Activists held for Maoist links, not dissent; SIT not required: SC
Rejecting a plea for release of five activists held in connection with the Koregaon-Bhima violence case for alleged Naxal links, the Supreme Court on Friday refused to order an SIT probe into their arrest, saying it was not a case of “more dissenting views or difference in political ideology”.
The court ruled the accused will remain in house arrest for four more weeks during which they are at liberty to avail legal remedies in appropriate court which can consider the case on merits.
Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar said in their majority verdict, “We are of considered opinion that it is not a case of arrest because of mere dissenting views expressed or difference in the political ideology of the named accused, but concerning their link with the members of the banned organisation and its activities.”
Refusing to appoint an SIT to probe the arrests, the SC held that the “accused cannot ask for changing the investigating agency or to do investigation in a particular manner including for court-monitored probe.”
The 2:1 majority verdict of an apex court Bench was hailed by Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis as a “victory” for the State police, which had arrested the five activists after a nationwide raid a month ago. The BJP used the opportunity to slam the Congress and its president Rahul Gandhi, alleging they stand exposed for supporting “urban Naxals plotting to kill Prime Minister Narendra Modi”.
The Congress hoped the police will conduct investigations as per the law and not according to the “whims and fancies” of the BJP.
The petitioners, who had sought the SC’s intervention in seeking release of the five activists, said their stand found “vindication” in the dissenting opinion expressed by Justice DY Chandrachud, who said dissent is symbol of a vibrant democracy.
“Individuals who assert causes which may be unpopular to the echelons of power are yet entitled to the freedoms which are guaranteed by the Constitution. Dissent is a symbol of a vibrant democracy. Voices in opposition cannot be muzzled by persecuting those who take up unpopular causes,” the judge said in his separate dissenting judgment.