For the first time, a state in the Union of India has made a bold claim that personal liberty has become a "fashion" for some in the country who use it as a shield to question their lawful custody by the police over a crime with serious security implications.
This contention was made in the Supreme Court by Maharashtra whose police are facing flak for action against few social activists, who find themselves in the dock for alleged tacit support to Naxals.
In its attempt to justify the arrest of Delhi-based Gautam Navlakha, one of the activists, the state listed out all the precautions that it followed in the case but yet suffered the scorn of the Delhi High Court that set him free on October 1, 2018. The HC also set aside his transit remand.
"It has become a fashion of the day to make a hue and cry about personal liberty as all the big talk by the arrested activists who claimed their rights under Article 21 and 22 [right to life and right to protection against arrest] were violated was not made out from the records of their arrest. Even the intervention of Delhi HC was uncalled for," said the affidavit.
Challenging the HC order in the apex court, the Maharashtra police affidavit said Navlakha "played fraud" with the courts by filing multiple applications in the Bombay High Court, Delhi HC and the top court to stall the case.
Navlakha has been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act along with four others for alleged links with CPI (M). The police said they seized material in this regard obtained from his computer and other incriminating documents were found at his house and office.
Wanting a reversal of the Delhi HC order, the affidavit by Pune ACP Shivaji Panditrao Pawar said, "The respondent [Navlakha] is unnecessarily alleging that the Magistrate concerned was not satisfied himself about either the existence or sufficiency of the material. Had the concerned magistrate been not satisfied with the reasons seeking transit remand, the magistrate would have rejected the application seeking transit remand."
Navlakha was arrested without a warrant, but he signed on the arrest memo after being informed of the reason for his arrest. This proved the activist wrong that "no grounds of arrest were informed to him before his arrest". These grounds were also communicated to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, said the Maharashtra police.
The state accused Navlakha of creating stumbling blocks in the case by filing a habeas corpus petition in the Bombay HC when he was in the lawful custody. Later, a set of activists moved the SC demanding an independent investigation. On September 28, this petition was dismissed and Navlakha was allowed to remain under house arrest. But soon, he sought quashing of FIR against him in Bombay HC and simultaneously challenged his transit remand in Delhi HC. Due to these multiple proceedings, the hearing in Bombay HC on quashing of FIR has not moved forward, said the state in the affidavit.
‘Took all precautions’
- Navlakha filed multiple pleas in Bombay HC, Delhi HC and SC to stall proceedings against him
- State said its police took all precautions, but was still rapped by Delhi HC
Maha claim
It has become a fashion of the day to make a hue and cry about personal liberty as all the big talk by the arrested activists who claimed their rights under Article 21 and 22 were violated was not made out from the records of their arrest
Affidavit by Maharashtra
){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}
 "Gautam Navlakha")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}