Elgar Parishad case: HC concludes hearing of Gautam Navlakha’s plea for house arrest

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Tuesday concluded the hearing of the application filed by Elgar Parishad case accused Gautam Navlakha seeking house arrest due to failing health and lack of proper facilities in Taloja jail

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Tuesday concluded the hearing of the application filed by Elgar Parishad case accused Gautam Navlakha seeking house arrest due to failing health and lack of proper facilities in Taloja jail. Opposing the application, the state and NIA stated that many prisoners were 70 years of age and had comorbidities and if Navlakha’s application was allowed, there would be a flood of such applications. The court is expected to pass orders in due course.

The state assured the bench that though Navlakha was kept in a separate barrack, he was allowed out in the open for half an hour a day (AP)

The division bench of justices Sunil Shukre and G A Sanap was informed by additional solicitor general Anil Singh for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) that the application was not before the appropriate forum and was premature as his application for bail on merits and medical grounds was pending before the sessions court.

Singh stressed that granting Navlakha’s prayers on the age factor would open the floodgates as there are thousands of jail inmates above 70 and they are also suffering from several ailments. Singh stated that by seeking house arrest Navlakha was trying to get out of jail by bypassing the stringent conditions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

“It does not mean that a person who is accused of serious allegations seeks house arrest,” Singh submitted.

Meanwhile, the counsel for the state informed the bench that due to Covid, many outside articles were being disallowed inside the prison including books. However, with regards to the PG Wodehouse book which had been received by the Taloja jail authorities for Navlakha but was returned the court asked the state counsel, “Is humour banished from the jail? Why was he not given the book?”

However, when the state counsel could not respond the court sought to know how many books were there in the jail and what types of books were available for the prison inmates to read as books were one way of reforming the inmates during their incarceration. When the counsel submitted that the jail library had around 2,800 books the bench said it was too less and in fact, secondary schools had more books. Thereafter the bench suggested that the bar association or the court on its own should do something to address the issue of the shortage of books in the jail.

The state assured the bench that though Navlakha was kept in a separate barrack, he was allowed out in the open for half an hour a day and he was able to interact with others during that period. With regards to the barrack being filthy and unclean, the state council said that it was Navlakha’s prerogative to keep the cell neat and clean.

After the state and NIA completed, Choudhary in rejoinder submitted that the approach of the prison authorities was sufficient evidence of the attitude of the state towards the inmates. He further stated that the bail application that was rejected by Supreme Court was on a different footing and the apex court had not rejected his application for house arrest as alleged by Singh as he had not applied for house arrest at the time.