I wish to thank the Supreme Court for upholding the bail granted to me by the Bombay High Court. It proved to be a long wait but well worth it.

Although happy for myself, I am saddened that the fate of scores of fellow dissidents implicated in a variety of cases, still hangs in balance. Years of our life have been snatched from us as prisoners awaiting trial, which itself will take years to conclude.

Families of UTPs suffer as much, if not more, from this separation from their loved ones and their lives are greatly disrupted. A reality seldom acknowledged and rarely remedied. What disturbs me, as a democratic rights activist, is that justice appears as a distant dream. An over-burdened judiciary finds itself unable to provide a speedy, fair trial. As a captive, I often hoped that the judiciary would deliver on its lofty pronouncement that “Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many”. Because UTPs cling to this as a promise.

So, while I am pleased to breathe freer and finally get to meet my near and dear ones, I am aware that others still languish in a life of uncertainty. It hurts that Father Stan Swamy was denied bail while alive and will find redemption only posthumously.

My eighteen months of house arrest was made possible by the generosity of the Trustees of the BT Ranadive Trust and the Communist Party of India (Marxist). When all other options proved futile, they stepped in to provide shelter to me and my life partner Sahba Husain, for which I am deeply grateful.

I want to acknowledge the courteous and decent behaviour of the staff and officers of the Navi Mumbai police for all these 18 months. Both Sahba and I appreciate this.

Finally, I wish to thank my lawyers, friends, family, fellow activists and the independent media for standing by me. I drew much strength from their love and solidarity to face the ordeal of captivity.

Now that I am free…..

“Won’t you help to sing
These songs of freedom
‘cause all I ever have
Redemption songs….” (Bob Marley)

Gautam Navlakha
Belapur, May 19^th 2024

The post Gautam Navlakha’s letter on release from custody appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On May 14, the Supreme Court bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti granted bail to Gautam Navlakha in Bhima Koregaon conspiracy case, arguing that the accused has already undergone 4 years of incarceration and the trial may take “years and years and years” to complete. The Supreme Court did not extend the stay on the bail, noting that the charges are yet to be framed and six of the co-accused in the case have already secured bail. It also said that the Bombay High Court has passed a detailed order on December 19, 2023 granting bail to Navlakha, against which National Investigation Agency (NIA) had filed this appeal. The bench took cognizance of the fact that there are 370 witnesses in the case, which would prolong the completion of the trial. Importantly, as a precondition to bail, Navlakha has been asked to pay 20 lakhs for the security expenses incurred during his house arrest. Pertinently, there had been an argument between the two parties over calculation of the cost incurred for his house arrest security, with NIA previously sending him the bill of over 1.64 crores, which Navlakha’s lawyer decried as ‘extortion’.

Brief Background

The case against Gautam Navlakha, a civil rights activist and former secretary of People’s Union of Democratic Rights (PUDR), pertains to his alleged involvement in Bhima Koregaon violence and broader conspiracy to overthrow democratically elected government.  On December 31, 2017, Bhima Koregaon Shaurya Din Prerana Abhiyan organised an event called ‘Elgaar Parishad’ in Shaniwarwada, Pune to celebrate 200th anniversary of the historic battle of Bhima Koregaon (in which Dalits led British Army had fought against Peshwa authority). During the said event, the police alleged that some of the speakers gave provocative slogans which led to violence the next day on December 1, 2018. Later, the police alleged that some of these speakers were associated with the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) and wanted to permeate its ideology amongst the masses to misguide them towards violent “unconstitutional activities”. Following the Bhima Koregaon violence, two First Information Report (FIRs) were registered, the first one, registered on January 2, 2018, blamed right-wing elements including Sambhaji Bhide and Milind Ekbote and the second one, dated January 8, 2018, alleged that Maoist linked elements were involved in the violence.

While Navlakha was not present at the event, he is accused of being a member of CPI(M) and working with associate ‘Maoists’ who were allegedly involved in the preparation of the event and are accused of propagating radical anti-state activities and inciting Elgaar Parishad violence. The co-accused in the case include Sudhir Dhawale, Rona Wilson, Surendra Gadling, Harshali Potdar, Sagar Gorkhe, Deepak Dhenga             le, Ramesh Gaichor, Jyoti Jagtap, Shoma Sen, Mahesh Raut, Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, Sudha Bharadwaj, Anand Teltumbde, and Stan Swamy (deceased).

The FIR registered on January 8, 2018, had listed the charges under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between groups), 505(1)(b) (making statement inciting public to commit offence against the State), 117 (Abetting commission of offence by the public) read with Section 34 (common intention). As the investigation proceeded, new charges were added to the case under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967; it invoked UAPA Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18(B), 20, 38, 39, and 40. Notably, Navlakha’s name in this FIR was only added on August 23, 2018.

In 2020, after the January 24, 2020, order by MHA, NIA registered another FIR under Sections 153-A, 505(1)(b) and 117 and Section 34 of IPC and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, and 39 of the UAPA Act. On October, 9, 2020, NIA filed supplementary chargesheet against the Navlakha and co-accused under Sections 120-B, 115, 121, 121-A, 124-A, 505(1)(b) read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 13, 16, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of UAPA Act.

Navlakha’s journey in the case

Since the initial FIR was registered in Pune, Maharashtra, the police had demanded transit remand of Navlakha, after arresting him on August 28, 2018, from his New Delhi residence. On the same day, Navlakha moved Delhi High Court, and the court stayed his transit remand proceedings and directed him to be placed under house arrest. The bench of Justices S. Muralidhar and Vinod Goel had argued that “the documents produced before the learned CMM most of which (including FIR No. 4 of 2018 registered at Police Station Vishrambagh, Pune) are in Marathi language and only the application filed for transit remand before the learned CMM is in Hindi. However, it is not possible to make out from these documents what precisely the case against the Petitioner is.”

The Delhi High Court order dated August 28, 2018 can be read here:

The Supreme Court through various orders in the case of Romila Thapar vs. Union of India (Writ Petition (Crl) 260 of 2018)  continued to extend his house arrest, and on October 1, 2018, Delhi High Court quashed his arrest noting that “in all probability, when the IO appeared before the learned CMM…since the case diary was written in Marathi and since the translated version thereof was not available at that stage…the CMM could not have been able to comprehend as to what was written in the case diary. It is nobody’s case that the learned CMM was conversant in Marathi language. Consequently, the learned CMM would not have been able to appreciate whether the requirement of Section 41 (1) (ba) of the Cr PC stood satisfied.”

The Delhi High Court order dated October 1, 2018 can be read here:

After the Supreme Court bench comprising Arun Mishra and M R Shah dismissed the petition for further protection on March 16, 2020, Navlakha surrendered to NIA Delhi and was later transferred to Mumbai, where the NIA Special Court remanded him to judicial custody. The courts also rejected his default bail application, arguing that the period of the house arrest cannot be considered “custody” within the meaning of  Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Subsequently, due to his deteriorating health conditions, the SC sent him back to be kept under house arrest in November 2022, and since then, house arrest has been extended. In the meantime, Navlakha had already filed plethora of court cases for quashing the FIR registered against him and for annulling his arrest, but they were rejected by the courts.

The Supreme Court order dated March 16, 2020 can be read here:

The Bombay High Court verdict granting bail to Navlakha

After a long drawn legal battle, which is still far from over, the Bombay High Court on December 19, 2023 granted bail to Navlakha noting that “it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the Appellant is prima facie true to attract Sections 16, 18, 20 and 39 of UAP Act”. The verdict delivered by Justices A. S. Gadkari and Shivkumar Dige also considered that co-accused Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, Anand Teltumbde and Mahesh Raut have already secured bail, and given the parity, Navlakha should not be denied the same. Noting snail paced progress in the case, the judges observed that “the Appellant is in pre-trial incarceration for more than three years and eight months. The charge-sheet consists of about 20,000 pages in 54 Volumes and the prosecution has cited 370 witnesses…As a matter of fact, till date the trial Court has not framed charge. The possibility of trial of the Appellant being concluded in near future is very bleak.”

Speaking on the merits of the case, the Court observed that primary material against the Navlakha was in the form of literature/documents/letters, which itself does not proof any charges of terrorism against the accused. It noted the “content of these letters/documents through which the Appellant is sought to be implicated are in the form of hearsay evidence, as they are recovered from co-accused… The actual involvement of the Appellant in any terrorist act cannot be even inferred from any of the communications and or statements of the witnesses. According to us, there is no material to infer conspiracy to commit an offence as contemplated under Chapter IV of the UAP Act.” It also noted that the charge that the accused is an active member of CPI(M) cannot be inferred from the fact that letters mentioned someone named “Gautam” in their communication, “as the identity of the said ‘Gautam’ is yet to be established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution”.

The bench further pointed out that some of the witnesses have not even mentioned Navlakha, despite that the prosecution has relied upon their statements to corroborate the fact of alleged terrorist activities of the accused.  The bench strongly relied on Vernon vs The State of Maharashtra (2023 SCC OnLine SC 885) to reiterate that “mere possession of literature, even if the content thereof inspires or propagates violence by itself cannot constitute any of the offences within Chapter IV and VI of the UAP Act”. The bench cautioned against blindly relying on the material recovered from the co-accused and said that “As far as the documents mentioned above which have not been recovered from the Appellant, however mentions his name are concerned, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vernon (supra) these communications or contents thereof have weak probative value or quality”.

The Court furthered emphasised on the distinction between active and passive membership of the terrorist organisation (though Navlakha has not been established to be part of any such organisation) and argued that “the Appellant only being a member of the party cannot be prima facie held to be a co-conspirator to it… According to us, the record prima facie indicate that, it was at the most the intention of the Appellant to commit the alleged crime and not more than it. The said intention has not been further transformed into preparation or attempt to commit a terrorist act, to attract Section 15 of the UAP Act.” The verdict noted that the “Perusal of statement of witnesses at the most indicate that, the Appellant is a member of CPI (M) and therefore it would attract provisions of Sections 13 and 38 of UAP Act.” The court recorded that there is no material on record to believe that the charges of UAPA under Sections 16, 17, 18, 20 and 39 are prima facie true.

The bench additionally relied on Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 50) and cited from the judgement, noting, “It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per-se does not oust the ability of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statue as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised.”

While the bail order was passed by the Bombay High Court on the aforementioned grounds, it had stayed its operation for three weeks on the request of NIA to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court. Thus, following the appeal by NIA the Supreme Court bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti had extended the stay on the bail order on January 5, 2024. Since then, the stay was continuous extended until the latest order in which uplifted the stay, effectively paving the way for Navlakha’s release on bail.

Just last month on April 5, another accused in the case, activist Shoma Sen, was released on bail after SC noted that the charges of terrorism against Sen are prima facie untrue.

The Bombay High Court bail order dated December 19, 2023 can be read here:

The Supreme Court order dated January 5, 2024 can be read here:

Related:

Delhi HC sets aside Transit Remand, Gautam Navlakha walks free | CJP

The Truth about the Elgaar Parishad | CJP

SC directs arrested Human Rights Activists be placed under House Arrest | CJP

The post Gautam Navlakha granted bail by Supreme Court in Bhima Koregaon case; orders him to pay 20 lakhs for the expenses incurred during his house arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It has been further been reported that the court also agreed to a three-week stay on its decision in which the National Investigation Agency can approach the Supreme Court. They urged the court to stay operation of the order for a period of six weeks. As per a report in Livemint, Navlakha has been granted bail on the surety of one lakh rupees.

The prosecution has relied on 336 witnesses in the case. The trial, however, is yet to commence. Recently, Navlakha was also named as an accused in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case filed in relation to the online portal NewsClick. Two people – Editor Prabir Purkayastha and HR head Amit Chakraborty – have been arrested in that case. Journalists’ bodies from across the country have criticised the police action in the case as an attack on media freedom. As per the report of the Print, the Delhi Police had recently asked for an extension of three months to complete their investigation in the NewsClick case, and said that they would be questioning Navlakha on Wednesday.

Brief Background of the case

The said case pertains to alleged inflammatory speeches delivered at the ‘Elgar Parishad’ conclave, held at Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017, which the police had claimed to have triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial, located on the outskirts of the western Maharashtra city, located around 200km from Mumbai.

The Pune police, which probed the case initially, had claimed the conclave was backed by Maoists. The NIA later took over the probe into the case, in which more than a dozen activists and academicians were named as accused.

Navlakha, who is a human rights activist and former secretary of People’s Union for Democratic Rights, was arrested in August 2018, but was initially placed under house arrest. He has been booked under the stringent anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the alleged conspiracy behind the Bhima Koregaon violence of January 2018.

Navlakha has been in custody since April 14, 2020, in the Taloja Central Prison in Maharashtra, after the Supreme Court directed him to surrender before the NIA after rejecting his bail application. His plea seeking an extension to surrender in view of the Coronavirus pandemic was also rejected.

On September 5, 2022, a special NIA court judge Rajesh J Katariya had rejected the bail plea of Navlakha. The NIA had vehemently opposed Navlakha’s bail plea by claiming that he had been introduced to a Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) General for his recruitment, which shows his nexus with the organisation. They had also described him as a member of the outlawed Communist Party of India (Maoist).

However, on November 10, the Supreme Court allowed his plea to be shifted back to house arrest for a month, albeit with rather stringent conditions. The bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, had noted that while charge sheet has been filed against Navlakha on October 9, 2020 no charges were yet framed against him and that he has been in custody as an under trial prisoner since April 14, 2020. The Supreme Court was also ‘mystified’ as to why the High Court did not consider Navlakha’s age (70) as a basis to consider his application for house arrest. This was extended by another month on December 13.

Related:

Bombay HC quashes order rejecting bail plea of Navlakha by special court, orders expeditious rehearing

SC directs NIA to execute Gautam Navlakha’s house arrest within 24 hours

Gautam Navlakha’s house arrest: Stringent Conditions Apply
Bhima Koregaon case: Prof Anand Teltumbde granted bail on merits by Bom HC
Elgar Case: 4 Days After SC Order, Navlakha Yet to be Placed Under House Arrest

Elgar Case: Special NIA Court Denies Bail to Activist Gautam Navlakha

Bhima Koregaon case: 5 years on, charges not framed despite repeat extensions 2022: Looking back at the best judgments from Indian courts

On the firing line:  Human rights warriors of 2022

Evidence planted on Jesuit-activist Stan Swamy’s laptop: Arsenal US Report

The post Bhima Koregaon accused Gautam Navlakha granted bail by the Bombay HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On March 2, in the case of Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency & Ors, the Bombay High Court issued an order quashing the impugned special court order, through which bail was rejected to the Bhima Koregaon accused Gautam Navlakha. A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and PD Naik directed the special judge of the special court under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act to rehear the bail plea.

According to the division bench, the reasoning provided in the impugned order of the special court was cryptic and did not contain analysis of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution. The bench further noted that the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the Watali case has also not been appropriately considered by the special court while deciding the bail of Navlakha.

“No reason of whatever nature is given. Trial court has not given reasoning as required under section 43D(5) of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) while rejecting bail.  It also appears that the order of SC in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali case has not been considered while rejecting bail application”, the Court said, as provided by the Bar and Bench.

In view of this, the bench ruled that the bail application requires fresh hearing by the special court and remanded the case back to the court.

“The reasoning stated in the order is very cryptic and there is no analysis. The Additional Solicitor General fairly conceded to the said fact and submitted that the bail application be remanded to the trial court. In view of our observations, the matter to be remanded back to the trial court for fresh hearing”, the court stated, as provided by the LiveLaw.

It also directed the special judge to conclude the hearing within 4 weeks, without being influenced by the earlier order rejecting bail. The High Court bench further clarified that it has not made any observations on merit.

The court proceedings

During the hearing, the High Court had opined that they do not have the benefit of a reasoned order. Pertaining to this, the bench then asked the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh, appearing for NIA, to take instructions on whether the agency was willing to concede the bail plea. Alternatively, the Court said it would call for material which the special court had not considered. 

When the matter was called out and the decision was to be given, the ASG had submitted that he was consenting for quashing of the order of September 5, and remanding the matter back to the special court for reconsideration. He had requested the Court not to express any opinion on merits of the matter.

Navlakha’s counsel, Yug Mohit Chaudhry, had objected to the remanding of the case to the special court and requested that the High Court hear the appeal on the merits. The bench, however, stated that because it lacks the benefit of a reasoned order, it would be in accordance with judicial propriety to first allow the lower court to hear the matter properly.

Chaudhry then asked the High Court to expedite the hearing before the special court. As a result, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for a decision within four weeks.

“The special judge is requested to conclude within 4 weeks without being influenced from September 5 order and this order of today. It is made clear that this court has not made any opinion on merits,” the Court said, as was provided by the Bar and Bench.

Brief Background of the case

The said case pertains to alleged inflammatory speeches delivered at the ‘Elgar Parishad’ conclave, held at Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017, which the police had claimed to have triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial, located on the outskirts of the western Maharashtra city, located around 200km from Mumbai.

The Pune police, which probed the case initially, had claimed the conclave was backed by Maoists. The NIA later took over the probe into the case, in which more than a dozen activists and academicians were named as accused.

Navlakha, who is human rights activist and former secretary of People’s Union for Democratic Rights, was arrested in August 2018, but was initially placed under house arrest. He has been booked under the stringent anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the alleged conspiracy behind the Bhima Koregaon violence of January 2018.

Navlakha has been in custody since April 14, 2020, in the Taloja Central Prison in Maharashtra, after the Supreme Court directed him to surrender before the NIA after rejecting his bail application. His plea seeking an extension to surrender in view of the Coronavirus pandemic was also rejected. 

On September 5, 2022, a special NIA court judge Rajesh J Katariya had rejected the bail plea of Navlakha. The NIA had vehemently opposed Navlakha’s bail plea by claiming that he had been introduced to a Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) General for his recruitment, which shows his nexus with the organisation. They had also described him as a member of the outlawed Communist Party of India (Maoist).

However, on November 10, the Supreme Court allowed his plea to be shifted back to house arrest for a month, albeit with rather stringent conditions. The bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, had noted that while charge sheet has been filed against Navlakha on October 9, 2020 no charges were yet framed against him and that he has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner since April 14, 2020. The Supreme Court was also ‘mystified’ as to why the High Court did not consider Navlakha’s age (70) as a basis to consider his application for house arrest. This was extended by another month on December 13. 

He is presently residing in Navi Mumbai city of Thane district. Navlakha had moved the High Court, the above-mentioned case, after the rejection of his bail plea by the special NIA court had.

Questioning the “fairness” in our Indian Judicial System

Gautam Navlakha, through his counsel, has been repeatedly arguing that no case has been made against him and no concrete evidence is there, no charges have been filed against him to show that he is connected to the violence that took place at the Bhima Koregaon. It is pertinent to note, that in the above-mentioned order of the Bombay High Court quashing the special court order rejecting his bail, the bench has basically noted the fact that the lower court did not really consider the arguments made by the defendant. The court also said that the special court did not even account for the precedents set by the Supreme Court in similar matters before rejecting the bail plea of Navlakha. Despite this, the High Court has only sent the case for rehearing to the same judge that had rejected his bail plea. 

When the counsel of Navlakha urged the High Court itself to hear the matter on the merits, the bench said that since the order issued by the special court is not a reasoned order, they will have to remand the case back to the special court, in accordance with “judicial propriety.” While this is the tedious process put in place in our Indian judicial system, an incarcerated defendant is being punished for the judicial callousness of a special NIA Court. There is also no reprimand of the special court for not appropriately following judicial procedure. The special court has been given four weeks to decide the case of an aged political prisoner who has had to live in custody for over a year, and is now abiding by the stringent rules of house arrest where he has to take “permission” to make an international call to his own daughter.

What has the system learnt in self-correction after the institutional murder of Fr. Stan Swamy, who died while being incarcerated in jail as his bail petition lay pending? Most of the people arrested in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case still languish in jail, even as forensic reports showing a brazen tampering of evidence, supporting their innocence have been released. 

Today, in 2023, the Bombay High Court has ordered the case to be heard expeditiously. However, it has been years since the Bhima Koregaon accused have had their freedom stripped from them. There is every probability that the said special court will reject Navlakha’s bail plea again, and then an appeal will again be filed in the upper constitutional courts. Why then, keeping in view the pattern of misuse of the criminal justice system with the aim of harassing human rights defenders, could the High Court not take up the case themselves at this stage itself?

That may have then resulted in a measure of self-correction by the institutions of justice delivery.

Related:

SC directs NIA to execute Gautam Navlakha’s house arrest within 24 hours

Gautam Navlakha’s house arrest: Stringent Conditions Apply
Bhima Koregaon case: Prof Anand Teltumbde granted bail on merits by Bom HC
Elgar Case: 4 Days After SC Order, Navlakha Yet to be Placed Under House Arrest

Elgar Case: Special NIA Court Denies Bail to Activist Gautam Navlakha

Bhima Koregaon case: 5 years on, charges not framed despite repeat extensions 2022: Looking back at the best judgments from Indian courts

On the firing line:  Human rights warriors of 2022

Evidence planted on Jesuit-activist Stan Swamy’s laptop: Arsenal US Report

The post Bombay HC quashes order rejecting bail plea of Navlakha by special court, orders expeditious rehearing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court has refused to vacate its November 10 order directing Gautam Navlakha’s house arrest and has directed the National Investigating Agency (NIA) to execute the same within 24 hours.

In its November 10 order, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy had directed the NIA to conduct necessary evaluation of the place indicated for house arrest by the petitioner within 48 hours. However, today marks the 8th day post the passing of the apex court order and in complete defiance of the same, the NIA failed to execute it under certain pretenses.

One of the objections raised was a reiteration of what it had already contended during the hearing of the plea for house arrest, about Navlakha’s brother-in-law being one of the doctors signing off his medical reports. The bench said, “all these arguments were argued more than ably by the ASG. Are you pursuing a review of our order or seeking to vacate it?”

The NIA also raised objection that the place chosen for house arrest is above a public library which belongs to Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) to which the bench said If there are any arguments based on the premises then they could argue but it does not see any issue that the library belongs to a political party.

Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan appearing for Navlakha submitted that it is a residential unit, a floor above the library and no member of the public goes to read there.

During the arguments, when the ASG was pointing to loopholes, Justice Joseph commented, “In case you are finding some or other loophole to see our order is not complied with then we have to take a serious view of it”.

Justice Roy also commented, “Do not bring in conditions to say that with your entire police force you cannot keep a watch on an ailing 70 year old”. When the ASG tried to delay the matter further asking for a next date, for the matter to be posted on Monday, Justice Joseph was reportedly irked, “you think we cannot see through attempts to delay the case. For what purpose will we post on Monday?”

SG Tushar Mehta also alleged that Navlakha has links to ISI and also with terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir! To this Justice Roy said, “So? You say you cannot monitor then we will”.

The bench then dismissed the application of the NIA to vacate it November 10 order and directed some more conditions to be applied, including installing more CCTV camera at certain locations without invading privacy and sealing one exit of the kitchen.

The stringent conditions imposed by the court for Navlakha’s house arrest may be read here.

Related:

Gautam Navlakha’s house arrest: Stringent Conditions Apply
Bhima Koregaon case: Prof Anand Teltumbde granted bail on merits by Bom HC
Elgar Case: 4 Days After SC Order, Navlakha Yet to be Placed Under House Arrest

The post SC directs NIA to execute Gautam Navlakha’s house arrest within 24 hours appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court, on November 10, granted journalist and human rights activist Gautam Navlakha who is one of the accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, his request for house arrest, albeit with rather stringent conditions. The bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, during the hearings, was inclined towards granting Navlakha’s request for house arrest. While he has been ordered to be placed under house arrest now under some severely stringent restrictions, the same are applicable only until December 13 which is the next date of hearing and the court will decide whether to continue his custody in house arrest and on the same conditions, on that date.

The court noted that while chargesheet has been filed against Navlakha on October 9, 2020 no charges were yet framed against him and that he has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner since April 14, 2020. The court evaluated the medical reports but the Additional Solicitor General SV Raju pointed out that Navlakha insisted that his treatment be carried out at Jaslok Hospital where his brother-in-law is a doctor and thus his medical reports are afflicted with the vice of bias and hence the doctor recommendation merit rejection. Senior Advocate Mr. Kapil Sibal countered this contention by stating that the doctor’s recommendations have their foundation in scientific material unearthed through investigations carried out at the hospital which have been, in fact, carried out by other doctors.

In April, the Bombay High Court had denied Navlakha’s plea to be placed under house arrest while referring to Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency 2021 SCC Online SC 382 whereby the Supreme Court had laid down certain criteria for considering request of house arrest,

“151. We observe that under Section 167 in appropriate cases it will be open to courts to order house arrest. As to its employment, without being exhaustive, we may indicate criteria like age, health condition and the antecedents of the accused, the nature of crime, the need for other forms of custody and the ability to enforce the terms of the house arrest. We would also indicate under Section 309 also that judicial custody being custody ordered, subject to following the criteria, the courts will be free to employ it in deserving and suitable cases.”

The Supreme Court was ‘mystified’ as to why the High Court did not consider Navlakha’s age (70) as a basis to consider his application for house arrest. “The state of health of the petitioner also cannot be described at any rate as being perfect. Far from it, as we have noticed the multiple health issues with which the petitioner is confronted,” the court observed.

The court was also dissatisfied with the argument put by the ASG that Navlakha’s brother-in-law being the one of the doctors in his case was afflicted with the vice of bias. “Quite apart from the fact that the Doctor in question is a medical professional, his observations are based on investigations which have been carried out by the other Doctors. Therefore, they do not prima facie, at least, appeal to us as reasons for rejecting the medical report which, in fact, was based on evidence and contain inputs of the Orthopedist Dr S. Kothari,” the court said.

The court held that as far as his health is concerned, he may not be unjustified in making the request for house arrest. While considering his request, the court noted that the chargesheet was filed in 2020; charges have not yet been framed and that it is unlikely that trial will start or will make any progress towards culmination in the foreseeable future. It further noted that Navlakha has been in custody since 2020 and also that Navlakha had been placed under house arrest before and there was no complaint of his conduct then. “This means, prima facie, there does not appear to have been any case that he will misuse the facility of house arrest,” the court observed.

Conditions for house arrest

The court stated that the house arrest would be granted subject to Navlakha depositing a sum of Rs. 2.4 lakhs with Navi Mumbai Police Commissioner which is a rough estimate of expenses which would be borne by the State for making available police personnel at his house arrest location. Additionally, he shall provide local surety for Rs. 2 lakhs.

The following conditions have been laid out:

• Sahba Husain alone is allowed to reside with the petitioner, along with one house keeping staff

• The petitioner will not use mobile phone, internet, computer, laptop or any other communicating device while he is in house arrest

• The petitioner will be permitted to use the mobile phone which may be provided by the police personnel on duty once in a day, to be used for 10 minutes only and only in the presence of police personnel.

• The mobile of the companion will not have internet facility. It shall be, in other words, the basic device which facilitates only the making of a phone call and SMS.

• The State is allowed to carry out surveillance and recording of the phone calls being made by the companion.

• The companion shall not delete the details about phone calls or any message sent by using the SMS facility.

• The petitioner will be allowed to meet only two family members once a week for 3 hours, list of whom shall be provided to the police.

• CCTV cameras will be installed at the expense of the petitioner at the entrance and exit of the residence.

• Before the petitioner is allowed to enter into house arrest, the house will be screened so that prior to occupying the house, no electronic gadgets such as phone, Ipad, internet, laptop are there which shall not be permitted inside even when visitors are allowed as per the order we have passed.

• The petitioner is permitted to use TV which is not a smart TV or a TV which is internet based. He also will have access to newspapers.

• The petitioner will not, in any manner, attempt to influence any of the witnesses in the case.

• On a need basis, the police can inspect the premises and carry out search/inspection; however, such searches should not amount to abuse and should not harass the petitioner.

• The petitioner is permitted to walk outside, if he wants to, in the company of police personnel, as may be found necessary, without engaging in conversation with anyone.

• The petitioner can have access to one lawyer and interact with him/her as per terms of the jail manual

• The petitioner will not interact with the media

The court also directed the police that in case of a medical emergency, the police will make all arrangements to make available medical facilities at the suitable hospital and the police officers will necessarily cooperate in case the petitioner needs to be taken to a hospital if such need arises.

Also, since the ASG raised doubts about the doctor at Jaslok Hospital being kin of the petitioner, the court directed that Navlakha be taken for medical examination at KEM Hospital before next hearing, to be held on December 13.

The order may be read here:

Related:

A Home Behind Bars: Teesta Setalvad’s Personal Plea for ‘House Arrest’ for Political Prisoners
Take accused Gautam Navlakha to hospital immediately, SC directs NIA
Bhima Koregaon: Gautam Navlakha moves Bombay HC for house arrest citing lump in chest
Mumbai court rejects bail pleas of Anand Teltumbde, Gautam Navlakha
Bhima Koregaon case: NIA files draft charges under UAPA, sedition & conspiracy against 15 accused

The post Gautam Navlakha’s house arrest: Stringent Conditions Apply appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Mumbai: Jailed human rights activist Gautam Navlakha, who was last week allowed to be placed under house arrest for a month by the Supreme Court owing to his medical condition, is yet to walk out of Navi Mumbai’s Taloja prison, where he is lodged in connection with the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, as formalities for his release are still under process.

The 70-year-old activist, who claims to suffer from multiple ailments, is in custody since April 2020 in the 2017-18 case. On November 10, the Supreme Court allowed Navlakha to be put under house arrest for a month with certain conditions and had said its order should be implemented within 48 hours.

However, till Monday evening he was still in prison as formalities for his release could not be completed.

According to his lawyer, formalities for Navlakha’s release from jail were initiated on Monday  before a special NIA (National Investigation Agency) court in Mumbai that is hearing the case against  him.

Once released from prison, Navlakha will be staying at Belapur in Navi Mumbai under surveillance. The septuagenarian shall not be allowed to leave Mumbai, as per the SC order.

His lawyer on Monday apprised special NIA Judge Rajesh Katariya, presiding over the case, of the Supreme Court order on house arrest and initiated the process for filing surety as per the condition set by the apex court to complete his release formalities.

The SC had imposed a slew of conditions by which Navlakha would have to stay in Mumbai, deposit Rs 2.4 lakh as expenses for security, CCTV cameras would have to be installed outside the rooms and at entry and exit points of the house where he will be staying.

Navlakha will not be allowed to leave the house except for walks in the company of police personnel, but permitted to meet his lawyers as per Jail Manual rules and inform cops in case of a medical emergency, the apex court said last week.

It also said the activist will not be allowed to use a computer or the internet during the period of his house arrest.  He will, however, be permitted to use a mobile phone without the internet provided by police personnel on duty once a day for ten minutes in their presence.

Access to television and newspapers will be allowed, but these cannot be interest-based, the SC maintained in its order.

It also allowed the Maharashtra police to search and inspect the residence and said the accommodation would be under surveillance.

The Supreme Court has listed the matter for hearing in the second week of December by when the prosecuting agency NIA has been asked to obtain a fresh medical report on the accused.

Navlakha had sought to be shifted from the Taloja prison and placed under house arrest owing to ill health.

The activist moved the SC against the April 26 order of the Bombay High Court dismissing his plea for house arrest over apprehensions of lack of adequate medical and other basic facilities in the Taloja jail.

The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches made at the ‘Elgar Parishad’ conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, which the police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon -Bhima war memorial on the outskirts of the western Maharashtra city.

According to the Pune police, people linked to banned Naxalite groups had organised the programme.

The case, in which over a dozen activists and academicians have been named as accused, was later handed over to the NIA.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in

The post Elgar Case: 4 Days After SC Order, Navlakha Yet to be Placed Under House Arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court today directed the Taloja jail authorities to admit activist Gautam Navlakha to a hospital of his choice for a medical check-up and treatment, reported Live Law. The court said he will remain under police custody during his treatment.

The Supreme Court, that had initially passed an order allowing Navlakha’s plea to be released from prison and put under house arrest, modified this when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed it, saying that he has not been able to look into the matter. The Court will now consider his plea next on October 21. The hospital has now been asked to submit a report to the Court based on the entire check-up.

The 73-year old human rights activist, who was arrested in August 2018 and has been under custody ever since, has approached the Supreme Court after the Bombay High Court rejected his prayer. Navlakha has stated that he is suffering from serious ailments, including skin allergy and dental issues, and cited the need to undergo colonoscopy to test suspected cancer. He requested that he be shifted to his sister’s house and be placed under house arrest there.

A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, which had issued a notice to the NIA in the case two days ago, made the following observations:

“We are of the view that, noting that petitioner is an under trial, and that the right of an under trial to receive medical attention would be a fundamental right, we should pass an order directing the petitioner to be taken immediately for a thorough medical check-up. There will be a direction to the Superintendent of Taloja Jail at Mumbai to take the petitioner immediately to the hospital of his choice so that the petitioner is enabled to undergo the requisite medical check-up and to receive treatment. We make it clear that petitioner will necessarily remain in police custody”.

The bench further permitted Navlakha’s partner Sabah Hussain and his sister Mridula Kothari to visit him at the hospital subject to the hospital rules. No other visitors will be permitted. The larger issue relating to his entitlement for house arrest will be considered on the next date of hearing that is on October 21.

The activist had approached the Supreme Court (Gautam Navlakha Versus National Investigation Agency And Anr) after the Bombay High Court dismissed his petition in April to be placed under house arrest. Navlakha had cited his ill health and poor facilities at the Taloja Jail as reasons for his demand.

Poor health facilities for jailed activists

Navlakha had filed his petition demanding house arrest after his co-accused tribal rights activist, Stan Swamy, died during his time in custody in July last year. Swamy, who suffered from Parkinson’s disease and also contracted the coronavirus infection while in prison, was repeatedly denied bail despite his deteriorating health condition. He was 84.

Another co-accused, 82-year-old Varavara Rao was admitted to hospital, and later released on medical bail after he argued before the Bombay High Court that there was “reasonable apprehension” that he would die in custody. In November 2020, the High Court directed Taloja jail authorities to shift him to Nanavati Hospital, when he was very frail and on his deathbed.

Court room exchange

LiveLaw  reports this exchange:

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Navlakha, submitted that he is suffering from serious ailments. The bench at this point asked the Centre’s counsel why can’t his plea be allowed, considering his ailments, age and lack of antecedents.

“Somebody is in custody, no criminal background. He is aged 70 years and an under trial in an overcrowded prison”, Justice Joseph observed.

“Keep whatever safeguards you want..that he will not step out unless it’s on medical case. Nature of crime is serious. But it’s alleged, not proved. If state wants man to die in jail, then…”, Justice Joseph added.

The Centre’s counsel submitted that a letter of adjournment was circulated. The bench then sought for the presence of Solicitor General of India and passed over the matter.

As soon as the Solicitor General arrived after sometime, Justice Joseph told him, “Your humaneness is put to test“.

“My concern for national integration is put to test”, Solicitor General replied. The SG sought for time to file reply.

“The petitioner who is challenging an order of April now cannot say that the other side should not get opportunity to file reply. I don’t have an opportunity to effectively put forward my case. This may not be the case where the court should make an exception. Because everyone cannot afford to create a perception and afford eminent counsel”, SG Tushar Mehta submitted.

The SG said that Navlakha’s issues of skin allergy and dental problems are not ailments serious enough to be shifted to house arrest. The third reason cited by him Navlakha is colonoscopy. Regarding this, the SG said that he did not press the prayer for colonoscopy before the trial court. The court would have allowed that plea had he not withdrawn it.

At this juncture, Justice Joseph said, “In a lighter vein, Mr. Mehta, when was the last time you had a dental problem? A tooth problem, something which requires root canal, can be very worse”.

“Let him be taken to dental surgeon of his choice daily. If he has problems, he has to be in a hospital, not in his sister’s house”, Solicitor General replied.

“What is the perception created? He is 73 years old. He is suspected of having colon cancer. Is he a threat to national security?” Sibal asked

While saying that there is no objection to providing medical treatment, SG submitted that if house arrest is allowed, there is a threat of destruction of evidence. He highlighted that Navlakha is facing charges under the UAPA for supporting Naxalite activities.

“What is the evidence? Their electronic record, that’s unsigned. I can understand an argument based on facts. These are prejudicial submissions. What is national integration got to do with this?” Sibal asked.

Sibal stated that for colonoscopy, there is a requirement of three days of fasting. The bench at this point said that it will direct that Navlakha be taken to hospital for check-up.

“We will direct that you be taken to the hospital. You can fast in the hospital. You will be safer also at hospital while fasting“, Justice Joseph said.

“Let him have a thorough check-up. He has a lump in his throat”, Sibal said.

Related:

Bhima Koregaon: Gautam Navlakha moves Bombay HC for house arrest citing lump in chest
Mumbai court rejects bail pleas of Anand Teltumbde, Gautam Navlakha
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 Take accused Gautam Navlakha to hospital immediately, SC directs NIA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Mumbai: A special NIA court here on Monday rejected the bail plea of human rights activist Gautam Navlakha, an accused in the Elghar Parishad-Maoist links case.

Navlakha, arrested on August 28, 2018, moved the court for bail more than six months ago and in his plea has also cited health issues while seeking relief. He was initially kept under house arrest, but was later sent to judicial custody and lodged at the Taloja prison in neighbouring Navi Mumbai.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is probing the case, had earlier vehemently opposed the human rights activist’s plea for bail and described him as a member of the outlawed Communist Party of India (Maoist).

Special NIA court Judge Rajesh J Katariya, who previously heard prosecution and defence arguments over the matter, on Monday rejected Navlakha’s bail plea.

Details of the order were not yet available.

The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches delivered at the ‘Elgar Parishad’ conclave, held at Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017, which police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial located on the  outskirts of the western Maharashtra city, located around 200km from Mumbai.

The Pune police, which probed the case initially, had claimed the conclave was backed by Maoists. The NIA later took over the probe into the case, in which more than a dozen activists and academicians were named as accused.

Navlakha and several other activists were charged under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The human rights activist had moved the court for bail in February through his advocate Yug Chaudhry on the merits of the case.

As per the NIA, Navlakha “inculcated” Maoist sympathies among students and others.

Navlakha’s plea said his activities, at the most, border only on communication, which is wholly “insufficient” to attract any charges under UAPA, an anti-terror law.

Further, Navlakha’s plea said the NIA charge-sheet fails to connect him with a larger conspiracy.

The plea also stated the veteran activist has criticised the Maoists and is implacably opposed to Naxal violence as his published writings (which pre-date his arrest) show.

There was no material in the entire charge-sheet which shows the  applicant has in any manner intended or supported a claim of cessation or caused any disaffection towards or against India or committed any act which disrupts the sovereignty or territorial integrity of India, the plea said.

Further, the plea said the prosecution, through its entire investigation, nowhere speaks of any terrorist act being committed. It added there was not a single allegation against Navlakha of being involved in planning, preparation, procurement, funding or commission of any terrorist act.

As per the plea, there was no material in the charge-sheet to show Navlakha has anywhere, by words either spoken or written or by any visible representation, attempted to bring hatred, disaffection against the Government of India.

The activist’s bail plea claimed he suffers from high blood pressure and other ailments, including a lump in the chest, severe pain in the neck and lower back, and has a history of intestinal polyps.

Navlakha has been in jail since April 14, 2020, and there was no need to keep him in custody as the probe into the case has been completed, his bail plea contended.

It also said the trial, once it starts, is going to take a long time to complete as there are 15 accused persons, and the charge-sheet is a 30,000-page document with over 150 witnesses.

“To continue to subject the applicant to prison custody at his advanced age until the trial is completed would be extremely unjust, harsh and cruel and antithetical to the spirit of justice,” the bail plea added.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Elgar Case: Special NIA Court Denies Bail to Activist Gautam Navlakha appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Monday, August 29, the Supreme Court was set to hear the plea filed by activist Gautam Navlakha where he sought to be placed under house arrest instead of his current lodgings at the Taloja Central Jail in Navi Mumbai. Navlakha ahad cited lack of basic medical necessities as the reason for seeking transfer, reported Live Law.

However, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, who was on the bench with Chief Justice UU Lalit, recused himself from hearing the matter. CJI Lalit placed the matter before Justice KM Joseph instead, and reportedly said, “Justice Bhat cannot hear (this appeal). This case is not to be listed before a bench with Justice Bhat. List before me on administrative side. This case was listed before me and Justice KM Joseph last. We will have this case listed before a bench with Justice Joseph.”

In April 2022, the Bombay High Court had dismissed Navlakha’s plea requesting that he be kept under house arrest pending trial in the Bhima Koregaon violence case. Instead, the division bench comprising Justices Sunil B Shukre and Govinda A Sanap had directed the Superintendent of Taloja Central Jail to ensure medical facilities are provided to the petitioner.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) had 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.

The NIA charges claim that the accused persons are members of a banned organisation, CPI (Maoist), 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.

Related:

Bombay HC dismisses Gautam Navlakha’s plea seeking house arrest

Bhima Koregaon case: Bombay HC denies bail to the three accused

Bhima Koregaon: Bombay HC castigates prison authorities while hearing Gautam Navlakha’s house arrest plea

The post Bhima Koregaon case: Justice S Ravindra Bhat recuses himself from hearing Gautam Navlakha’s plea seeking house arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.