‘May have set wrong precedent’: SC bench on Gautam Navlakha’s house arrest order
The Supreme Court’s 17-page order in November 2022 also noted that the charge sheet was filed in 2021 but the charges were yet to be framed against Gautam Navlakha
NEW DELHI: A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Friday articulated its reservations about the top court’s order last November allowing human liberties activist Gautam Navlakha to be kept under house arrest, saying the decision may have set a “wrong precedent”.
“In the facts of the case, this order may set a wrong precedent looking at the facilities being extended to him (Gautam Navlakha),” a bench of justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala said, referring to the court’s November 10, 2022 order permitting the activist to remain under house arrest considering his medical condition. The November 2022 order was passed by a bench of justices KM Joseph (now retired) and Hrishikesh Roy.
Gautam Navlakha, 70, who had been in jail since his arrest in April 2020 in the Bhima Koregaon case, was allowed to move into a room at a public library in Mumbai in view of his medical condition. In his new request, Navlakha has asked the court to place him under house arrest in Navi Mumbai.
Navlakha is among the activists, lawyers, poets and scholars arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in connection with alleged inflammatory speeches made at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017. This, the police claimed, triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial located on the outskirts of the western Maharashtra city, leading to the death of one person and injuries to several others.
The NIA, which had all along opposed moving Navlakha out of Taloja jail, reiterated its stand. “It is a very unusual order, a first of its kind. One person is being given so much security whereas others like him are in jail,” additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju appearing for NIA said.
“This house arrest is unwarranted. He is said to be sick and one lady is allowed to stay with him. She isn’t staying there for most of the time,” Raju added.
“We may have our own reservations. We won’t say anything as quite a lengthy order was passed by this court,” the bench said and directed NIA to file its response to Navlakha’s plea within four weeks indicating the present scenario on Navlakha’s health condition and the stage of the trial.
The 2022 order required Navlakha to bear the cost of his security as a condition of house arrest since Maharashtra police personnel had to be stationed outside the house. Raju said Navlakha hadn’t been making the payments and the total outstanding dues payable by him had gone up to ₹1 crore.
Advocates Nithya Ramakrishnan and Warisha Farasat appearing for Navlakha disputed this figure and said they have deposited ₹8 lakh. The NIA sought directions that would require Navlakha to make a ₹25 lakh lumpsum deposit.
Navlakha claimed in his application that he was asked to vacate the present premises and sought relocation to a new property at Alibaug. After an initial assessment of the new location, NIA in May told the Supreme Court that the purported ground of his health was a “farce” since there is no super speciality hospital in its vicinity. Further, NIA said the property was sea-facing and was not safe from the security point of view.
