The TLDR: A National Intelligence Agency court cleared the activist of all charges in one of the most high profile cases in the North East. Gogoi’s arrest received little attention in the Delhi-centric media, but his release ought to make us pay attention—since it marks an emerging judicial pattern in anti-terror/sedition cases.
The 45-year-old son of a farmer is a prominent activist who has spent decades being a thorn in the side of both the Congress party and the BJP in Assam. In the past, he has led agitations for land rights, and against dam construction and corruption. And he has been arrested multiple times by various governments.
Unlike many Delhi activists, Gogoi has a mass following among students and peasants. In May this year, he became the first person in Assam to win an Assembly seat while in prison. He ran on a ticket for his own party Raijor Dal—which was formed in the aftermath of the protests against the citizenship law. An Assamese intellectual best sums up his political power:
“That democratic movements can successfully be carried out in villages far and wide was Akhil’s teaching. I would not imagine a massive movement for people’s ration or a struggle against a hike in city bus fares from one rupee to one and a half under the leadership of [other activist organisations]... There was a time he struck a chord with all non-elites of the state by doing things like cycle rallies and podojatras (processions).”
A mixed anti-CAA record:
Yes, he was cleared of all charges by the NIA court. It was the last remaining case that had kept him in jail—since he’s received bail in all the others that don’t invoke UAPA.
Because the ruling took a very strong stance against the misuse of UAPA and sedition laws—which is becoming a pattern in such cases. Recently, the Delhi High Court slammed authorities for exactly the same reason while granting bail to three Delhi activists—Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita—saying: “[I]n its anxiety to suppress dissent and in the morbid fear that matters may get out of hand, the State has blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed ‘right to protest’ and ‘terrorist activity’.”
And the position taken by the NIA court is just as emphatic.
One: Here’s what the judge said about UAPA:
“The NIA court observed that law-enforcement agencies have to ‘take care’ to see that the implementation of the UAPA remains within the ‘strict parameters’ of the law and does not get ‘stretched’ beyond permissible limits ‘imposed’ by the statute itself and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and various high courts.”
Two: It also noted that the NIA’s interpretation of a terrorist act was plain wrong:
“Ordinary bandhs, blockades, shutdowns as part of some protests, unaccompanied by incitement to violence would not come under the ambit of the expression ‘threatening the economic security of India’ under [UAPA]... Protests in a democracy are sometimes seen to take the form of blockades also, even causing inconvenience to citizens. However, it is doubtful whether such blockades for temporary periods, if unaccompanied by any incitement to violence, would constitute a terrorist act within the meaning of [UAPA].”
Three: The court also declared there are no “prima facie materials” to justify the charges—and that it finds the “conduct and approach of the investigating authority/prosecution in this case, to be discouraging, to say the least.” And it offered this kicker:
“The court has high expectations from a premier investigating agency like the NIA, entrusted with the profoundly important task of protecting our country and us, citizens from the menace of terrorism. The court hopes and expects that such high standards will be upheld, for the sake of the country and this one will be just an exception.”
Four: The judge also specifically cited the Delhi High Court ruling:
“In the case of Asif Iqbal Tanha (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court laying down various principles narrated earlier in this order has also held that such strict UA (P) Act, 1967 being a stringent penal statute has to be interpreted strictly and such strict interpretation of UA(P) Act is necessary so that it does not rope in persons whom the legislature never intended to punish… Though the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is not a binding precedent on this court, nevertheless, the principles stated therein, can be studied and analyzed.”
Point to note: After his release, Gogoi said:
“This is a miracle —that’s what I told my advocate. I had never thought a strong, brave and historic verdict like this could come from the Indian judiciary—especially during the rule of the BJP, where its [judiciary’s] role has been perceived as so weak in recent years. But this judgment proves otherwise—it will set a precedent for the entire country.”
The bottomline: When the Delhi police challenged the bail order releasing Tanha et al, the Supreme Court made it clear that the High Court’s ruling should not be treated as a precedent. But it is now equally clear that it has sent a message that is being heard in courts around the country. And hurray for that!
Indian Express and The Telegraph offer a good overview of Gogoi’s release. The entire court ruling is here. Indian Express also has an interview with Gogoi who plans to continue to oppose the CAA. Huffington Post has the best profile of Gogoi’s career and mixed record. Our explainer on the Delhi Court ruling has all the background you need on the anti-CAA protests and the use of UAPA.
Indian food products are under scanner for containing ethylene oxide—a known carcinogen.
Read MoreWhat do caste calculations in Karnataka look like? And what do the polls say?
Read MoreIf the BJP loses ground in Karnataka, it will have serious implications for the party, Modi, and Hindutva.
Read MoreBird flu is not new but its recent unprecedented spread is raising fears of a deadly mutation.
Read More