NIA court denied Dr. Teltumbde’s interim bail application to be with his 90-year-old mother in the wake of the death of his brother Milind Teltumbde, a top Naxal leader, in an encounter with security forces. On March 6 this year, the Bombay High Court granted the activist’s plea to visit his mother, while also directing the Maharashtra government to consider Dr. Teltumbde’s health in respect of his mode of conveyance.

On March 31, Dr. Teltumbde moved the Bombay high court with the plea that he was wrongly charged under the UAPA, and contended that the NIA had failed to directly attribute to him any particular act of violence in the actual case. In April, Dr. Teltumbde approached the NIA’s special court seeking discharge against the charges imposed on him on the ground that the NIA had not yet produced any material before the court to actually prove that he was a member of the CPI (Maoist). 

Dr. Teltumbde is currently lodged at Taloja Central jail, and is awaiting trial.

On November 11, a division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Milind N. Jadhav concluded hearing arguments pertaining to Dr. Teltumbde’s appeal challenging his rejection of bail by the NIA special court in July last year.

The division bench thereafter reserved the matter for orders. On November 18, 2022 the bench of the Bombay High Court granted bail to Dr Anand Teltumbde on merits.

Senior counsel Mihir Desai and advocate Ms Devyani Kulkarni appeared for Dr Teltumbde.

Related:

Bhima Koregaon case: Prof Anand Teltumbde granted bail on merits by Bom HC

Anand Teltumbde declared Person of the Year 2020 

Facing a vindictive state Anand Teltumbde speaks to Teesta Setalvad

The post The Flaws in the prosecution case: Anand Teltumbde’s bail plea appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Division Bench of Bombay High Court has granted bail to Dalit scholar and former IIT professor Anand Teltumbde who was booked under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act (UAPA) in the Bhima Koregaon case.

The bench comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav had reserved the order last week after having extensively heard Teltumbde’s appeal against Special NIA Court’s order dated July 12, 2020 rejecting his bail. The 72-year-old scholar has been in custody since April 14, 2020 when he was arrested by the NIA.

His bail has been decided on merits whereby the court has held that offences under section 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act) and 18 (conspiracy) of the UAPA are not made out against him and only sections 38 (offences related to membership of a terrorist organization) and 39 (Offence relating to support given to a terrorist organization) were made out. While the bail has been granted, the same has been stayed for a week upon NIA’s request to allow it to appeal before the apex court. The NIA is also before the apex court challenging Bombay High Court’s order granting Gautam Navlakha’s house arrest plea. Navlakha is another accused in the Bhima Koregaon case.

The case against Teltumbde is that he was the convenor of Elgar Parishad conference held on December 31, 2017 which led to clashes in Bhima Koregaon resulting in one person’s death. When the police probed further and the NIA took over the case, it was alleged that there was a conspiracy to assassinate the Prime Minister. The NIA also alleges that Teltumbde is an active member of CPI (Maoists) and also linked him to his late brother, Milind, who was the Secretary of the (Maharashtra-Madhya Pradesh-Chhattisgarh) unit of the banned CPI(M). He was shot  at last year by security forces. Teltumbde asserted that he is critical of maoist ideology and that he had broken contact with his late brother for 25 years.

In his petition, Dr. Teltumbde denied the prosecution’s allegation that he was a convenor of the Elgar Parishad. The petition pointed out that he disagreed with the contents of the pamphlets and agendas of the Elgar Parishad, and wrote an article that clearly established the intellectual independence and disconnect of Dr. Teltumbde with Elgar Parishad or Bhima Koregaon, reported The Leaflet.

In September 2021, Teltumbde was refused bail on medical grounds by the NIA court and further in December 2021, his interim bail plea requesting leave to visit his 90-year-old mother after the death of his brother at the hands of security forces was also denied by NIA court. In March 2022, however, Bombay High Court granted him interim bail to visit his mother.

Sudha Bharadwaj, one of the 16 accused in this case, was granted default bail by Bombay High Court in December last year and activist, poet, Dr Varavara Rao was granted permanent bail on medical grounds in August this year by the Supreme Court. Last month, another accused, Jyoti Jagtap was denied bail by Bombay High Court. In August this year, the Supreme court directed the NIA to decide on the framing of charges in the case within three months hearing a bail petition filed by Vernon Gonsalves, another accused in the case. In September, Prof. Hany Babu’s regular bail plea was denied by the Bombay high Court.

Teltumbde’s bail is first such bail granted on merits in the Bhima Koregaon case. His release from prison will be subject to the appeal which will be filed before the apex court by NIA in the next few days; however, the Bombay High Court order granting him bail on merits will shed some new light on jurisprudence in bail under UAPA.

Related:

Gautam Navlakha’s house arrest: Stringent Conditions Apply

Elgar Case: 4 Days After SC Order, Navlakha Yet to be Placed Under House Arrest

Jyoti Jagtap denied bail: Elgar Parishad case, Bombay High Court

Draconian UAPA provisions, constitutionality challenged in the SC

The post Bhima Koregaon case: Prof Anand Teltumbde granted bail on merits by Bom HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Behind bars since April 14, 2020, Dr Anand Teltumbde a well-known academic, will through his counsel, Mihir Desai interrogating the anomalies in investigation and prosecution by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) apart from seriously questioning the mode and matter of garnering evidence in connection with his name being tragged into the Bhima Koregaon conspiracy case.

Making a start on arguments today about 3.30 P.M., and arguing that any terrorist activist involves violence, senior counsel Mihir Desai, made out a strong argument for bail and pointed out that it was not even the NIA’s case that Dr Teltumbde was involved in any kind of violence. Desai further emphasised that if the Court felt that the renowned academic could not be convicted based on the evidence available in the charge sheet then he must be entitled to bail.

After hearing the matter for under an  hour, Justices Sunil Shukre and GA Sanap of the Bombay High Court adjourned the matter to tomorrow, Thursday, March 31. The appeal was against the NIA Court’s rejection of the Bail in July 12, 2021. This is an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act r/w section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. This petition relies on the Arsenal reports dated February 8, 2021 and March 7, 2021 that expose the unreliability of the evidence that the prosecution has used to build the case against Teltumbde. This appeal also makes a strong case against the incarceration of the appellant (Dr Anand Teltumbde by creating fake and fabricated documents in order to falsely implicate the appellant

The second is a writ petition under Article 226 is a Constitutional Challenge to section  section 43D(5) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Also under challenge is a judgement of the Supreme Court in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1 that has laid down the present interpretation of the law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

Born into a family of landless labourers, well known academic, Dr Tembtumbde is a BE in Mechanical Engineering from VNIT, Nagpur, MBA from IIM, Ahmedabad, Doctorate from the Mumbai Unicersity in a pioneering area (Cybernetic Modeling in Public Systems and a honorary DLit from the Karanatak University, Mysore.

Bail for the well known activists incarcerated in the famed Bhima Koregaon case has been far from easy. After the shocking death of the revered Jesuit and rights activist, Stan Swami in July 2021 (in judicial custody so to speak), advocate Sudha Bharadwaj was granted bail on December 1, 2021. Before that, activist Varavara Rao was granted medical bail.

Related:

Bombay HC grants Sudhs Bharadwaj Bail

Why Bombay HC rejected pleas of other activists implicated in the Bhima Koregaon case

UAPA must go – lock, stock and barrel: Senior Counsel Mihir Desai

Ready reckoner to the UAPA

A new hope as student activists charged under UAPA get bail

What does it take to secure bail under UAPA

When the Law Curbs Democratic Freedoms: India’s Anti-Terror Law, the UAPA

Anand Teltumbde files bail plea in special court

Why was Anand Teltumbde denied bail by NIA court

Another bullet from Arsenal pierces through NIA’s Bhima Koregaon case!

The post Anand Teltumbde’s bail hearing commences before Bombay HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Judge D.E. Kothalikar has rejected the bail applications of Anand Teltumbde and Gautam Navlakha, accused in the Bhima Koregaon case. Both human rights activists have been in jail since April last year under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

They had sent their applications from Taloja Central Jail where they are currently lodged, and sought to be released temporarily after the jail administration directed all inmates above the age of 60 to apply for interim bail due to the pandemic. 

During the hearing, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Prakash Shetty contended that senior journalist Gautam Navlakha had failed to submit a medical certificate along with his bail application and argued that the Covid situation has improved considerably.

Accordingly, Judge Kothalikar rejected his bail plea and was quoted by LiveLaw saying, “Needless to say that the prison authority shall provide appropriate medical aid to the applicant, whenever the situation would arise.” In May this year, Navlakha faced another setback with the Supreme Court rejecting his plea for default bail. He wanted to include the 34 days he spent under house arrest to be included in his period of detention for the purpose of granting default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC. The Supreme Court had ruled that his house arrest was not passed under section 167.

Section 167 of CrPC provides that that whenever a person is arrested and detained in custody, the time for investigation relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, cannot ordinarily be beyond the period of 15 days, but is extendable, on the Magistrate being satisfied that adequate grounds exist for so doing, to a maximum period of 90 days.

For Teltumbde, the court held that he had sought bail on merits and since his substantive bail plea was rejected last month, this interim bail application would also not stand any ground. It is noteworthy that it was Judge Kothalikar himself, who rejected his bail application on July 12 on grounds that Professor Teltumbde was an active member of the banned CPI (Maoist) organisation and that there was prima facie evidence against him.

According to a LiveLaw report, co-accused Arun Ferreira and Surendra Gadling were also supposed to be produced from prison and argue their bail applications on August 23. However, they were not produced and are likely to be heard on September 6.

Current stage in the Bhima-Koregaon case  

The National Investigation Agency has reportedly submitted a list of seventeen draft (proposed) charges against the 15 accused, including the serious charge of waging a war against the country, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life (section 121 of the Indian Penal Code) before the court. The 15 accused are- Varavara Rao, Anand Teltumbde, Gautam Navlakha, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, Sudha Bharadwaj, Rona Wilson, Shoma Sen, Sudhir Dhawale, Surendra Gadling, Mahesh Raut, Hany Babu, Ramesh Gaichor, Jyoti Jagtap and Sagar Gorkhe.

This is a crucial stage in the criminal case against them, as the investigation agency proposes charges on the basis of the evidence available to them and submit it to the court. The court then decides on the proposed sections on the basis of evidence available against the accused persons. The accused persons can either plead guilty or the trial in the case commences and they get a chance to defend themselves against the penal sections invoked.

The NIA charges claim that the accused persons are members of a banned organisation, CPI (Maoists), whose main objective is to establish a Janta Sarkar i.e., people’s Government via a revolution supported by a commitment to protracted armed struggle to undermine and to seize power from the State.

According to an Indian Express report, the NIA, which has been investigating this case, has said that the accused conspired to organise sophisticated weapons “to attempt or cause the death of a public functionary”. The Pune police, which had conducted the initial investigation, had in its proposed draft charges said that the weapons were linked to a conspiracy to “assassinate Prime Minister Narendra Modi”, but the NIA doesn’t mention the Prime Minister’s name explicitly. 

Interestingly, this charge was based on recovery of a letter on the laptop of one of the accused. However, as has been revealed by an investigation of the laptop of Rona Wilson by Arsenal, an American digital forensics firm, that evidence had been planted on it over a 22 month period using malware. Following this other accused too have demanded a forensic examination of their devices, but no court has even taken cognisance of the Arsenal report yet.

An NIA official has also told mediapersons that their draft charges have not gone into specific allegations and the evidence on this will be part of the trial. The charges also include that the accused conspired to demand and organise Rs 8 crore for “annual supply of M-4 (sophisticated weapon)” and had recruited students from various universities for the commission of terrorist activities.

Besides the 15 accused, the NIA has charged six others who are reportedly absconding. Sixteen were arrested in this case initially, including Father Stan Swamy who passed away on July 5, under NIA’s custody. The case has been abated against him and the plea for a judicial inquiry into his death is pending before the Bombay High Court.

Related:

Bhima Koregaon case: NIA files draft charges under UAPA, sedition & conspiracy against 15 accused
Bhima Koregaon case: Anand Teltumbde, Gautam Navalakha, Vernon Gonsalves seek interim bail
Why was Dr. Anand Teltumbde denied bail by the NIA court?
Breaking: SC dismisses Gautam Navlakha’s bail plea

The post Mumbai court rejects bail pleas of Anand Teltumbde, Gautam Navlakha appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Human Rights Defenders, Professor Anand Teltumbde, Gautam Navlakha and Vernon Gonsalves have reportedly approached a special court seeking interim bail on grounds of their age and vulnerability to Covid-19. 

Professor Teltumbde turned 71 on July 15, 2021. Senior activist and journalist Navlakha is 69 years old and Gonsalves is 64 years old. According to The Indian Express, the three men sent their applications from Taloja Central Jail where they are currently lodged, and sought to be released temporarily after the jail administration directed all inmates above the age of 60 to apply for interim bail due to the pandemic. Special Judge Dinesh E Kothalikar has directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to file its reply to their pleas.

On July 12, Special Judge Dinesh Kothalikar had rejected Teltumbde’s bail application on grounds that the available documents, including the exchange of emails and the statements of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, revealed that the accusations against him are not “inherently improbable or wholly unbelievable”.

The court relied heavily on the documents and letters recovered from Rona Wilson’s laptop to accept the prosecution’s argument that prima facie Professor Teltumbde was an active member of the banned CPI (Maoist) organisation. It is noteworthy, that Arsenal, an American Consultancy firm had released a report stating that the alleged incriminating material found on Rona Wilson and most recently co-accused Surendra Gadling’s laptop, was planted.

The Bombay High Court is currently seized with the petitions of researcher Rona Wilson and Professor Shoma Sen, also accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, challenging the sanction to prosecute them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Navlakha suffered the same setback, when the Supreme Court in May this year, dismissed his plea for default bail.

CJP has written to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Shri Uddhav Thackeray, on two occasions urging him to recommend the release of all 14 accused in the Bhima Koregaon case to the High-Power Committee. CJP has cited the unhygienic, inadequate infrastructure in jails that threatens the health of all human rights defenders.

Related:

Why was Dr. Anand Teltumbde denied bail by the NIA court?
Breaking: SC dismisses Gautam Navlakha’s bail plea
CJP writes to Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray seeking release of BK-15
Release Political Prisoners: CJP to Maharashtra CM

The post Bhima Koregaon case: Anand Teltumbde, Gautam Navalakha, Vernon Gonsalves seek interim bail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dr. Anand Teltumbde, who is booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the Bhima Koregaon case, will continue to remain in Taloja jail after the Special NIA court rejected his bail plea on July 12. He was arrested on April 14, last year. On July 15, the jailed Dalit scholar turned 70.

Judge D.E. Kothalikar said, “The courts considering the bail application are required to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-à-vis personal liberty of the accused, by adhering to the fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence”.

The same Special NIA judge had rejected Father Stan’s bail on medical grounds in March this year. Ignoring his deteriorating health conditions and advanced Parkinson’s Disease, Judge Kothalikar had held that, “The collective interest of the community outweighs his personal liberty and also the alleged sickness he suffers”.

Elgar Parishad violence

The NIA court in Mumbai held that even though Anand Teltumbde was invited for a wedding on December 31, 2017, one day before the Elgar parishad event at Bhima Koregaon, “Considering the fact that the name of the applicant appeared in the invitation card and that the applicant had gone to Shaniwar Wada, the place at which the event of Elgar Parishad was organised, goes to prima facie suggest that the applicant was also connected with the Elgar Parishad.”

Further, the court also said, “Upon perusal of the documents, including the exchange of emails and the statements of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, and after cross-checking the truthfulness of the allegations made against the applicant, this court does not find that the accusations are inherently improbable or wholly unbelievable.”

Educational qualifications

Dr. Teltumbde relied heavily on his academic qualifications while arguing for bail. He holds the qualification of B.E. in Mechanical Engineering from VNIT, Nagpur, MBA from IIM Ahmedabad, and D. Litt from Karnataka State University, Mysore. He was also the Executive Director of Bharat Petroleum, and Managing Director and CEO of Petronet India Limited up to 2010. He has also been invited as a Professor of Management by IIT, Kharagpur.

The order recorded that, “He has written extensively in all leading newspapers, magazines, organizational pamphlets and booklets and lectured widely in India. He has authored several books. He was associated with the People’s struggle, particularly labour class. He has contributed to the respected social science journal, Economic and Political Weekly and written columns. Presently, he is a senior professor, Big Data Analytics, Goa Institute of Management.”

But the court refused arguments of him being widely respected in his field. Since the court ruled that there was prime facie evidence against him, the order read, “the contention of the applicant that his educational qualification and social background, needs to be considered while deciding bail application, is liable to be discarded.”

Material against Dr. Teltumbde

The National Investigation Agency alleged that the material from Dr. Anand’s laptop, computers, pen drives, memory cards were “shocking” and implicates him to an extent that establishes that he was not only an active member of the banned organisation CPI (Maoist), but clearly reflected the ongoing sinister design of committing an offence that would destabilise the society.

The NIA submitted that the investigation revealed a “deep rooted conspiracy” to create disharmony to strike terror in people’s minds with the intent to threaten the unity and integrity of India. Hence, sections 13 (punishment for unlawful activities), 16 (punishment for terrorist act), 17 (punishment for raising funds for terrorist act), 18 (punishment for conspiracy), 18B (punishment for recruiting a person for a terrorist act), 20 (punishment for being a member of a banned organisation), 38 (offence related to being a member of a banned organisation), 39 (offence related to giving support to a terrorist organisation) and 40 (offence of raising fund for a terrorist organisation) of the UAPA were added against him.

The documents on record included a letter allegedly written by one ‘Prakash’ to ‘Anand’, that was recovered from co-accused Rona Wilson’s laptop. The letter mentions “Anand’s visit to Paris for Human Rights Convention to be held on April 9 and 10, 2018 and lectures on Dalit issues in order to give traction to domestic chaos.” The prosecution claimed that the letter mentioned to “keep the fire ablaze”.

Judge Kothalikar noted that the prosecution had claimed that during the said period of domestic chaos related to the Dalit issue, was only the incident relating to the Bhima Koregaon incident. “The very statement made in the letter that all PM’s and intellectual comrades must strive to keep the fire ablaze, goes to prima facie indicate that the applicant was involved in furthering activities of the banned organisation”, alleged the prosecution.

The court relied heavily on the documents/letters recovered from Rona Wilson’s laptop to accept the prosecution’s argument that prima facie Teltumbde was an active member of the banned CPI (Maoist) organisation. It is noteworthy that an American Consultancy firm had released a report stating that the alleged incriminating material found on Rona Wilson and most recently co-accused Surendra Gadling’s laptop, was planted. It has unearthed evidence that 14 key files mentioned in the chargesheet against activist and lawyer Surendra Gadling were planted on his hard drive using Netwire, the very same malware that was used to plant false evidence on a laptop belonging to Rona Wilson. Wilson has approached the Bombay High Court seeking formation of an SIT to investigate the planting of these documents on his laptop.

The court also ruled that Anand was not only prima facie involved in activities of a banned organisation but also assisted his own brother Milind Teltumbde, who is a wanted Maoist leader and the Secretary of the Maharashtra State Committee of CPI (Maoist).

Allegations in the chargesheet

Furthermore, the Special NIA court also noted the chargesheet filed against Teltumbde and 13 other accused in the case. The chargesheet states that they conspired to mobilise masses to spread disaffection against the government through provocative speeches, plays, songs, and that they had incited feelings of hatred among communities that led to the violence in Bhima Koregaon on January 1, 2018.

The court further perused the chargesheet and recorded in its order that the Bhima Koregaon incident was just a part of the larger conspiracy and that the NIA’s investigation has revealed that “funds were provided by the banned organization through their members and that the students from eminent educational institutes were taken to forest area occupied by Maoist guerrilla and were given training for terrorist activities.”

The court thus held, “I do not find merit in the contention raised by the learned advocate of the applicant (Anand Teltumbde) that the material placed on record does not prima facie make out a case for the offences punishable under UAPA.”

The restriction on bail provisions under Section 43 D (5) of the UAPA makes it impossible for any person seeking regular bail to do so before or even after the chargesheet is filed. This section existed before as Section 20 (8) under TADA and then Section 49(7) in POTA.

Under the UAPA, despite provisions for bail that exist in Indian criminal law, an exception is made under Section 43 D (5): bail is an impossibility unless “the public prosecutor is heard” and if “the court, after perusal of the case diary, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation against person is prima facie true”. This section, which turns Indian criminal law on its head, received the untenable judicial stamp of approval in April 2019 in National Investigation Agency vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, which has adversely impacted the accepted doctrine on bail, holding essentially that the accused must remain in custody throughout the period of the trial because the courts must assume every allegation made in the first information report (FIR) to be correct.

The same Watali judgment was relied upon by Judge Kothalikar, who looked at the available documents against Dr. Teltumbde and took its contents into account “as it is” without opining on the admissibility of the materials at the stage of granting bail. Out of the 16 accused and jailed in this case, Father Stan Swamy died awaiting bail on July 5 and Dr. Varavara Rao is currently out on medical bail.

The judgment may be read here:

Related:

Another bullet from Arsenal pierces through NIA’s Bhima Koregaon case!
The institutional murder of Father Stan Swamy
Bhima Koregaon: Anand Teltumbde files bail plea before Special court

The post Why was Dr. Anand Teltumbde denied bail by the NIA court? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has submitted before the Special Court that Bhima Koregaon accused Anand Teltumbde assisted his brother Milind Teltumbde, an alleged Maoist leader, to expand the movement and shared “banned literature” from his international conferences with him, reported LiveLaw.

According to The Wire, Milind is known as a “dreaded Maoist” who carries a reward of Rs 50 lakh on his head, and has central and state agencies tracking him closely, as he is believed to be a top-rung leader of the banned CPI (Maoist) organisation.

Opposing Anand Teltumbde’s bail plea before the Special NIA court, the central agency has claimed that he is an active member of the banned CPI (Maoists) and was “deeply involved in furtherance of its agenda”, as per a LiveLaw report.

Further, NIA has reiterated the allegations against Teltumbde, accusing him of being the Convenor of the Elgar Parishad conference on December 31, 2017, that ultimately led to violence at Bhima Koregaon the following day, which resulted in the death of a 28-year-old. As per some media sources, the Police alleged that there was a larger conspiracy to assassinate the Prime Minister and overthrow the government.

LiveLaw reported that NIA also cited a letter written by one Prakash to Anand, that was recovered from co-accused Rona Wilson’s laptop. The letter allegedly mentions “Anand’s visit to Paris for Human Rights Convention to be held on April 9 and 10, 2018 and lectures on Dalit issues in order to give traction to domestic chaos.”

But in a major twist to the NIA’s allegations related to the material found on co accused Rona Wilson’s laptop, a Massachusetts-based digital forensics firm (Arsenal Consulting) revealed that an attacker used malware to infiltrate the laptop and place incriminating evidence on it. 

Another revelation was that the firm “connected the same attacker to a significant malware infrastructure which has been deployed over the course of approximately four years to not only attack and compromise Mr. Wilson’s computer for 22 months, but to attack his co-defendants in the Bhima Koregaon case and defendants in other high-profile cases as well.”

This compelled Rona Wilson to move the Bombay High Court demanding a probe into this revelation of the alleged planted evidence. 

Teltumbde, who is the grandson-in-law of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar has been in custody since April 2020 and filed his second bail application in January this year. In his plea, as reported by SabrangIndia, he has stated that he comes from a Dalit family and has worked hard to reach a position in his life but “the casteist forces in our society cannot digest this fact and has implicated him in the case in an attempt to belittle his own achievements and to humiliate the entire Dalit community”.

He has denied having any Maoist agenda and stated that he is critical of the Maoist ideology. He has also submitted that he has not met his brother in the last 25 years. His bail plea will now be heard on March 12, as reported by LiveLaw.

Related:

Bhima Koregaon: Anand Teltumbde files bail plea before Special court
Rona Wilson moves Bombay HC, demands probe into ‘planted evidence’
Primary goals were surveillance and incriminating document delivery: Arsenal Report

The post Teltumbde assisted Maoist leader to expand movement: NIA to Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.