In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday delivered a sharp rebuke to the Maharashtra government concerning the protracted delay in the trial of prominent lawyer and activist Surendra Gadling. The court demanded an immediate explanation for why proceedings in the 2016 arson case have been stalled for so long.
Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, sitting on the bench, sternly questioned the state’s legal representative, Additional Solicitor-General S.V. Raju, asking, “Why is the trial not progressing? For how many years will you keep an individual incarcerated without a trial?”
The apex court has issued a directive requiring the Maharashtra government to submit a comprehensive affidavit. This document must clearly outline a timeline for the trial’s completion and detail the prosecution’s strategy for expediting the legal proceedings.
Six Years in Detention
Gadling is currently challenging a January 2023 order from the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court that denied him bail in the 2016 Surjagarh iron ore mine arson incident. This case involves allegations that several vehicles transporting iron ore from the Gadchiroli mines were set ablaze by individuals reportedly linked to the outlawed Communist Party of India (Maoist).
Representing Mr. Gadling, senior advocate Anand Grover highlighted that his client has endured over six years in custody without the trial even commencing. “It is truly extraordinary for a lawyer to be treated in this manner… Six years have gone by, and yet, no progress has been made in the trial,” Grover argued passionately.
Concerns over ‘Compromised Evidence’
Grover further contended that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has largely relied on evidence that originated from the Bhima Koregaon case, where Mr. Gadling was first arrested in June 2018. He asserted that this electronic evidence was obtained improperly and did not adhere to legal collection standards.
“Even if one were to consider its relevance to this case, such evidence must be gathered lawfully. If acquired unlawfully, it cannot be admissible in any other legal matter. Electronic evidence is inherently susceptible to manipulation; it can be easily fabricated or planted,” the senior advocate emphasized.
Underlining the constitutional imperative against prolonged detention, the senior counsel argued that the strict bail conditions stipulated under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) should be relaxed when there’s no reasonable prospect of a trial concluding within an acceptable timeframe.
Discharge Application Standoff
In response, Additional Solicitor-General Raju maintained that the delays were not caused by the prosecution but by the accused. He noted that Mr. Gadling had filed a discharge application but was refusing to argue it unless he was allowed to appear physically in court. Raju stated, “There’s a genuine fear that an attack could occur if he is brought to court in person.”
The bench then questioned why a discharge application should be permitted to obstruct the trial’s progression. “Let it be decided. Simply state that they are unwilling to argue,” Justice Maheshwari commented. The court further instructed the State to include in its affidavit specific reasons for the outstanding discharge application and to present all pertinent order sheets.
“To be clear, continued custody without a trial will not be tolerated,” the bench declared emphatically, adjourning the case for a subsequent hearing on October 29.
Broad Accusations
Mr. Gadling faces charges under various sections of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code, including grave offenses like attempt to murder (Section 307), wrongful restraint (Sections 341, 342), mischief by fire (Section 435), and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B).
In its January 2023 ruling that denied him bail, the High Court observed that allegations concerning Mr. Gadling’s association with the banned Maoist organization appeared prima facie credible. The court concluded that “the danger posed to the public and the severe nature of the alleged conspiracy against the appellant significantly outweigh any other considerations presented by him.”
Beyond the Surjagarh incident, the activist is also implicated in the Elgar Parishad–Maoist links case. This relates to accusations of inflammatory speeches made at the Elgar Parishad conclave in Pune on December 31, 2017, which authorities claim incited violence near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial the following day.