Bhima Koregaon Incident: A Reflection on Justice, Judiciary, and Freedom
Incident on 1st January 2018 (200th anniversary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon)
The Events of January 1, 2018
On January 1, 2018, over 200,000 people gathered at Bhima Koregaon, Maharashtra, to commemorate the bicentenary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon. The peaceful event turned violent as clashes erupted, allegedly incited by right-wing groups attacking Dalit attendees. The unrest injured several people and led to protests and shutdowns across Maharashtra. A statewide bandh on January 3, 2018, disrupted normal life, highlighting the struggles of marginalized communities.
Legal Points and Fundamental rights involved in the case:
Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)
Arrests Under UAPA: Activists arrested under UAPA faced prolonged detention without bail, raising concerns about arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Death of Stan Swamy: The delayed response to Swamy’s medical condition highlighted systemic issues in ensuring the right to life and dignity for those in custody.
Equality Before Law (Article 14)
Dalit Witness Death: The death of a Dalit witness and allegations of systemic caste-based bias in the handling of the case raised concerns about unequal treatment of marginalized communities.
Digital Privacy and Evidence Tampering
Rona Wilson Bail Order:
Rona Wilson, a Delhi-based researcher, was arrested in June 2018 in connection with the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case. After more than six years of incarceration, the Bombay High Court granted him bail on January 8, 2025.
Key Points of the Bail Order:
Prolonged Incarceration: The court noted that Wilson had been in custody since 2018, and the trial had not yet commenced. With over 300 witnesses cited by the prosecution, the court observed that there was no possibility of the trial concluding in the near future.
Bail Conditions: Wilson was granted bail upon furnishing a surety of ₹1 lakh. He is required to surrender his passport and is prohibited from leaving the city until the trial concludes. Additionally, he must appear before the special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court for trial hearings.
Non-Consideration of Case Merits: The High Court clarified that the decision to grant bail was based on the prolonged detention and the unlikely commencement of the trial in the near future, without delving into the merits of the case.
Current Status:
As of January 2025, Wilson has been released on bail after spending over six years in custody. The trial in the Elgar Parishad case is yet to commence, with the prosecution citing a substantial number of witnesses, indicating that the legal proceedings may extend over a prolonged period.
Right Against Arbitrary Arrest and Detention (Article 22)
Contention: Activists were accused of being linked to Maoist organizations without substantive evidence. Allegations of planted digital evidence, as revealed by forensic experts, questioned the validity of the arrests.
Abuse of Preventive Laws: UAPA’s stringent provisions, including extended detention periods without charges, were criticized for bypassing safeguards against arbitrary detention.
Aftermath Synopsis
FIRs and Allegations:
On January 2, 2018, an FIR was filed against Sambhaji Bhide and Milind Ekbote for allegedly instigating violence against Dalits.
On January 8, 2018, another FIR was filed against Kabir Kala Manch members for allegedly making provocative statements at the Elgar Parishad.
At least 16 activists, academics, and lawyers were arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on allegations of having Maoist links and inciting violence at the Elgar Parishad event. Many of these arrests have been widely criticized as unlawful and politically motivated.
Milind Ekbote Investigation:
In February 2018, the Supreme Court criticized the slow progress in locating Milind Ekbote despite extensive police efforts.
On March 14, 2018, Ekbote was arrested after the Supreme Court cancelled his interim bail for non-cooperation with investigators.
Dalit Witness Death:
On April 22, 2018, a 19-year-old Dalit witness, whose house was burned in the violence, was found dead. Her family alleged pressure to withdraw her statement.
Important Acts and Sections in involved in the case:
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 124A (Sedition): Allegations of speeches, writings, or actions inciting violence or creating disaffection against the government.
Section 302 (Murder): Charges related to the death of one individual (Rahul Phatangale) during the violence.
Section 307 (Attempt to Murder): Pertains to attempts to harm individuals during the clashes.
Section 147, 148, 149 (Rioting and Unlawful Assembly): Allegations of forming unlawful assemblies and engaging in violent acts.
Section 34 (Common Intention): Used when a criminal act is committed with the shared intention of multiple individuals.
What the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court says?
Supreme Court of India (September 28, 2018):
Majority Opinion: A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar dismissed petitions seeking an independent investigation into the arrests related to the Bhima Koregaon incident. The majority held that since the arrested individuals were parties to the petition, a request for changing the investigative agency would not be entertained.
Dissenting Opinion: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dissented, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding individual liberties and expressing
concerns over potential misuse of state power. He advocated for an independent investigation to ensure impartiality and uphold democratic principles.
Supreme Court of India (May 14, 2024):
A bench granted bail to activist Gautam Navlakha, noting the prolonged incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding in a reasonable time frame. The court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention without the prospect of an early trial infringes upon the individual’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Judgements related to atrocities on women:
Nisha Sharma Dowry Case (Noida- UP 2003)
Facts:
Nisha Sharma alleged that Munish Dalal and his family demanded an additional ₹12 lakh (around $15,000) as dowry on the wedding day, in addition to other items previously agreed upon. Nisha called the police, leading to the arrest of Munish Dalal, his mother, and sister under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The media hailed Nisha as a heroine for her courage to expose dowry demands, especially on her wedding day. She became a symbol of women’s empowerment. Munish Dalal and his family denied the allegations and claimed that the incident was a conspiracy to defame them. Munish argued that the actual reason for the broken marriage was Nisha’s relationship with Navneet Rai, a man she had met during her college days. During the trial, it was revealed that there were contradictions in Nisha Sharma’s statements. Evidence surfaced, suggesting a pre-existing
relationship between Nisha and Navneet Rai, which Munish’s family alleged was the real reason behind the wedding cancellation.
Court Verdict: After nearly nine years of trial, the court acquitted Munish Dalal and his family. The court found no substantial evidence to prove the allegations of dowry harassment or demand. The judge observed that the case might have been used as a weapon rather than a shield by Nisha Sharma.
Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar:
Facts:
The case arose from allegations under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Arnesh Kumar was accused by his wife of subjecting her to cruelty and harassment for dowry. Fearing arrest, Arnesh Kumar approached the Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail, arguing that the provision under Section 498A IPC was being misused as a tool for harassment rather than justice.
Bail Order in Arnesh Kumar Case:
The Court observed that in cases like these, arrests are often made routinely and without proper justification. In the specific context of the case, the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Arnesh Kumar, emphasizing that:
1. Arrest Should Not Be Routine:
The Court reiterated that arrest should not be made in cases where the offense is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years unless the conditions in Section 41 of the CrPC are satisfied.
2. Guidelines for Police and Magistrates:
The judgment laid down specific directions for the police and magistrates to follow before making an arrest or authorizing detention.
3. Relief to the Accused:
Considering that Section 498A is often misused and acknowledging the facts of the case, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to Arnesh Kumar.
Excerpt from the Judgment (Relevant to Bail Order):
“We direct that henceforth all police officers be provided with a checklist containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii). The police officer shall forward the checklist duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention. The Magistrate, while authorizing detention, shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer and only after recording its satisfaction, authorize detention.”
The Court used this opportunity to issue broader guidelines to prevent arbitrary arrests in similar cases while granting relief to the petitioner, Arnesh Kumar.
“We are of the opinion that if the provisions of Section 41, CrPC, which authorizes the police officer to arrest an accused without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, are scrupulously enforced, the wrong committed by the police officers intentionally or unwittingly would be reduced to the minimum.”
Landmark Case Laws regarding Reservation in India:
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal Commission Case)
The Mandal Commission, set up in 1979, recommended 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government
jobs and educational institutions, identifying caste as a criterion for backwardness. In 1990, the V.P. Singh government implemented these recommendations, sparking widespread protests and debates on affirmative action and social justice. The policy was challenged in the Supreme Court by various petitioners, including Indra Sawhney, on grounds of violating the principles of equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. The 9-judge bench, by a majority of 6:3, upheld the government’s 27% reservation for OBCs but with the following conditions:
1. Exclusion of the creamy layer.
(Creamy Layer- The creamy layer is a group of people within a backward class who are considered to be socially, economically, and educationally advanced. They are excluded from reservation benefits, such as government jobs and educational scholarships.)
2. Adherence to the 50% ceiling on total reservations.
3. No reservations in promotions.
4. Periodic review of backwardness to ensure it remains relevant.
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2023) (EWS Quota Case)
What is EWS Quota?
• The Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota is a 10% reservation for people from the general category in India who meet certain income and asset criteria. This reservation is for admission to educational institutions and government jobs. The EWS quota is in addition to the 50% reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).
• The EWS quota is for people from the general category who have a family income below a certain limit.
• The EWS quota is for people who do not own agricultural land of more than a certain size. (5 acres)
• To apply for the EWS quota, you need to generate an Income and Asset Certificate from a Collector, Tahsildar, or other sub-divisional officer.
EWS Eligibility Criteria (Asset Limit):
To qualify for the EWS reservation, an individual must meet the following asset-related criteria (in addition to the income limit of less than ₹8 lakh per annum):
1. Landholding Limit:
o The total agricultural landholding of the family should be less than 5 acres.
2. Residential Property:
o The family should not own a residential plot of more than 1000 square feet in a city or town.
3. Income from Assets:
o The family’s total annual income must be less than ₹8 lakh.
4. Other Assets:
o The family should not own assets such as vehicles, houses, or other luxury items beyond a certain threshold as defined by the government.
o Specific limits on assets like vehicles or business holdings may vary slightly depending on the state or region.
In 2019, the 103rd Constitutional Amendment introduced a 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. This was distinct from the existing reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC), as it applied to individuals from the general category who met certain economic criteria. The amendment added Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the Constitution to enable this reservation.
Several petitions were filed, including by Janhit Abhiyan, questioning the constitutional validity of the EWS quota on the following grounds:
Violation of Basic Structure Doctrine: Petitioners argued the reservation violated the Constitution’s core principles of equality by excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs from its ambit.
Economic Criterion: They challenged whether economic status alone could justify reservation.
Breach of 50% Ceiling: The EWS reservation was seen as exceeding the 50% limit established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, upheld the EWS quota, affirming the validity of the 103rd Amendment.
The Court held that economic status could be an independent basis for reservation under Articles 15 and 16. It stated that poverty is a significant form of disadvantage that can be addressed through affirmative action. The exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS category was deemed valid, as they already benefit from separate reservations under other provisions. This exclusion was not seen as discriminatory. The Court clarified that the 50% ceiling on reservations is not an inviolable rule and can be exceeded under special circumstances, as in this case. The Court concluded that the EWS quota does not alter the basic structure of the
Constitution. It enhances equality by addressing economic disadvantage within the general category.
➢ Article 15(6) of the Indian Constitution allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of economically weaker sections (EWS) of citizens. These provisions can include: Reservations in educational institutions, Reservations for employment in central government jobs, and Affirmative action.
➢ Article 16(6) of the Indian Constitution allows the state to reserve up to 10% of public employment positions for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of citizens.
Puja Khedkar Case
Puja Khedkar, a 2023-batch Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, became embroiled in a significant controversy involving allegations of fraud and misuse of privileges during her civil services selection and training.
Timeline of the Puja Khedkar Case:
Early 2024: Allegations and Public Attention
January 2024: Puja Khedkar, a 2023 batch IAS officer, came under scrutiny when allegations surfaced that she had forged her disability certificate to gain benefits under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category. It was claimed that she had provided false documentation regarding her blindness and mental illness to secure a seat in the Civil Services Examination. Additionally, questions were raised about her caste certificate, suggesting she had misrepresented her eligibility in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category.
February 2024: Investigations Begin
February 2024: Investigations into the allegations started gaining traction, with authorities questioning the authenticity of her claims and certifications. It was discovered that Puja’s family had significant wealth, raising further concerns about the genuineness of her claims under the affirmative action schemes.
July 2024: Arrests and Legal Action
July 2024: Puja Khedkar’s mother, Manorama Khedkar, was arrested after a video emerged showing her allegedly threatening individuals over a land dispute with a firearm. Following this, there were reports linking her family to fraudulent activities that extended beyond the IAS case.
July 19, 2024: The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) issued a notice declaring that Puja had used fraudulent means to gain admission, including using incorrect identity details for multiple attempts. She was banned from future examinations and selections by the UPSC.
August 2024: Legal Responses and Court Proceedings
August 1, 2024: Puja Khedkar was denied anticipatory bail by a Delhi court, as the investigations began to focus on whether anyone within the UPSC might have been complicit in her fraudulent actions.
August 7, 2024: Puja Khedkar appealed to the Delhi High Court, challenging the UPSC’s decision to cancel her candidature, arguing that she was not informed through the proper channels but only via media reports.
August 20, 2024: The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) completed its inquiry report, recommending further actions based on its findings.
Late August 2024: Discharge from IAS
August 21, 2024: The central government took decisive action and discharged Puja Khedkar from the Indian Administrative Service under Rule 12 of the IAS (Probation) Rules, 1954, with immediate effect, in response to the findings of her fraudulent conduct.
September 2024 and Beyond: Ongoing Legal Proceedings
September 2024: Investigations and legal proceedings continued regarding the allegations against Puja Khedkar, as the case raised concerns about the integrity of competitive exams and how fraud was allowed to persist within the system.