The Supreme Court recently granted bail to Assamese activist and Sibsagar MLA Akhil Gogoi in a case registered against him under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
He gave a speech against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and alleged links to Maoist organizations.
However, the bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal upheld a Gauhati High Court order which had set aside Gogoi’s discharge in the case. The Apex Court on March 20 this year, reserved its verdict on the appeal by the Assamese peasant leader against the High Court order.
The bench in February sought the response of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in the matter.
The notice issued was limited to the aspect of whether Gogoi can be released on bail till the trial is over.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for Gogoi, argued that there were no allegations of the leader abusing his liberties while out on bail post the discharge order.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the NIA, stated that the CPI (Maoist), to which Gogoi allegedly sent cadre for warfare training, that has never been a political party.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, assisted by advocate Kanu Agrawal, stated that the charges under the UAPA weren’t with regard to peaceful bandhs or shutdowns, but for the far graver offense of using terrorist methods and waging war against an elected government.
Gogoi and three others were booked for the offenses in relation to December 2019 protests and speeches against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and alleged links to Maoist organizations.
They were charged under various provisions of the Unlawful Prevention Activities Act (UAPA) and for Sedition (section 124A), promoting enmity between religious groups (section 153A) and 153B (Statement against national integration) under the Indian Penal Code.
The special NIA court, Guwahati in July 2021 discharged Gogoi of all the charges against him.
The special court went on to the extent of stating that the speeches made by Gogoi far from inciting violence, in fact, exhorted people not to resort to violence. The special court underscored temporary blockades/protests without incitement to violence wouldn’t constitute a terrorist act under Section 15 of UAPA.
However, The High Court d overturned this verdict on February 9 this year, stating that the special Court had ‘traveled way beyond the level of sifting of evidence’ permissible at the stage of framing charges, and its order reads like that of an acquittal than discharge.
Therefore, it had, remitted the matter back to the special court for fresh consideration on framing of charges, leading to the present appeal before the top court.
