SC refuses to recall Navlakha house arrest order
NEW DELHI: “With all the might of the state, can you not keep a 70-year-old ailing man in house arrest,” the Supreme Court asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Friday as it dismissed the agency’s application seeking recall of the order directing house arrest for civil rights activist and Bhima Koregaon accused Gautam Navlakha on November 10.
“If you (NIA) are finding out some loophole to try and see how to defy our order, we will take a serious view of it,” said a bench of justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy that gave NIA 24 hours to give effect to its earlier order after installing additional measures for securing the premises at Belapur in Navi Mumbai where Navlakha and his 71-yearold partner will be staying for a period of one month.
These additional measures included sealing of an alternative entry door, locking the window grille inside the house and shifting the CCTV recording unit to a place of the NIA’S choice as the agency claimed that the premises was the office-cum-library of the Communist Party and securing the place was not possible as the first-floor house was an open hall with a library on the ground floor visited by the general public.
Modifying its November 10 order by incorporating the additional measures, the bench held, “We make it clear that the order of this court of November 10 be given effect to without any fail and within 24 hours from the time of receipt of the order.”
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who argued the NIA application, told the court: “This court was deliberately misled by the petitioner (Navlakha). Will it not shock your conscience if you find that this premises belongs to a political party? Can this court imagine that a person accused of serious terrorist act, having links with Maoists will be permitted to stay at a political party’s office?”
The NIA arrested Navlakha in April 2020 in connection with
the violence that took place at Bhima Koregaon in January 2018. The NIA booked him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), accusing him of having links with banned organisation Communist Party of India (Maoist). He is currently housed in Taloja Jail and was allowed house arrest considering his old age, health ailments and the absence of any criminal antecedents.
The bench told Mehta: “What is this political party argument, we would like to ask you. Is Communist Party of India not a recognized political party of this country? This fact certainly does not shock our conscience.”
Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, who also appeared alongside the SG, said: “There is repeated suppression by this person. A series of misleading statements have been made that will disentitle him to house arrest. Here is a person who is not straight forward.” Raju pointed out that the court was made to believe this is a residential house which was found to be a premises registered in the name of the Communist Party. “The electricity bill of this premises is in the name of the Communist Party,” Raju said.
He then pointed out that Navlakha’s lawyers only spoke about one entrance but on inspection, the house had another entrance where no CCTV camera was installed. Inside the house, there was a collapsible grille which could be removed to escape or let anybody in, he said. “The entire purpose to be achieved by the court was that he does not meet any person. But in this premises, it will be easy for him to meet people,” Raju said, adding, “Every time we find a loophole, they try to close that hole. An attempt is being made to take everyone for a ride.”
The court remarked: “Are the SG and ASG telling us that with all the might of the state, you cannot keep a 70-year-old ailing man in house arrest. We are getting that impression. Is the state incapable of taking care of more such hardened persons. If so, we will take care.” The court reminded Raju that the NIA was fully heard while passing the November 10 order.
Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan pointed out that the NIA was simply trying to delay implementing the court’s order. On the objection that the premises belonged to a political party, she said: “Anybody who knows the ideology of the Communist Party will understand how opposed they are to the Cpi-maoist.”
She informed the court that as per the November 10 order, all formalities of depositing costs towards security expenses, obtaining local surety and installing CCTVS had been done.