Activists Arrest - Supreme Court's Mandate

Why in news?

The Supreme Court (SC) reserved its verdict on the plea challenging arrests of five human rights activists.

How did the case proceed?

• The activists were accused of Maoist links by the Pune police in connection with the Bhima-Koregaon violence case.
• The Supreme Court intervened and granted them the rare relief of remaining in house arrest while it examines the charges against them.
• The petitioners have questioned the motivation for the police raids on the residences of the activists and a few others.
• They want those arrested to be released and also demand an independent investigation.

What are the contradictory stances?

• Centre - The Maharashtra and Union governments have sought to defend the arrest and prosecution.
• They claim that the case was based on incriminating evidence seized during the probe.
• The Centre argues that it was probing a terrorist conspiracy involving Maoist insurgents and their urban supporters.
• Activists - There is a counter-argument that the arrests were a disguised crackdown on political dissent in the country at present.
• They argue that it was motivated against the ideology or the political views of those under investigation.

What lies before the Court?

• The Court's intervention has been truly extraordinary and raises the bar for protection of personal liberty.
• Observations that “dissent is the safety valve of democracy” and “personal liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of conjecture” indicate the court’s thinking.
• But the Supreme Court has to examine some fundamental questions at the intersection of criminal procedure and constitutional law.
• Going by the legal definitions, the case relates to criminal matter.
• Clearly, the accused are expected to seek their remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• But the procedural question is whether the court can entertain a petition under Article 32 in a criminal matter.
• Under Article 32, individuals may directly approach the Supreme Court for redressal of violation of their fundamental rights.
• So it is now for the Court to determine the scope of Article 32 in the activists case.
• Another question is if the court should intervene when the liberty of citizens and their right to dissent are sought to be denied by arbitrary police action.

What are the other concerns?

• It is unusual that instead of handing it over to a national agency, one city’s police (Pune) is investigating a crime that

1. supposedly spans several States
2. involves purchase of arms and providing strategic inputs to armed rebellion

• The government worries about a precedent being set, whereby every accused can rush to the Supreme Court immediately on arrest.
• However, the peculiar circumstance in which violence at a Dalit commemoration being morphed into a Maoist plot cannot be unnoticed.

Source: The Hindu