For liberty’s sake

Stage set to determine the scope of Article 32

The Supreme Court’s intervention following the arrest of five prominent activists by the Pune police last month has been truly extraordinary and raises the bar for protection of personal liberty. The court has granted them the rare relief of remaining in house arrest while it examines the charges against them. It has reserved its decision in the case and now must decide on one of the following courses. They are: to allow the police in Maharashtra to pursue its investigation against the activists for allegedly being members of the outlawed Communist Party of India (Maoist) and joining a conspiracy against the government, to set them at liberty on the ground that this is a trumpedup case, to order a probe by an independent team. The story so far has thrown up a legal tussle between the Centre’s contention that it is probing a terrorist conspiracy involving Maoist insurgents and their urban supporters and the counter-argument that this is a thinly disguised crackdown on political dissent. The petitioners, led by historian Romila Thapar, have questioned the motivation for the police raids on the residences of these activists and a few others in a coordinated operation across several States. They want those arrested to be released and demand an independent investigation. The Maharashtra and Union governments have sought to defend the arrest and prosecution, contending that the case is based on incriminating evidence seized during the probe and has nothing to do with the ideology or the political views of those under investigation.