Supreme Court declines plea for SIT probe into activists arrest
The three- judge bench has extended the order of house arrest' for another four weeks.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a PIL filed by Dr Romila Thapar and others seeking a probe by a special investigation team (SIT) into the arrest of five activists on August 28 over the Bhima-Koregaon incidents and seeking their release on bail. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, in a majority verdict of 2:1, after perusing the documents and part of the case diary submitted by the Maharashtra government in a sealed cover, held that the state could continue with the investigation.
Justice Chandrachud gave a dissenting verdict, directing a SIT probe to be monitored by the Supreme Court. The five activists — Varavara Rao, lawyer Sudha Bhardwaj, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves and Gautam Navlakha — were taken into custody on August 28.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, in a majority verdict of 2:1 held that the state could continue with the investigation. Justice Chandrachud gave a dissenting verdict and ordered a SIT probe to be monitored by the apex court. The five activists Varavara Rao, lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves and Gautam Navlakha were taken into custody from different parts of the country on August 28.
The next day the apex court had directed that they be kept under ‘house arrest’ and this has been extended further till the pronouncement of order in the petitions. On Friday the Bench while refusing to grant them bail extended the order of ‘house arrest’ for another four weeks to enable them to move the appropriate courts for relief.
Justice Khanwilkar in his judgment which was supported by the CJI said that upon perusal of the materials, “we are of the 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 banned organisation.”
The bench said that this is not the stage where the efficacy of the material or sufficiency thereof can be evaluated nor it is possible to enquire into whether the same is genuine or fabricated. The interim order passed by this Court on 29th August 2018 shall continue for a period of four weeks to enable the accused to move the concerned court.
