New Delhi, SEP 19 :
Observing that liberty of an individual cannot be sacrificed in the alter of conjecture, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Maharashtra government to produce at least one best document to justify the arrest of five human rights activists, journalists and lawyers on August 28.
A Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Kanwilkar and DY Chandrachud after perusing the documents and case diary submitted by the State government in a sealed cover asked the Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to produce the best document available showing the involvement of the activists. When the ASG told the court that the `case diary’ is self explanatory, the CJI asked the ASG “show us your one best document first.
The Bench was hearing petitions filed by Dr Romila Thapar and others challenging the arrest of five activists. The five activists Varavara Rao, lawyer Sudha Bhardwaj, 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.
The ASG submitted that the police recovered electronic evidence such as phones, laptops and they were given for Forensic examination. Everything is recorded in the case diary. “How can we say we are framing someone? We found concrete materials required to justify the arrest”, the ASG said.
He questioned the maintainability of the petition said the case and arrests had nothing to do with dissent or writings by the activists. “This concerns serious offences. There is material recovered from their laptops, computers, hard disks, etc. We want your Lordships to go through the materials, which will shock the court’s conscience. Don’t make up your mind without going through the materials in full.”
Justice Chandrachud intervened and told the ASG “the court has to look with a hawk’s eye at the case of activists’ arrest in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence. Our institutions should be robust enough to accommodate dissent. We want to have a holistic view. We won’t go by one or two documents. Don’t raise your opposition about this court entertaining the petition. We want our shoulders to be robust and not restricted. We feel liberty can’t be sacrificed in the alter of conjecture. We will look at all these attempts with the hawk’s eyes.”
