Background:
On April 30, the Supreme Court heard two cases: “Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency & Anr.” and “National Investigation Agency v. Gautam P Navlakha & Anr.” These cases originated from Gautam Navlakha’s arrest in connection with the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence. Navlakha, accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, has been under house arrest since November 2022, following a Bombay High Court order granting him bail.
Key Points:
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, representing Navlakha, informed the Court of 375 witnesses in the case. This prompted Justice MM Sundresh to remark that the trial might last another ten years.
Navlakha sought to shift his house arrest location in Mumbai. The NIA demanded Navlakha pay 1.6 crores for surveillance expenses, opposed by Ramakrishnan, who accused the agency of ‘extortion.’ Additional Solicitor General SV Raju objected to this characterization.
Earlier, the Court indicated that if house arrest were sought, surveillance expenses must be paid. Navlakha’s counsel, Shadan Farasat, assured that paying the expenses wasn’t an issue; rather, the dispute was over calculation.
Today’s hearing was adjourned at the NIA’s counsel’s request, citing engagement in another matter. Ramakrishnan, while not opposing, highlighted the High Court’s bail order being stayed without a hearing.
When queried about the case stage, Ramakrishnan noted pending applications under Section 207 of the CrPC. On learning the witness count, Justice Sundresh commented on the trial’s potential duration.
Impacts:
The case underscores challenges faced by individuals under stringent laws like the UAPA, including prolonged detention and lengthy legal battles. It also raises concerns about fairness and transparency, particularly regarding surveillance expense demands.
Legal Provisions:
The cases involve interpretations of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The demand for payment of surveillance expenses raises questions about the accused’s rights and law enforcement responsibilities.
Legal Analysis:
The Court’s observation on trial duration highlights the complexity and lengthiness of cases involving multiple witnesses and serious charges. The dispute over surveillance expenses reveals legal intricacies regarding financial obligations during legal proceedings.
Conclusion:
The adjournment signals the need for further deliberation. The issues raised, including surveillance expense disputes and trial duration, emphasize the importance of careful legal consideration and adherence to principles of justice. The case exemplifies the challenges and complexities inherent in navigating legal proceedings under stringent laws like the UAPA.
Source–
Read Also–SUPREME COURT: HINDU MARRIAGE CEREMONIES ESSENTIAL
