New Delhi, Nov 18.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to recall an earlier order allowing rights activist Gautam Navlakha to stay under house arrest and directed the investigating agency to give effect to its Nov 10 order within 24 hours.
The NIA had accused Navlakha of not revealing to the court that he would stay in a place which houses a CPI library. That is suppression of facts, NIA through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, claimed. This was vehemently contested by Navlakha’s counsel Nitya Ramakrishnan.
Mehta argued that the activist, who has been in jail for his alleged Maoist links since 2020, had not been forthright about where he would stay under house arrest. The top court was given the impression that it would be some independent premises, Mehta argued.
“If this doesn’t shock the conscience of this court, I don’t know what would,” he argued.
A two-judge bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph, however, rejected his argument. “No, it doesn’t shock us. The Communist Party of India is a recognized political party with a history,” Justice Joseph observed at one point of time. Justice Hrishikesh Roy was the other member of the bench.
Ramakrishnan pointed out that the CPI party itself had condemned the Maoists. Anyone with a basic understanding of contemporary politics will know that the CPI is a recognised party, she said.
The bench, however, allowed the NIA to further barricade and strengthen security measures in the place where Navlakha would stay.
The top court had on November 10, 2020, allowed Navlakha to be shifted from jail to a place in which he could stay under house arrest. Navlakha would be placed under house arrest with armed escorts but won’t be allowed to use any communication devices while under house arrest.
The NIA had sought recall of this order on the ground that he suppressed vital facts such as his place of residence. Navlakha had on his part sought enforcement of the order.
The investigation agency’s objection to placing Navlakha in the CPI-managed building was its public accessibility. The bench scoffed at this claim.
Are you suggesting that the state with all its might can’t keep an eye on a 70-year-old, Justice Roy observed, before refusing to recall the order.