Bhima Koregaon Case: Supreme Court Rejects Independent Probe Request in Activist Arrests

The case of Romila Thapar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. revolves around the controversial arrests of five activists in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the Maharashtra Police acted lawfully in arresting these individuals or if an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) should take over the case.

Bhima Koregaon, a village in Maharashtra, became a focal point of national controversy after violent clashes broke out on January 1, 2018. The violence was allegedly incited at the Elgar Parishad, a cultural event held on December 31, 2017. Following this, the Maharashtra Police arrested several activists, leading to allegations of political bias, suppression of dissent, and fabricated evidence.

Background of the Case

The legal proceedings began when the Maharashtra Police arrested five activists on August 28, 2018, citing their alleged involvement in inciting violence and supporting banned Maoist organizations. The arrested activists were:

• Gautam Navlakha
• Sudha Bharadwaj
• Varavara Rao
• Arun Ferreira
• Vernon Gonsalves

These arrests triggered widespread protests, with many accusing the government of using law enforcement agencies to silence activists who were critical of state policies. In response, a group of public intellectuals, including historian Romila Thapar, approached the Supreme Court, demanding an independent investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT).

Key Legal Questions Before the Supreme Court

• Did the Maharashtra Police act lawfully in arresting the activists?
• Was there sufficient evidence to justify the arrests?
• Did the petitioners (Romila Thapar & Ors.) have the legal standing (locus standi) to demand an independent investigation?
• Was the demand for an independent probe legally justified?

Arguments by the Petitioners (Romila Thapar & Ors.)

• The activists were arrested based on fabricated evidence, including letters allegedly linking them to Maoist organizations.
• The police investigation was politically motivated and aimed at suppressing dissenting voices.
• The Maharashtra Police had previously targeted activists and failed to conduct impartial investigations.
• The arrested individuals were engaged in legal and human rights work, making it unlikely they were involved in any conspiracy.
• The police should not be allowed to conduct the probe as their actions indicated bias.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Maharashtra & Union of India)

• The activists were arrested based on concrete evidence, including electronic records and letters.
• The police had uncovered communication between the accused and banned Maoist organizations.
• Investigations were conducted professionally, and due process was followed.
• The petitioners had no locus standi to demand an independent probe.
• The accused had the option to seek legal remedies such as bail, which negated the need for an independent SIT.

Supreme Court’s Observations

After reviewing the arguments and evidence, the Supreme Court made several critical observations:

• Accused persons cannot choose their investigating agency: The Court ruled that individuals under investigation do not have the right to dictate which agency should probe them.
• No substantial proof of police bias: The petitioners failed to provide credible evidence that the Maharashtra Police acted with malice.
• Judicial interference in investigations should be minimal: The Court emphasized that law enforcement agencies must be allowed to function independently unless there is clear evidence of abuse of power.
• Locus standi of the petitioners was questionable: Since the petitioners were not directly affected by the arrests, their plea for an independent probe lacked legal standing.

Key Judgment Excerpts

The Supreme Court ruled:

“It is a settled principle that the accused do not have the right to determine which agency must investigate them. The request for an independent SIT is therefore untenable in law.”

On the issue of bias, the Court observed:

“The mere perception of bias cannot be the basis for transferring an investigation. There must be credible material to establish mala fide intent, which the petitioners have failed to demonstrate.”

Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that there was no need for an independent SIT.
• The Maharashtra Police were allowed to continue their investigation.
• The accused were advised to seek bail through appropriate legal channels.

Conclusion

This ruling underscores the principle that courts must not interfere in investigations unless there is compelling evidence of bias or abuse of power. While the case raised important questions about civil liberties, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the ongoing probe. The judgment reinforces the legal framework governing criminal investigations and ensures that law enforcement agencies retain their autonomy in probing serious offenses.

Petitioner Name: Romila Thapar & Ors..
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
Place Of Incident: Bhima Koregaon, Pune.
Judgment Date: 28-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Romila Thapar & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Terrorist Activities
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category