Isn’t Detention Part of the State’s Law Enforcement Responsibilities?

Newsreel Asia Insight #159
March 13, 2024

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) of India has told the Supreme Court that Gautam Navlakha, a human rights activist arrested in August 2018 in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case, must pay 16.4 million rupees for his house arrest expenses, as reported by Scroll.in.

The Bhima Koregaon case originates from the events of Jan. 1, 2018, at Bhima Koregaon, a village in Maharashtra. Every year, Dalits gather at Bhima Koregaon to commemorate the victory of the British army, which included a large contingent of Dalit soldiers, over the Peshwa (upper-caste rulers) in 1818. The 2018 event marked the 200th anniversary of this battle and attracted thousands of Dalits. However, the gathering turned violent, leading to clashes, resulting in one death and several injuries.

Following the violence, the Maharashtra Police launched investigations. They alleged that the violence was incited by speeches made at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on Dec. 31, 2017, claiming the event had Maoist links. The police arrested several activists and intellectuals, accusing them of having Maoist ties and plotting to overthrow the government. These arrests were made under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). Critics argue that the arrests were politically motivated and an attempt to suppress dissent.

In November 2022, the now-retired Justice K.M. Joseph allowed Navlakha, who is 70 years old, to be released from detention and placed under house arrest on grounds of his deteriorating health. The Court also asked Navlakha to pay for the expense of surveillance, about 240,000 rupees, saying the amount would be reimbursed in he was acquitted. In April 2023, the Court directed Navlakha to deposit 800,000 rupees to meet the expenses of surveillance and costs, according to Live Law.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the NIA, told the Court on March 7, “Citizens are not entitled to house arrest.” However, Navlakha’s counsel, Nitya Ramakrishnan, labeled the financial demand as “extortion,” arguing that it is unreasonable to expect citizens to pay for their custody. She also questioned the NIA’s calculation of the amount payable, arguing that it was wrong and contrary to the relevant rules.

According to Scroll.in, “In a 2021 case, the Supreme Court ruled that house arrests can also be used as a form of detention. It made a list of illustrative conditions, such as the age and health of the accused, where courts could sentence a person to house arrest.”

The financial aspect of this demand is substantial. A sum of 16.4 million rupees could impose a severe financial strain on any individual, particularly for someone like Navlakha, who is a human rights activist and may not have access to significant financial resources.

From a legal perspective, the state bears the costs associated with the detention and surveillance of individuals, as it is part of the state’s law enforcement responsibilities. By shifting this financial burden onto the individual, the state could be seen as abdicating its responsibilities, potentially undermining the principles of justice and fairness.

The UAPA, under which Navlakha is being held, is a law that has been criticised for its broad definitions of “unlawful activities” and “terrorism,” and for granting sweeping powers to the authorities. The UAPA allows for long periods of detention without trial, raising concerns about its potential misuse against political dissidents, activists and critics of the government.