An FIR registered by the Telangana police under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against intellectuals and human rights activists of the state has sparked outrage leading to a directive by the Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao to the police chief to drop the charges against some persons. However, experts say that a closer scrutiny of the FIR lodged against G Haragopal, a former professor of the University of Hyderabad, Padmaja Shah, V Raghunath, and 149 others raises several questions.
They include how the police could file an FIR, without application of mind, compiling the names they came across on seized 'Maoist literature' and the bandage approach towards the reckless use of the draconian UAPA by KCR after the FIR came to light. The Mulugu District Police had on Saturday, June 17, stated they would soon be filing a memo in court requesting deletion of six names including G Haragopal, a former professor of the University of Hyderabad, Padmaja Shaw, V Raghunath, Gaddam Laxman, Gunti Ravinder and Suresh Kumar as they could not find enough evidence regarding their involvement in the case.
Speaking to TNM, Delhi-based criminal lawyer Abhinav Sekhri said mere removal of names from the FIR does not achieve much. “Even if names are removed, the individuals can become part of the investigation later on. The problem with UAPA and most of criminal law is that it gives the police a long rope to deem anyone a suspect and gives them unfettered coercive powers,” said Sekhri.
The reluctance of the police to quash the entire FIR and give respite only for a select few has also been questioned. Condemning the use of UAPA, some of the accused had held a press meet at Sundarayya Vignana Kendram on Saturday in which they demanded that the case against all 152 individuals be withdrawn and the law be scrapped. There is also a chance of the National Investigation Agency taking up such probes as Section 6 of the NIA Act says that on receipt of information and recording under section 154 of the CrPc relating to any Scheduled Offence the officer-incharge of the police station shall forward the report to the state government which then has to forward it to the Union government.
The FIR was registered after a police team led by V Shankar, Circle Inspector of Police, Pasra, searched a tent alleged to be the meeting place of CPI Maoists on August 19, 2022. The police claimed they had recovered Maoist literature from the tent and compiled the names they found on it while filing the FIR.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties General Secretary V Suresh said the entire case has been cooked up. An FIR with UAPA provisions cannot be treated like any other FIR, he said. “When the origin of the case itself is shrouded in fraud, the case deserves to be thrown out,” he said. Suresh also said the case was eerily similar to one in which Munchingput police in Visakhapatnam had booked 63 activists under provisions of UAPA and sedition law for being Maoist supporters. “There was really no direct link connecting the activists to the case,” he said
Pasra CI V Shankar, in the FIR, stated that while he was patrolling the Beerella forest area along with other officers, he learnt that a “conspiracy meeting” by banned CPI(Maoist) was underway to discuss “killing politicians and policemen to usurp democratically elected government.” The police combing party then came across armed men in ‘olive green uniforms’ and asked them to surrender, but they fled. The police later found a tent from which literature related to the prohibited CPI Maoists was recovered.
As per the FIR, the seized literature mentioned works of leaders belonging to Telangana Vidyarthi Sangham (TVS), Democratic Students Union (DSU), Telangana Raithanaga Samithi (TRS), Praja Kala Mandali (PKM), People’s Democratic Movement (PDM), Civil Liberties Committee (CLC), Kula Nirmoolana Porata Samithi, Telangana Democratic Forum, United-Anti Hindu Fascist Forces, Revolutionary Writers Association (Virasam), Democratic Teachers Forum, United Anti-Hindu Fascist Forces and Indian Association of People’s Lawyers.
“This isn’t a new story. Even as early as the 1910s, banned pamphlets were used as reasoning to deem someone a criminal. When the crime itself is so broad - being a member (with membership itself being undefined) of an organisation declared unlawful - police will point to anything that remotely spells involvement. Books have always been a good place to start, and the law conveniently places the burden on an accused to demonstrate that the pamphlet or book is not indicative of actual membership in a banned organisation,” said Sekhri. The Supreme Court has previously held that mere possession of Maoist literature or even support to the banned outfit is not an offence but this has not stopped the police from filing FIRs based on it.
“The problem with the UAPA is that it grants uncontrolled powers to the police. When in 2004, activists noted that the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) was being abused by officials, the Congress added the repeal of POTA as part of its manifesto. They repealed POTA when they won but added the draconian provisions of POTA to the UAPA. Until then UAPA was intended to check unlawful activities and wasn’t supposed to be an anti-terror law,” said Suresh.