The Supreme Court on Friday raised doubts about the reasonableness of its own order passed in November 2022, allowing 70-year-old activist Gautam Navlakha to be shifted out of Taloja Jail into house arrest in a Navi Mumbai building atop a library.
Mr. Navlakha is facing charges under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or UAPA in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has accused him of having Maoist links.
A Bench led by Justice M.M. Sundresh orally observed whether such an elaborate exception made for just one man was excessive and amounts to a wrong precedent.
The court directed the NIA to submit a report of his current medical status and enquired about the progress made so far in the trial.
“Prima facie we have our reservations. But a lengthy order was passed without going into the merits of the case. This might set a wrong precedent… To facilitate all this for one person…” Justice Sundresh remarked orally.
Additional Solicitor-General S.V. Raju said the house arrest order was “unusual”, and probably the first of its kind.
“He obtained the house order on grounds of his sickness. He said a lady would stay with him. But she is not staying most of the time,” Mr. Raju said.
The law officer alleged that Mr. Navlakha owed money to the State for the police guard made available for him.
Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, for Mr. Navlakha, said the NIA could have him medically examined. This would confirm his ailment. Besides, Ms. Ramakrishnan said her client had already paid for the police guard.
On November 10 last year, an apex court Bench led by Justice (retired) K.M. Joseph had allowed Mr. Navlakha to be shifted into house arrest while imposing strict police surveillance on his interactions and movements
Besides his health and age, the court last year drew attention to the fact that Mr. Navlakha had been in custody since October 2020.
He was asked to pay for the police guard and the CCTV cameras installed at the house arrest premises.
Mr. Navlakha was prohibited from using a laptop or other communication devices while in house arrest. He was allowed to use a phone, not a smartphone, which the police personnel would give him for a 10-minute conversation in their presence. He had no internet access.
The NIA had said it did not want him to communicate with any outsiders, who could be suspected Maoist persons
