2016 Surjagarh arson case: Advocate Gadling can appear in person to argue his discharge plea, says court

The state government had told the Supreme Court that the delay was due to Gadling’s insistence at being produced physically to argue the discharge plea and said that it was not possible due to security reasons.

Gadling is currently lodged in a jail near Mumbai, as an undertrial in the Elgaar Parishad case.

“The accused (Gadling) has been in custody since 2019 (in the arson case) and has not been physically produced before this court even once during this six-year period. The discharge application itself has been pending for nearly three years. In these circumstances, to deny physical production for purposes of arguing the discharge application would compound the injustice already caused by inordinate delay,” special judge Prakash R Kadam said in an order passed on October 6, made available this week.

“A fair trial necessarily includes the right of an accused to defend himself effectively….While it primarily encompasses the right to engage counsel of one’s choice, it also includes in appropriate circumstances the right to argue one’s case in person,” the court said.

The court directed authorities of the Taloja Central prison to produce Gadling in person before the Gadchiroli court on October 28 and make all necessary arrangements for his safe custody and that of the police team escorting him, during transit and in court.

The case relates to an incident that occured in Gadchiroli on December 25, 2016, when 76 vehicles transporting iron ore from Surjagarh mines were set ablaze. The police had alleged that this was the handiwork of members of banned organisation, CPI (Maoist) and booked Gadling for allegedly aiding the Maoists.

Gadling had filed the discharge plea in 2022 and as a practicing lawyer, who also represented himself in the Mumbai court, sought to be physically produced for the proceedings in the Aheri court.

The police had opposed the plea citing security reasons.

The court heard Gadling on video-conference (VC) on whether he needs to be physically produced. The court observed that during the hearing which went on for about 40 minutes, there were disruptions and disconnections at least 4-5 times in the VC connection and that the infrastructure is “far from ideal”.

“The audio quality fluctuated significantly, rendering portions of the accused’s submissions inaudible or barely comprehensible. This court found itself repeatedly requesting the accused to repeat his points, an exercise both frustrating for the speaker and unsatisfactory for the listener,” the court said.

Gadling had argued that since the charges against him filed by the police are serious, including sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, he needs to make detailed submissions which is not possible with the interruptions and disruptions on VC.

The police said that the potential risk in producing him before the court has to be considered, rather than “merely facilitating the accused’s preference” for physical production.

Gadling said that he has been released on temporary bail thrice since 2019 and has stayed in Nagpur then. The court considered these submissions and said that it is not unmindful of the security concerns but they must not restrict the rights of an accused when not backed by specific intelligence or a particular “threat assessment”.