Akhil Gogoi’s speech during anti-CAA protests political statement, not UAPA offence: NIA court

An NIA judge held that there was no ‘incitement’ to damage property or obstruct public officials to categorise Gogoi’s actions as punishable under UAPA.

Sivasagar MLA Akhil Gogoi produced before a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Guwahati on 22 June 2021 | Photo: ANI

New Delhi: Peasant leader Akhil Gogoi’s speech at an anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) rally in Assam’s Chabua in 2019, may have been a sharp political statement, but it was not an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court said while discharging the Sivasagar MLA of criminal charges.

In his order, NIA judge Pranjal Das said there was no “incitement” to damage property or obstruct public officials to categorise Gogoi’s actions as a punishable offence under the UAPA.

The judge said there wasn’t sufficient evidence prima facie to charge Gogoi under the penal provisions.

“I am of the considered opinion that the omissions and commissions of A-1 (accused Gogoi) revealed by the materials cannot be prima-facie said to be a terrorist act done with the intention of threatening unity, integrity, sovereignty and security of India or a terrorist act done with the intention to strike terror in the people,” Das held in the 58-page order, delivered Tuesday.

The court cited the controversial Delhi High Court judgment last week granting bail to three student activists in a Delhi riots case. While the judgment was not binding on it, the NIA court said it chose to borrow the HC’s analysis and definition of a terrorist activity under UAPA.

It even referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the Zahoor Watali case to observe that for the purpose of framing charge under UAPA the degree of satisfaction of existence of prima facie evidence is higher than while adjudicating bail under the law.

The judge also set free three more persons facing similar penal provisions as Gogoi, but framed charges against one of them for allegedly being part of a riotous mob.

Relief in first case related to anti-CAA protests

This is the first out of 15 cases lodged against Gogoi for his alleged participation in various anti-CAA protests, in which he has got a clean chit. While two, including the Chabua one, were transferred to the NIA, the others continue to be with the local police.

Gogoi’s lawyer Shantanu Borthakur told ThePrint that the Assam Police had registered 15 criminal cases against the MLA in connection with the protests. Six out of those 15 were under UAPA sections, with two handed over to the NIA. Now, he has been discharged in one of the two NIA cases.

“As for the Chabua case, it is over now. The second NIA case is pending trial and we are hoping it will get over soon. With regard to the cases pending with the local police, they seem to be still under investigation since Gogoi is yet to receive any summons warranting his presence in the court in connection with these matters,” Borthakur said.

The lawyer added that Gogoi will remain in jail since he was not granted bail in the pending NIA case. “Otherwise, he is on bail in 14 cases, including the Chabua one where the Gauhati High Court had last year held no terrorist activity was made out against Gogoi,” he said.

Arguments and counter-arguments

The case against Gogoi was registered following his arrest for a speech he delivered on 12 December 2019 at an anti-CAA protest in Chabua, Dibrugarh district.

The FIR was initially filed under IPC provisions at the behest of a sub-inspector, who alleged Gogoi incited the crowd to break into violence in which the police officer got injured. Later, UAPA charges were added, and on the orders of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, the NIA took over the probe on 9 April 2020.

The NIA filed its charge sheet against four persons, including Gogoi, on 26 June 2020.

Gogoi was accused of provoking the crowd to commit violence that “led to serious injury on one police official, apart from destruction of property and vehicles”. The protest, it was alleged, had caused an economic blockade in the area.

Statements of witnesses, several of whom were police officials, Gogoi’s speech and transcript of his mobile conversations with other participants were submitted as evidence.

In defence, Gogoi’s counsel claimed the transcripts did not reveal any conspiracy, statements of witnesses were at variance with the evidence on record, and the evidence didn’t make out any terrorist offence.

Contents of speech weigh overstatement of some witnesses, says court

In the wake of some witnesses claiming Gogoi gave a provocative speech to the crowd that turned violent, the court studied the contents of his speech to correlate the two pieces of evidence.

It held that the tone and tenor of the speech might have been aggressive on the issue of CAA, but it did not incite violence, instigate to damage public property or obstruct public officials. Contradictions in the statement of a few witnesses about Gogoi leading violent mobs throwing stones and his speech were also noted.

If the contents of the speech don’t contain instigation of violence, simply statements by some witnesses about Gogoi giving provocative speech leading to violence cannot be relied on to impose criminal liability on him, the court held.

“In large gatherings, where speeches are delivered on contentious issues, it is possible for the crowd to get excited and some unruly elements therein might take undue advantage of the situation to indulge in unacceptable behaviour,” said the court.

At best, the court added, it was Gogoi’s moral responsibility to stop those who resorted to vandalism following the bandh.