BHIMA KOREGAON ARREST - ROMILA THAPAR v. UNION OF INDIA
On 28th September 2018, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the case of Romila Thapar and four others challenging the arrest of five activists. The arrests followed nationwide raids by Maharashtra Police in connection with the Elgar Parishad event held in Pune on 1st January 2018. The activists were detained under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, amid allegations of instigating violence and links to a banned organisation.
The arrests stemmed from the Elgar Parishad gathering, which commemorated the bicentenary of the Battle of Koregaon-Bhima. Police accused the activists of being members of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) and conspiring to incite violence during the event. The petitioners, including historian Romila Thapar, argued that the arrests were politically motivated and lacked credible evidence.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion upheld the police investigation, stating that the accused do not have the right to choose the investigating agency. The judges ruled that the police had presented sufficient evidence to justify the arrests and that the Court should not intervene unless there was clear malafide or serious procedural irregularities. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his dissent, disagreed with the majority. He argued that concerns over police impartiality warranted an independent investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under judicial supervision. However, the majority rejected the plea for an SIT, allowing the Maharashtra Police to continue their probe. The respondents defended the arrests, claiming they were based on concrete evidence linking the activists to the banned Maoist group and the Bhima Koregaon violence. The Court’s decision ultimately left the investigation in the hands of the state police.
The split verdict left the Maharashtra Police’s investigation ongoing, with no independent probe ordered. The activists remained under arrest, facing charges under the UAPA. The ruling reinforced the Court’s stance on non-interference in criminal proceedings unless clear evidence of wrongdoing emerges.
