The UP government referred to pamphlets, riot plans, and website links, along with other submissions in its affidavit before the SC.
The Uttar Pradesh (UP) government has made three submissions of the UP police in its affidavit before the Supreme Court, as its response to the petition seeking the release of Siddique Kappan from custody.
These submissions make references to pamphlets, riot plan, and website links in connection to the case of Kappan and three others, who were arrested in Mathura on October 5. They were on their way to Hathras, where a 19-year-old Dalit girl was allegedly gangraped, which led to her death in a Delhi hospital.
The UP police later booked them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and various IPC provisions including one that relates to sedition. In its affidavit, the UP government mentioned three grounds on why Kappan's release from custody was not maintainable.
“The person in custody namely Siddique Kappan is the Office Secretary of Popular Front of India (PFI) using a journalist cover by showing identity card of a Kerala-based newspaper named as ‘Tejas’ which was closed in 2018. It is revealed during investigation that he along with other PFI activists and their student wing (Campus Front of India) leaders were going to Hathras under the garb of Journalism with a very determined design to create a caste divide and disturb law and order situation and were found carrying incriminating material,” the UP government submitted in its affidavit.
The State asserted that Kappan was not in illegally confined but was rather in judicial custody and therefore, the petition under Article 32 is not maintainable. "...it is for the person in judicial custody who can approach the jurisdictional High Court namely High Court of Allahabad," it said.
It also mentioned that the Kerala Union of Working Journalists, of which Kappan is a secretary, has no locus standi because Kappan is already in touch with lawyers and his lawyers can file the proceedings.
In its affidavit, the State made two key submissions. "During the investigation conducted so far, the evidence of the accused having links with banned organizations has emerged," it said.
"As the investigation is going on by the Special Task Force, the facts which have emerged so far are not filed in the present Affidavit," the government remarked.
These submissions are part of an affidavit filed by the Senior Superintendent of Jail, District Jail Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, as a bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde sought responses from both the Centre and UP government about this case on Monday.
Details also emerged on how the prosecution is building its case from the filing of the FIR, lower court records, and the general diary entry by the UP police.
"The pamphlets so-recovered i.e AM I NOT INDIA’S DAUGHTER, MADE WITH Carrd etc have an effect of amplifying social hostility and public revolt," according to the FIR.
"These people are indulged in collecting donation in its cover. This fact has also come to light that the people who are running a website named ‘Carrd.com’, are directly indulged in flaring up riots by affecting law and order… and social harmony using donations received from foreign countries," it said.
It added that these donations were being made from foreign countries without any valid procedure and so, the amount was worth confiscating.
"Anti-national sentiments are being inculcated in youths through such kind of websites," it mentioned.
"This website also explains the methods for spreading violence… and it also encourages common public in participating riots… Through aforesaid website, information that how identity of the person can be hidden during rioting, to participate in violence… this website also provides ways how to come out easily from the area after breach of its law and order," stated the FIR.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, recorded that the accused have admitted they are members of the PFI/CFI and it had also come to light that they had contacts with the former members of banned SIMI organisation.
Earlier this week, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta denied that Kappan did not have access to his lawyer, while appearing for the UP government before the CJI's bench.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who is representing the petitioner, argued, "We went to the magistrate and requested to allow us to meet the accused… the magistrate told us to go to jail authorities, who then sent us back to the magistrate."
The matter will now be listed for hearing next week.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}