NDLI: Romila Thapar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitution of India – Art.32
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Disposed Off
Headnote	Constitution of India – Art.32 – Writ petition filed by fivepersons, as next best friend of five activists-accused who werearrested purportedly in connection with FIR No.4/18 – Said FIRregistered in Pune in relation to communal violence that took placein Bhima Koregaon as outcome of an event organized by organizationcalled Elgar Parishad – Plea of petitioners that neither of the fiveaccused persons were present in the said event nor any allegationagainst them is found in the FIR and that the said FIR was fabricatedby Pune Police after FIR No.2/18 was filed against some Hindutvaright wing leaders based on an eye-witness account that they incitedviolence against Dalit congregation in Bhima Koregaon – Petitionersinter alia prayed for appointing Special Investigation Team (SIT)and Court monitored investigation – Held: (Majority view) PerA.M. Khanwilkar, J. (for himself and Dipak Misra, CJI) Accusedpersons cannot choose as to which Investigating Agency mustinvestigate the offence committed by them – Present is not a case ofarrest because of mere dissenting views expressed or difference inthe political ideology of the named accused, but concerning theirlink with the members of the banned organization, Communist Partyof India (Maoist) and its activities –Crime under investigation inFIR No.4/2018, inter alia is to investigate the allegations that a bannedorganization, Communist Party of India (Maoist), organises eventsas referred to in FIR No.2/2018 to propagate ill-will in differentclasses and turn them into violent activities – Incidents such as atBhima Koregaon is the outcome of such conspiracy – Reliefs claimednot granted – (Minority view) Per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.(Dissenting) In the present case, the initiation of the proceedings u/Art. 32 is not motivated by extraneous reasons – Conduct of thePune police in utilising the agency of the electronic media to cast aspersions on persons whose conduct is still under investigation,fortifies the need for an investigation which is fair – Sufficientmaterial has been placed before the Court bearing on the need tohave an independent investigation – Dissent is a symbol of vibrantdemocracy – Voices in opposition cannot be muzzled by persecutingthose who take up unpopular causes – Present is a proper case forthe appointment of SIT –SIT to be appointed – Investigation shallbe monitored by Supreme Court – Unlawful Activities (Prevention)Act, 1967 – Constitution of India – Arts.21 and 22(1).Constitution of India – Art.32 – Public Interest Litigation –Locus for – Held: Per A.M. Khanwilkar, J. (for himself and DipakMisra, CJI) Prayer for changing the Investigating Agency cannotbe dealt with lightly and the Court must exercise that power withcircumspection – Writ petition at the instance of the next friend ofthe accused for transfer of investigation to independent InvestigatingAgency or for Court monitored investigation cannot becountenanced, much less as public interest litigation – Per Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J. (Dissenting) When a group of citizens has movedSupreme Court with an impassioned plea about the violation of humanrights the Court must look beyond locus into the heart of the matter.Constitution of India – Art.32 – Writ petition under –Maintainability of, in criminal matters – Held: Per Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J. Ordinarily, when an investigation into a criminaloffence is in progress, recourse must be taken to the provisions ofthe Code – However, in the present case the petitioners have notsought recourse to the jurisdiction of Supreme Court for espousinga remedy which is available before the competent court under theCode of Criminal Procedure – Present proceedings have been movedwith a specific grievance that the arrest of the five individuals is anattempt by the State to muzzle dissent – Supreme Court, as aconstitutional adjudicator, has been entrusted with the jurisdictionu/Art. 32 to secure the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by theConstitution – Protection of fundamental liberties is a subject sointegral to democratic constitutional values that technicalities shouldnot be allowed to override the cause of substantive justice.Constitution of India – Art.32 – Public Interest Litigation –Constitution of Special Investigation Team (SIT) – Jurisdiction ofSupreme Court – Held: Per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. Instances indicate the diversity of settings in which Supreme Court has orderedthe constitution of SITs – While the Court does not determine thecourse of the investigation, it acts as a watchdog to ensure that afair and impartial investigation takes place.Criminal Trial – Investigation pending – Use of electronicmedia by Police – Practice of – Held: Per Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud,J. Use of the electronic media by the investigating arm of the Stateto influence public opinion during the pendency of an investigationsubverts the fairness of the investigation – Police are notadjudicators nor do they pronounce upon guilt.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2018 INSC 912
Petitioner	Romila Thapar And Ors.
Respondent	Union Of India And Ors.
SCR	[2018] 11 S.C.R. 951
Judgement Date	2018-09-28
Case Number	260

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Romila Thapar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Subhan Tours & Travel Services Vs. Union of India

Pankaj Sinha Vs. Union of India and Others

People`s Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Un10n of India and Anr.

Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Ministry of Urban Development & Ors.

Gudalure M. J. Cherian and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Devika Biswas Vs. Union of India & Ors.

M.c.mehta Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Monica Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Romila Thapar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Romila Thapar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Subhan Tours & Travel Services Vs. Union of India

Pankaj Sinha Vs. Union of India and Others

People`s Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Un10n of India and Anr.

Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Ministry of Urban Development & Ors.

Gudalure M. J. Cherian and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Devika Biswas Vs. Union of India & Ors.

M.c.mehta Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Monica Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Romila Thapar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.