Supreme Court Extends Interim Protection Granted To Assam MLA Akhil Gogoi In UAPA Case Till March 20

A division bench of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal was told that Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the embattled legislator, was unavailable and an adjournment was sought for this reason. The senior counsel's father former CJI AM Ahmadi had passed away yesterday.

While adjourning the matter, the bench also categorically stated that the interim protection that it had earlier granted to Gogoi would be extended. On February 21, the bench headed by Justice Ramasubramanian had enjoined the federal agency from taking the legislative assembly member into custody till Friday, February 24, when the matter was scheduled to be taken up next. Subsequently, the interim protection was extended a number of times.

Gogoi, an independent legislator representing Assam’s Sibsagar and president of a regional, progressive party, Raijor Dal, was arrested in December 2019 when the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act were at their peak. He was booked under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity between different communities), and 153B (making imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Various provisions of the UAPA were also pressed into service.

Subsequently, even while incarcerated, he contested and won the assembly elections in 2021, defeating Bharatiya Janata Party’s Surabhi Rajkonwari. He was subsequently released after spending one and a half years in detention for his alleged role in the anti-CAA agitation, when a special NIA court discharged him, and three other persons, on the ground of the non-availability of material on record on the basis of which charges could be framed.

However, earlier in February, the high court set aside the order of the special court which was challenged by the federal agency. While remanding the matter back to the court for fresh charge-hearing against all the four accused, a division bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Malasari Nandi observed, “The impugned judgment has the trappings of an order of acquittal rather than an order of discharge. As such, the approach of the special judge, NIA, in our considered opinion, was clearly erroneous in the eye of law, thus having a vitiating effect on the impugned judgment.”

It is against this judgement from which the legislator has sought an appeal before the top court, arguing, inter alia, that the high court failed to even examine whether a prima facie case was made out in the matter before overturning the special court’s verdict. Nothing in his conduct could be traced back to an alleged controversy to destroy the national integrity or any terrorist activity, the Raijor Dal president has asserted. The MLA has also been critical of the BJP-led government ‘misusing’ the National Investigation Agency and the anti-terror statute to muzzle dissent. In the last hearing, Ahmadi had defended the legislator saying that he was “a political leader and elected representative of the people” who was being targeted for being critical of the ruling dispensation, However, the Solicitor-General for India, Tusha Mehta had vehemently remonstrated against this assertion. Accusing Gogoi of being the linchpin of a network of Maoist sympathisers and supporters, Mehta had exclaimed, “Elected representatives cannot simultaneously be terrorists.”

The plaint was filed through Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Sahil Tagotra. Gogoi was represented by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, Advocate Ninad Laud, and Tagotra.

Case Title

Akhil Gogoi v. The State (National Investigation Agency) & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2504 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order