Elgar Parishad: Plea questions transfer of accused from Navi Mumbai jail

The petition also alleged that the special judge’s order permitting transfer of 6 accused first to Mumbai Central Prison and then to any other prison was passed without following the procedure

The kin of Elgar Parishad accused lodged in Taloja jail have approached the Bombay high court (HC), alleging victimisation by the superintendent of the jail by getting transfer orders for some of the 10 accused lodged in the jail to other prisons, as they have been demanding fulfilment of their rights as prisoners.

Meanwhile, the Centre has opposed Surendra Gadling’s petition – which has challenged the transfer of the case from Pune Police to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

The petition has also alleged that the order of April 1 and the subsequent orders by the special judge permitting the transfer of six of the accused first to Mumbai Central Prison and then to any other prison was passed without following the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and was bad in law.

The petition, filed by Dr Anand Teltumbde’s wife Rama; advocate Surendra Gadling’s wife Mrinal; and Sudhir Dhawale’s friend Sharad Gaikwad, has alleged that on April 1, the former superintendent of Taloja jail Kaustubh Kurlekar had applied to the special court and sought permission to transfer six of the 10 Elgar Parishad case accused to Arthur Road jail or Mumbai Central Prison, which was approved. The petitioners alleged that neither the accused nor their lawyers were informed about it, as a result of which their rights were violated.

The petition further stated that the application for transfer by Kurlekar had mentioned that the transfer was being sought as the accused were trying to create pressure through court orders and media by making false allegations against jail authorities.

While the judge passed the orders under the assumption that it was an administrative directive, it was his duty to hear the transferees, which he had not done, the petition has stated. Hence, the April 1 and other subsequent orders should be quashed. The petition is expected to come up for hearing in due course.

Meanwhile, the Centre in its affidavit, opposing Gadling’s petition – which has challenged the transfer of the case from Pune Police to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) by a January 24, 2020, order – stated that there was nothing wrong in the transfer and the petition should be dismissed. The affidavit has claimed that as per section 6 (5) of NIA Act, the Central government could authorise the transfer of the investigation as the offences were scheduled offences and not limited to the state of Maharashtra. The section reads, “Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, if the central government is of the opinion that a scheduled offence has been committed which is required to be investigated under this Act, it may suo motu, direct the agency to investigate the said offence.”

In light of the above arguments, the affidavit filed by Dharmender Kumar –under-secretary, counter terrorism and counter radicalisation division – has stated that the petitioner’s claims of the transfer being prompted due to a change in government does not hold true and hence, no reliefs as sought in the petition should be allowed.

The bench of justice SS Shinde, which is hearing the petition, will be taking up the petition on August 27.