For liberty’s sake: on the scope of Article 32 in the activists case 

Mains Paper: 3 | Economic Development 
Prelims level: Right To Education Act
Mains level:  Issues relating to development and management of Social Sector/Services relating to Health, Education, Human resources.

Introduction

• The Supreme Court’s intervention following the arrest of five prominent activists by the Pune police last month.
• It has been truly extraordinary and raises the bar for protection of personal liberty.
• The court has granted them the rare relief of remaining in house arrest while it examines the charges against them.
• It has reserved its decision in the case and now must decide on one of the following courses.

Important highlights of the conspiracy

• The police in Maharashtra to pursue its investigation against the activists for allegedly being members of the outlawed Communist Party of India (Maoist) and joining a conspiracy against the government.
• It set them at liberty on the ground that this is a trumped-up case, to order a probe by an independent team.
• It has a legal tussle between the Centre’s contention that it is probing a terrorist conspiracy involving Maoist insurgents and their urban supporters and the counter-argument that this is a thinly disguised crackdown on political dissent.
• The petitioners, led by historian Romila Thapar, have questioned the motivation for the police raids on the residences of these activists and a few others in a coordinated operation across several States.
• They want those arrested to be released and demand an independent investigation.
• The Maharashtra and Union governments have sought to defend the arrest and prosecution, contending that the case is based on incriminating evidence seized during the probe.
• And it has nothing to do with the ideology or the political views of those under investigation.

The SC observations

• The Supreme Court has set the stage for an examination of some fundamental questions at the intersection of criminal procedure and constitutional law.
• The procedural question is whether in a criminal matter the court can entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
• In under which the Supreme Court enforces fundamental rights, for which the accused are expected to seek their remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The substantive question is whether the court should intervene when the liberty of citizens and their right to dissent are sought to be denied by arbitrary police action.
• Observations that “dissent is the safety valve of democracy” and “personal liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of conjecture” indicate the court’s thinking.
• It is against this backdrop that the Bench has decided to examine the case diary to see whether the charges have some basis.
• The government may have reason to worry about a precedent being set, whereby every accused can rush to the Supreme Court immediately on arrest.
• At the same time, one cannot wish away the peculiar circumstances in which a case relating to violence at a Dalit commemoration dramatically morphed into a Maoist plot.

UPSC Prelims Questions: 

Q.1)  With respect to Right to Property, consider the following statements:
1. It is a constitutional right.
2. In case of violation, the aggrieved person can move the Supreme Court under Article 32.
3. It can be regulated without constitutional amendment by an ordinary law of the Parliament.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 1 and 3 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

Ans: B

UPSC Mains Questions:
Q.1) Determining the scope of Article 32 in the activists case. comment.

Online Coaching for UPSC PRE Exam

General Studies Pre. Cum Mains Study Materials