Romila Thapar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Background
Five well-known public figures (historian Romila Thapar among them) filed a writ petition after the Maharashtra Police arrested five human-rights activists, journalists and lawyers from different cities in connection with an FIR about the "Elgar Parishad" event linked to violence at Bhima Koregaon. The petitioners did not seek to halt the investigation itself, but asked the Supreme Court to transfer it to an independent agency or have it monitored by the Court, alleging the arrests were a politically motivated attempt to silence dissent. The Court had earlier passed an interim order on 29 August 2018 restraining the arrested activists from being taken into custody while it heard the matter.
Decision Breakdown
The majority (CJI Misra, writing for himself and Justice Khanwilkar) held that the petitioners, who were "next friends" of the accused rather than the accused themselves or direct victims, could not seek relief (such as changing the investigating agency) that the accused could not themselves claim in this manner, and that the material before the police showed a genuine basis for the FIR and arrests rather than mere political vendetta. The majority therefore declined to appoint a Special Investigation Team or order court-monitored investigation, disposed of the writ petition, but extended the earlier protection against arrest for four weeks so the five accused could approach the appropriate courts (e.g., for bail or quashing) on their own. Justice Chandrachud dissented, holding that the specific facts raised a real doubt about the fairness of the state police's investigation and that a Special Investigating Team, monitored by the Court, was warranted.
Lesson Learnt
The Supreme Court will not readily substitute an ongoing police investigation with a court-appointed team merely on allegations of bias, especially when raised by third parties on an accused person's behalf rather than by the accused directly, but as this case shows, such calls can still produce a serious, reasoned dissent within the Court itself, and the accused retain the right to seek relief like bail or quashing in the ordinary courts.