.jpg)
S. VICTORIYA
Government Law College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu
Case Title: Gautam Navlakha vs. Union of India (2020)
Citation Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1000 of 2020
Case Type: Writ Petition
Petitioner: Gautam Navlakha
Respondent: Union of India
Court: The Supreme Court of India
Judgement: Date28 April 2021
Judges Panel: Justice K.M. Joseph
Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Justice Indira Banerjee
Introduction:
In 2020, The Supreme Court of India faced a significant case that examined the excellence of the judiciary in the balance of individual rights and national safety. The case called Gautam Navlakha vs. Union of India was filed by a prominent person in Delhi against the State’s actions under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). This case has a long and rigorous history with its complex nature toward individual rights and national safety. It's a case of testimony showing the priority for national safety given by our Indian Judiciary.
Facts of the case:
● On 1st January 2018, caste-based violence was unleashed by some Maoist groups in the Bicentennial celebration of the victory in the Bhima Koregaon Battle against Maratha ruler Baji Rao Peshwa II.
● Several people had severe injuries and a few people lost their lives.
● The Maharashtra Police arrested a few persons for this violence.
● Those who were arrested were suspected by the police as they were the main organizers of the violence that emerged in the Bicentennial Celebration.
● Gautam Navlakha is a famous journalist arrested for this violence.
● The police suspected him as he was inciting violence in the Elgar Parishad conclave and involved in promoting Maoist activities.
● Therefore, under the UAPA provisions he was detained.
● Later, the Delhi High Court issued conditions for detention and allowed house arrest, in this violent case.
● The interim relief for him which allows house arrest instead of being transferred to Pune was given by the Supreme Court in October 2018.
● In March 2020, the National Investigation Agency of India filed a charge sheet against him regarding the violence in 2018.
● After the filing of the charge sheet, he was arrested under UAPA.
● He filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India, in April 2020.
Issues of the Case:
Does the detention and house arrest of the petitioner violate the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution or not?
Was the procedure for arrest under the UAPA properly followed or not?
Is the denial of default bail justified under Section 167(2) of the CrPC?
Arguments of Petitioner:
In the writ petition, Gautam Navlakha filed for default bail and argued based on the following aspects:
Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The Petitioner argued that the house arrest and detention violated his several fundamental rights.
Article 21: The House Arrest period of 28th April 2018 to 1st October 2018 is conducted without any court order. He referred to the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India held that the right to life & personal liberty cannot be curtailed without due process of law.
Article 22: On 28th August 2018, the police didn't have any clarity on the grounds of arrest and didn't inform the reason for arrest to his heirs. They didn't produce him before the judicial magistrate. He cited D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, which ruled that due process must be followed during arrests.
Article 19 (1) (a): He is a journalist and human rights activist. As a journalist, he criticized government policies and schemes. The Police purposely arrest him to restrict his freedom of speech and expression.
Article 14: Petitioner argued that the house arrest period is considered as “Custody” according to Section 167 of the CrPC. But, the application for default bail was rejected by the Delhi High Court. Before the law, this is an unequal treatment. He cited the State of U.P. vs. Rajesh Gautam, the court ruled that all the procedures of the court should be held in the manner of equality.
Lack of Evidence:
The acquisition of terrorist acts under the UAPA towards him does not have any primary evidence like eyewitnesses, or direct evidence against him. He cited Khalid vs. State of Maharashtra, where the court said that credible evidence is necessary for cases involving serious charges.
Prayer: It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to, in the light of the above :
Grant default bail and set aside the Judgment and Order declared by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Grant such further directions as may be deemed necessary for the ends of justice.
Arguments of Respondent:
The arguments by the respondent are made as an answer weapon to the arguments of the petitioner. Even though this argument is more powerful by the lower court’s decision. The arguments contain the following aspects:
No Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The sudden arrest and house detentions do not count as custody. Because it was held without JM’s order. They cited the State of Maharashtra vs. Ranjitsingh, the court ruled that justification of legitimate reasons is enough for any differential treatments. Therefore, there is no infringement of Article 14.
The freedom of speech is not absolute. Towards National security, the right can be restricted. They cited S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram which the court held that the restrictions on freedom of speech must comply with state interest. So, there is no violation of Article 19 (1) (a).
Factual & Legal Findings through High Court's Decision:
The decision taken by the High Court of Delhi has discussed several key findings which strengthened the respondent's argument. Here are the key findings:
The legality of Arrest: The arrest was conducted under the UAPA, which allows the arrest of a person without a warrant in certain circumstances. The procedure for arrest is followed by the police according to the CrPc and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The investigation is conducted as per the procedure of UAPA.
Concern on National Security: The court recognized the state's arguments regarding national security and public order. The state must protect national security. In the case of K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, The Supreme Court states that every individual rights haven't absolute right. In the concern of national security, it will be restricted.
Denial of Bail: The court found that the charges against the petitioner were very serious. The court has the power to reject the bail application due the serious charges. They cited Babu Singh vs. State of U.P., and the court clearly defined that the seriousness of the charges and the potential of evidence is enough to reject a bail application.
Justification of Preventive Detention: The court found that the state provided sufficient justification for his detention as a preventive measure of future consequences. They cited A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras the Supreme Court upheld the power of the state to detain a person with valid grounds as a preventive measure.
Sufficiency of Evidence: The evidence (E- documents and witness statements) which is produced by the Police and the National Investigation Agency is sufficient to convict the suspected person accused under the UAPA. They cited Statthe e of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jatamalji Porwal states that little concrete evidence is enough to detain a person under UAPA.
Prayer: It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to, in the light of the above :
Dismiss the writ petition and uphold the Judgment and Order declared by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Grant such further directions as may be deemed necessary for the ends of justice.
Judgment (Ratio Decidendi):
The judgment was delivered on 28th April 2021. This judgment was in the favour of the respondent.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court interprets section 167 of CrPC. The 90 days of house arrest can be counted as custody when several conditions are met. In this case,
● That was a sudden arrest.
● There was no order of JM.
● Lack of formalities followed during the house arrest period.
● Lack of restrictions in house arrest.
Therefore, the Hon'ble Court didn't count the house arrest period as custody. Even though the evidence produced by the NIA is sufficient to convict him. Therefore, the application for default bail was rejected. The Judges said that there was no arbitrary discrimination in the denial of default bail at the Delhi High Court.
The fundamental rights of the petitioner are not violated. Because they are subject to reasonable restrictions. Towards the National Security, the procedure under UAPA should be followed by the State Police.
Judgment (Obiter Dicta):
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ruled that house arrest could be utilized as a form of custody under Section 167 in suitable cases. According to the following factors & conditions. When the following conditions are met, then only the above factors are considered by the courts.
Conditions:
● If the charge sheet is not filed within the stipulated time.
● If the accused person is in judicial or police custody.
● If the court didn't grant an extension for filing the charge sheet.
Factors:
● Age - Minor or Elderly person
● Health issues - Serious illness
● Antecedents of accused - Family Background (financial status, number of dependents)
Orders:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ordered the dismissal of the bail application with the writ petition. And also, ordered the NIA to invest thoroughly and transparently.
Conclusion:
We can see the Supreme Court of India upholds the importance of national security rather than an individual's rights. Even though the Indian Constitution brings us fundamental rights, the State can restrict them for valid reasons with reasonable restrictions. In this battle of individual rights & national security always mandated by our Indian Judiciary. The interpreting role of the judiciary in this battle is enormous. At the end of the battle, we can exercise our rights with the concerns of national security.
References:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104194156/ (13/01/2025)
https://www.nia.gov.in/press-releases.htm (13/01/2025)
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1978) 1 SCC 416
State of U.P. vs. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 3 SCC 339
Khalid vs. State of Maharashtra (2020) 2 SCC 1
State of Maharashtra vs. Ranjitsingh (1993) 3 SCC 59
S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574
K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
Babu Singh vs. State of U.P. (1978) AIR 1978 SC 1049
A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jatamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364
Comments