‘Can’t curb liberty on conjecture’ Assam NRC: Top court orders start of claim, objection filing
SC says institutions need to be robust to take on dissent, asks Maha to show evidence against activists
NEWDELHI: The liberty of individuals cannot be curtailed at the altar of conjectures and institutions need to be robust to take on dissent, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday, even as the Maharashtra government put up a strong defence to justify the August 28 arrest of five activists in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence in January.
Arguing before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the six other alleged Maoists, arrested in June, had thrown up concrete material requiring the custody of the five activists. He began his arguments by reading out the case diaries.
However, the bench asked Mehta to indicate specific evidence against the five activists arrested on August 28 during nationwide simultaneous raids.
The Maharashtra police had arrested Varavara Rao (Hyderabad), Sudha Bharadwaj (Faridabad), Arun Ferreira (Mumbai), Gautam Navlakha (Delhi) and Vernon Gonsalves (Mumbai) in connection with an FIR lodged following a conclave – Elgaar Parishad – held on December 31 last year that had triggered violence at Bhima Koregaon a day after.
Justice DY Chandrachud, who is a member of the bench, cautioned Mehta that a “clear-cut distinction” should be made “between opposition and attempts to create disturbance and overthrow governments” and advised the state to focus on such material, if it has any.
“Our institutions should be robust enough when there is an opposition to the system or even to this court. Then there has to be something different to constitute subversion of law and order as far as elected government is concerned,” he said.
Senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for the complainant in the Bhima Koregan case, sought to counter the judge’s concern. “Whether systematic breakdown of law and order is within permissible limits of dissent has to be seen. There was a difference between someone who is angry saying burn the Constitution and someone being part of an organisation which aims to create unrest trying to provoke,” Salve said.
“A lot of it depends on who says and what is said and the context in which it is said,” he said.
“We cannot stifle liberty on the altar of conjectures. We will look at all these attempts with the hawk’s eyes,” Justice Chandrachud said in response.
“Dissent is fine but it is also important who is saying it. If the leader of a banned outfit says it, this will have a different connotation. This court has to look after the liberty of all citizens and not just five,” Mehta told the bench.
The arguments in the case will continue on Thursday. As a result, the SC extended the house arrest of the activists.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi addressed the court earlier in the day. Arguing for the petitioners – historian Romila Thapar and others – Singhvi raised questions on the police claim that one comrade Prakash, who is identified as GN Saibaba, had written letters to the five activists. He wondered how this could be when GN Saibaba was in jail since March 2017 and claimed it was “cooked-up evidence”.
He also disputed the Maharashtra police using witnesses from Pune to make arrests in Faridabad asking: “What business do Pune Municipal corporation employees have in Faridabad?” NEWDELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed Assam National Register for Citizens (NRC) coordinator Prateek Hajela to start the process for accepting claims and objections for inclusion in the final draft NRC from September 25.
Those excluded from the list can file their claims and objections relying on one of the 10 documents Hajela had approved from the standard operating procedure (SOP) suggested by the Centre. The process will continue for 60 days.
A bench of justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton F Nariman said those wanting to rely on the five documents about which Hajela had expressed reservation would get a chance to apply once the coordinator gives his views on the Centre’s amended SOP. As per a new affidavit by the Union ministry of home affairs, no change in family tree by claimants will be permitted at the stage of filing claims and objections.
The bench said, “We are not shutting out the rest of the five documents. All we are saying is that at this stage claims and objections shall be filed on the basis of 10 documents.” Justice Gogoi said Hajela’s report has raised apprehensions over the validity of the five documents. Justice Nariman said it is felt that these documents can be forged. Both judges clarified that filing of claims and objections was a concession given by the court.
“There are some materials which have been given in the confidential report to us. Its not in public interest to disclose it...
“We have to protect the officer who has given this information. If we expose it, then tomorrow if we ask for more information he won’t be able to give it to us,” Justice Gogoi told attorney general KK Venugopal who urged the court to share the report. “Interest of the public is as safe in the hands of the Union of India as it is in the hands of the court,” the top law officer said.
The bench said after getting Hajela’s view it will consider after a month whether to allow the other five documents as well or not. It will hear the matter on October 23.
“We are of the view that the order that would be required to be passed at this stage is to open the process for receipt of claims and objections in respect of entries in the final draft NRC published on 30th July, 2018. The said process of receipt of claims and objections will now begin on and from 25th September, 2018 and will be remain open, tentatively, for a period of 60 days effective from 25th September, 2018,” it ordered.
Hajela was directed not to share his confidential report he has submitted to the top court with any one from the legislature, executive or judiciary. The report shall remain in a sealed cover with the court.
The SC also issued notice to the Centre, Assam government and the NRC coordinator on a plea filed by two lakh Gorkhas excluded from the draft list.
Both Venugopal and additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta tried to impress upon the top court on behalf of the Centre and the Assam Government respectively to consider allowing the five documents in the wake of its new stand. Venugopal said most of the people in rural areas of Assam were illiterate. Two of five papers, Venugopal said, were permitted as per the law related to citizenship of Assam residents. The two documents are electoral roll and NRC draft of 1951.
Hajela’s version was asked for after the co-ordinator revealed that 93-94 per cent of applications for the NRC were based on voters list and the NRC draft of 1951.
But the court said it will consider allowing the rest of the five documents for filing of claims after a month. The final draft NRC list was published on July 30 in which names of more than four million people were excluded.