Elgar Parishad case: Why did Pune Police not approach special judge, Bombay HC asks state

The Bombay high court (HC) has asked the state as to why the Pune Police approached additional sessions judge KD Vadane instead of special judges for cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the case filed against Elgar Parishad accused Sudha Bhardwaj

The Bombay high court (HC) has asked the state as to why the Pune Police approached additional sessions judge KD Vadane instead of special judges for cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the case filed against Elgar Parishad accused Sudha Bhardwaj. This comes after Bhardwaj’s lawyers moved the court against the 90-day extension order passed by judge Vadane for her detention and filing of charge sheet. The National Investigation Agency (NIA), however, refuted Bhardwaj’s claims and held the process legal and proper.

HT Image

Additional solicitor general (ASG) Anil Singh argued that sessions judge Vadane was competent as special judges under the prescribed act were no different from sessions judges. He further said that as speedy disposal was required in sensitive matters pertaining to national security, the judge was competent to adjudicate on the Pune Police application.

The HC, after verifying the Right to Information (RTI) papers submitted by Bharadwaj, asked the state government to explain as to why the Pune Police approached the said judge rather than the designated special judges who were available to decide scheduled offences under the UAPA and posted further hearing to July 15.

The division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice NJ Jamadar, while hearing the default bail application of Bharadwaj, confirmed that the information provided in the application regarding incompetence of the judge who passed the extension order matched with the records in the HC registry.

In an earlier hearing, advocate Yug Choudhry for Bharadwaj had submitted that judge Vadane, who had signed the orders of extension and authorised the charge sheet in 2018 and 2019, had wrongly claimed to be a special judge though he was not. Choudhry had relied upon the information provided by the HC registry on the appointment of sessions judges wherein it was stated that Vadane was not a special judge.

Choudhry had argued that as per the provisions of the NIA Act, only special judges could preside and hear cases under the NIA and UAPA, and hence the orders passed by Vadane were not valid, making the detention of Bharadwaj and eight others illegal.

On Thursday, Choudhry further submitted that though there were other NIA judges at the sessions court in Pune, the Pune Police had placed the matter before judge Vadane. He added that since Bharadwaj and others had been charged under the UAPA, a sessions judge could have taken cognisance of the case only if there were specific instructions from the principal district judge (PDJ).

The bench then sought to know from chief public prosecutor Aruna Pai, for the state, to show if there existed such an order. “Show us any document through which PDJ gave powers to Vadane to hear the matter,” the bench said. The bench said there were documents to show that while the Pune Police took the case and the charge sheet before Judge Vadane, designated special judges were officiating in special courts in Pune at the time. The bench also asked ASG Singh, for NIA, to respond to Chaudhry’s claims.

Pai then sought time and said she would respond after taking instructions from relevant authorities.

ASG Singh, however, refuted the submissions of Chaudhry that only a special judge could have taken cognisance of the case and said that offences under UAPA were serious and hence, there was focus on early disposal. “The purpose for this Act (UAPA) is to punish the offender. There has to be expeditious and early disposal of cases. Nothing is above national security,” said Singh.

He added that special judges were not different from sessions judges as they were only appointed as a special judge. So, the claim that judge Vadane was not competent was not valid.

The HC adjourned further hearing on the plea to July 15. It will also be hearing similar pleas filed by other co-accused in Elgar Parishad case Arun Ferreira, Anand Teltumbde and Sudhir Dhawale, which has been filed through advocate R Sathyanarayan.