NIA court rejects Navlakha's plea for shifting to Delhi
MUMBAI: A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court on Thursday rejected a plea by civil rights activist Gautam Navlakha, arrested in connection with the 2018 Elgar Parishad-Bhima Koregaon case, to permanently reside in Delhi. Allowing Navlakha to travel beyond the jurisdiction of the court was entirely different from allowing him to permanently reside outside the court's jurisdiction, the special court said while rejecting his plea.
Navlakha, who is currently out on bail, had moved the court in April this year, saying it had become uneconomical and burdensome for him to live in Mumbai and sought permission to permanently reside in Delhi. Bail conditions require the activist, now in his 70s, to stay within the territorial jurisdiction of the special NIA court trying the case.
In his plea, Navlakha had pointed out that while his permanent residence, employment and social support system was in Delhi, where he used to live with his partner Sahba Hussain, the couple had been struggling to find accommodation in Mumbai for nearly four months due to the ongoing case.
The plea noted that Navlakha was unemployed and financially dependent on friends and family, which made it difficult for him to sustain a stable lifestyle in Mumbai. He also wished to live close to his ailing, 86-year-old sister in Delhi.
The activist assured to make himself available before the trial court and the investigating officer whenever required and to continue to abide by all other bail conditions imposed by the high court and Supreme Court, if his plea was allowed.
Special sessions judge Chakor S Baviskar said the 'unnecessary application deserves to be rejected' as the high court had not granted such liberty either to the trial court or to Navlakha.
'At the cost of repetition, I mention that, granting permission to the accused to travel beyond the jurisdiction of the court is a different thing and allowing him to reside permanently beyond the jurisdiction of the court is entirely different,' the court said.
Navlakha was one of 16 activists and intellectuals arrested in connection with the violence that broke out at Bhima Koregaon village near Pune on January 1, 2018. Navlakha and others are accused of fuelling the violence through their speeches at the Elgar Parishad, a conclave organised by around 260 civil society organisations in Pune's Shaniwar Wada on December 31, 2017. The conclave was organised to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the battle of Bhima Koregaon, in which a small Mahar regiment of the British army defeated a large Maratha contingent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
21 minutes ago
- The Wire
Why Indian Rivers Should Be Granted the Rights They Deserve
As North Eastern states experience disasters under flooding, rivers wreaking havoc, parts of the country also see an extreme season with the drying of its rivers having adversarial impact on soil, agriculture, and livelihoods of millions on depend upon it. Rivers and their critical vitality in shaping, managing and nurturing livelihoods have captured imagination of writers, artists, and scholars for centuries. In the ancient Hindu imagination, the Ganga is not a river. She is a mother. A bearer of life. A witness to history. For thousands of years, poets, priests, and pilgrims have also knelt at her banks, offering flowers and ashes alike. But in the courtroom, such reverence has not translated into responsibility. For Indian rivers today, personhood is poetry – but not yet law. And yet, the idea is not as far-fetched as it once seemed. If the river has a legal standing in a court of law In 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna 'living entities' with the rights of a legal person. For a brief moment, the river had standing in a court of law. It could, in theory, sue a polluter, resist a dam, or demand its flow be restored. But the decision was swiftly stayed by the Supreme Court, citing practical difficulties: Who would represent the river? Who would be liable if the river 'committed' harm, like flooding? The Ganga returned to her pre-modern role: sacred but silent. Eight years later, in 2025, the waters are rising again – this time not just in volume, but in voice. Earlier this year, Rajya Sabha MP Satnam Singh Sandhu too introduced a bill proposing that Indian rivers be granted legal personhood through statute. In a nation where rivers are worshipped yet routinely strangled by concrete and sewage, the symbolism is powerful. But what matters more is the potential shift in power: from human dominion to ecological dignity. We have reached the limits of technocratic solutions to ecological collapse. India's flagship Namami Gange mission, launched with fanfare by the PM in 2014, has spent tens of thousands of crores and built miles of sewage infrastructure. Yet, the state of the Yamuna river – an important tributary of Ganga – in Delhi remains a chemical soup, where, fish die-offs are routine, and residents routinely gag at its banks. No amount of money can save a river if its right to flow, breathe, and exist is not recognized in law. In February, a Supreme Court-appointed committee reported that illegal embankments had been constructed through Kalesar National Park, obstructing the Yamuna's natural flow. On paper, it was a clear violation of forest and water laws. But the implications ran deeper. These embankments were not just environmental infractions – they were symbolic of a larger rupture: the quiet, everyday mutilation of riverine systems under the guise of 'development.' When a river's path is bent without its consent, it is not merely diverted; it is disenfranchised. Climate activist Ridhima Pandey, who first came into national consciousness for suing the government over climate inaction stood against the Kalasa-Banduri diversion project in Karnataka. Her protest was against a legal structure that treats rivers as passive infrastructure rather than living systems with embedded rights. Not isolated acts of environmental negligence but democratic failures in slow motion These are not isolated acts of environmental negligence. They are democratic failures in slow motion. Rivers may not cast votes, but they irrigate the very geographies our electoral maps are drawn on. To exclude them from legal personhood is to ignore that their depletion undermines the people who depend on them and the constitutional promises made to those people. Critics scoff. They warn of legal absurdities. Who defends the river in court? Can a river own property? The answer lies not in abandoning the project but in refining it. Guardianship models – where citizens, tribal councils, or environmental boards act as legal stewards – have worked elsewhere. In New Zealand, Maori iwi serve as co-guardians. India, too, can empower communities that have lived with and for rivers, rather than outsourcing custodianship to bureaucratic boards 500 kilometers away. It is a reckoning with the doctrine of human supremacy. Our legal system, forged in colonial logic, sees rivers as resources, not relationships. They are either dams to be built or drains to be dredged. But this worldview has failed us. Climate change is not just an engineering challenge; it is a civilisational crisis. The law must evolve. To grant rivers rights is not to anthropomorphise them, but to decolonise the way we see the world. This is critical for their being and sustenance through a realisation, recognition of rights that matter. The Ganga, after all, has outlived empires. She will likely outlast this one too. But what shape will she take – choked and canalised, or flowing freely as a subject of law and reverence? Personhood is not a silver bullet. But it is a beginning. A way of saying: the river has been speaking all along. It's time we learned how to listen. Deepanshu Mohan is a Professor of Economics, Dean, IDEAS, and Director, Centre for New Economics Studies. He is a Visiting Professor at London School of Economics and an Academic Visiting Fellow to AMES, University of Oxford.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stays 2019 deportation order of Lankan Tamil refugee, asks govt for its stand
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the deportation of a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee, Bhaskaran Kumarasamy, a former member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), who fled to India in 2004 during the final years of the country's civil war, citing a serious threat to his life if sent back. Bhaskaran Kumarasamy also asked the Supreme Court to let him appear before the Swiss embassy in New Delhi to pursue a pending asylum application (ANI) A bench of justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh passed the interim order while hearing Kumarasamy's plea challenging the Madras high court's decisions from 2021 and 2024 that upheld the Tamil Nadu government's decision to deport him. The bench has also sought a response from the Centre and the Tamil Nadu government on the current status of his deportation. 'Considering that the deportation order is five years and six months old, we would like to be apprised of the status of the deportation. Meanwhile, the deportation is stayed,' said the bench, posting the matter for further hearing on August 4. Kumarasamy's counsel urged the court to intervene, pointing out that his client could be killed upon his return to Sri Lanka and that he should be permitted to appear before the Swiss embassy in New Delhi to pursue a pending asylum application. The court acknowledged the concern and also observed that Kumarasamy may explore the possibility of applying for Indian citizenship under the newly enacted Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), if eligible. Kumarasamy, a former cadre of the LTTE, fled from Jaffna's Nalloor area in 2004 with his wife, Sakuntala and daughters, Sobana and Sobiha -- then aged eight and six. The family entered India through Rameswaram and was lodged at the Mandapam refugee camp in Tamil Nadu. Kumarasamy claims to have given up arms before leaving Sri Lanka. In 2019, the Tamil Nadu government issued a deportation order against him, and since then, he has been entangled in a prolonged legal battle to stay in India. The Madras high court initially stayed the deportation in August 2020, noting the credible threat to his life in Sri Lanka. 'For the past 13 years, he is in India. Moreover, his family members, father, brother, brother's wife and daughter, were reportedly murdered by the Sri Lankan Army,' the high court had noted at the time, adding that deporting him would not serve the interest of justice. However, the high court reversed course in June 2021. Dismissing his plea to visit the Swiss embassy in Delhi to process his asylum request, the court held that Kumarasamy could no longer be considered a refugee under Indian law. It relied on the Tamil Nadu police's Q Branch's assertion that Sri Lanka was now safe for returnees and pointed out that Kumarasamy briefly travelled to Sri Lanka in 2014 for eye surgery -- a fact that, according to the court, weakened his claim of credible threat. Kumarasamy was also among 19 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees booked in 2016 by Tamil Nadu's Q Branch under multiple laws, including the Foreigners Act and other penal charges related to conspiracy, trafficking and cheating. He was arrested and moved from Bagayam refugee camp to Tiruchirappalli Special Camp, and later to Puzhal Central Jail. Though he and the others were acquitted of all charges in 2019, Kumarasamy remained confined to the special camp in Trichy. In 2020, he began the process of seeking asylum in Switzerland, where a sizeable diaspora of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees resides. According to Kumarasamy, the Swiss embassy in Delhi had asked him to appear for an interview as part of his application process. However, he was unable to obtain the necessary travel permission from the Tamil Nadu authorities. He claims that despite submitting official communication from the embassy, both the district collector of Tiruchirappalli and the local revenue inspector denied him permission to travel to Delhi. In February 2021, Kumarasamy petitioned the Madras high court to be allowed to travel to Delhi. But in June that year, the court not only dismissed his plea but also agreed with the authorities' contention that he no longer qualified for refugee protections.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
UK eyes more high skilled Indian professionals through Global Talent visa
The United Kingdom is looking to deepen its scientific and academic relationship with India by inviting more high-skilled professionals through its Global Talent visa scheme, British Science Minister Lord Patrick Vallance said on June 20, while speaking at the 'Unlocking UK-India Collaboration for a New Era of Innovation' session at the India Global Forum in London, Vallance said India's growing strength in science and technology offers strong potential for bilateral cooperation. 'There is already a strong relationship between India and the UK, and I think it's growing,' Vallance said. 'But government-to-government relationships on science aren't actually what drives everything. It has to be a scientist and a scientist as well.' The UK government plans to announce a new Industrial Strategy in the coming weeks, which will outline key international partnerships, including India, with a focus on science, innovation, and skilled mobility. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like These Companies Are Overcharging You For Florida Auto Insurance Smart Lifestyle Trends Learn More Undo Global talent visa in focus (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) The UK's Global Talent visa aims to attract top-tier individuals from around the world who have demonstrated leadership—or the potential for it—in academia, research, arts, culture, or technology. Available to professionals aged 18 and above, it targets both established figures and emerging leaders in these fields. Live Events MORE STORIES FOR YOU ✕ UK's Farage promises non-doms protection from tax on overseas assets UK's Britannia Card: All about Nigel Farage's plans to charge rich expats £250,000 to give to the poor « Back to recommendation stories I don't want to see these stories because They are not relevant to me They disrupt the reading flow Others SUBMIT Applicants typically need to secure an endorsement from a relevant UK body—such as the Royal Society for Science or Arts Council England for culture—unless they've already won a qualifying international award. Candidates can apply for the visa through the UK Home Office . The endorsement stage generally takes 4 to 8 weeks for a decision. After receiving endorsement, applicants must submit a visa application to UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI). The standard visa processing time is around 3 weeks when applying from outside the UK. Applicants are required to pay an endorsement fee of £524 and a visa application fee of £192. Additionally, the immigration health surcharge is £624 per year. The visa is typically granted for up to 5 years and is extendable, with eligibility for permanent settlement after 3 to 5 years depending on the endorsement type. To bring flexibility and international expertise into the UK, the visa supports long-term settlement: individuals recognised as established leaders may qualify for indefinite leave after three years, while those with emerging promise have a five-year path to settlement. Family members can also be included in this program.
