Court rejects journalist Gautam Navlakha's plea, says he can't permanently stay in Delhi
MUMBAI: Observing that "permanently residing outside the court's jurisdiction is a completely separate matter from merely travelling beyond it", a special NIA court on Thursday rejected a plea by journalist Gautam Navlakha, an accused in the Elgar Parishad case, seeking permission to permanently reside in Delhi.
Citing financial strain, unemployment, and an ailing 86-year-old sister, Navlakha moved the plea in April. "Since HC has not granted such liberty either to the accused or to this court as well, this unnecessary application deserves to be rejected," the judge said.
Court said Bombay HC, while imposing conditions on the accused and releasing him on bail, directed him "not to travel outside the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission of the trial court."
Navlakha, who was initially granted bail in 2023 but released from custody in 2024, is residing in Bandra (West). The plea said the 72-year-old and his partner, Sahba Hussain (73), are permanent residents of Delhi, where they have their home, employment, and social connections. Prosecution strongly opposed the plea.
"Over time, it has become uneconomical and burdensome for him to cope with the increasing finances. He has been struggling to meet up with the basic necessities such as house rent, bread and butter, travel, etc. Both of them are surviving out of their savings," the plea said. Navlakha was arrested in Delhi on April 14, 2020, and has been living in Mumbai since release. Court directed NIA to submit its reply.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Elgar case: Court refuses Gautam Navlakha permission to live in Delhi
A court here on Thursday (June 19, 2025) denied activist Gautam Navlakha, an accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, the permission to live in Delhi. Chakor Bhaviskar, special judge for National Investigation Agency (NIA) cases, rejected the plea. "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 an entirely different thing," the court said. The Bombay High Court, while setting his bail conditions, had not granted such liberty to Navlakha, the judge noted, adding, "this unnecessary application deserves to be rejected". Navlakha (72), a resident of Delhi, was arrested in the case in April 2020. He was granted bail by the Supreme Court in May 2024. One of his bail conditions was not to leave Mumbai without the permission of the special NIA court. He has been living in Mumbai with his partner. Saying that it had become "extremely difficult for him to sustain a stable lifestyle" in Mumbai, the accused in April sought the court's nod to live in Delhi. He was struggling to arrange funds for basic necessities such as food and house rent in the city, he said. He also struggled to find accommodation in Mumbai for about four months due to the pending case against him, Navlakha told the court. He would be able to find some employment in Delhi which was necessary to meet legal expenses, he argued, while also citing family issues such as the ill-health of his elder sister. The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches made at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, which Pune police claimed was backed by the Maoists. The speeches triggered caste violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial near Pune, the police claimed. Sixteen activists were arrested in the case which was later taken over by the NIA. Most of them are out on bail.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Chandigarh: Adarsh Colony demolished, UT reclaims 12 acres
The UT estate office demolished Adarsh Colony, an illegal settlement spread across Sectors 53 and 54, under its ongoing slum-free campaign on Thursday. It was the second last remaining slum in the city. The colony, which came up nearly two decades ago on approximately 12 acres of government land, housed around 1,000 shanties. The estimated value of the reclaimed land is ₹480 crore. The land, acquired by the Chandigarh Administration in 2002, is part of the city's master plan and will now be integrated into Sector 54 where residential plots are proposed to be developed. The demolition drive began at 6.30 am and continued until 10.30 pm. However, the operation was halted for nearly four hours after some occupants filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) on Wednesday. The hearing was scheduled for Thursday morning and after the court dismissed the petition, the drive resumed at 2.30 pm and concluded by 5.30 pm. To maintain law and order, around 1,000 police personnel were deployed at the site. Additionally, six ambulances, along with doctors and paramedical staff, were stationed to provide emergency medical support, if needed. Established in 2002, Adarsh Colony was home to labourers, hawkers, industrial workers, daily wagers, sanitation workers and domestic helpers, many of whom worked in the nearby furniture market. Now, only one slum area — Shahpur Colony in Sector 38 — is left in the UT. Spread over four acres, Shahpur Colony comprises about 300 shanties on encroached government land valued at ₹150 crore. Deputy commissioner Nishant Kumar Yadav said, 'This drive is not just about reclaiming land, but about sending a clear message that encroachments will not be tolerated. The reclaimed land will now be used in line with planned urban development goals.' To curb future encroachments, the administration has assigned three to four sectors to each junior engineer, who is required to submit a weekly report on any encroachment activity in their respective areas. The administration has been working to make Chandigarh slum-free since the early 2000s. In 2006, it launched an ambitious rehabilitation initiative under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, earmarking 356 acres — nearly 20% of the city's 2,811 acres of net vacant land — for the construction of 25,728 flats intended to house 23,841 families from 18 unauthorised colonies. The identified families, comprising over one lakh residents, were required to pay a nominal monthly rent after relocation. However, delays and non-payment have resulted in significant outstanding dues. In two months, the UT has reclaimed 28 acres as it razed Janta Colony in Sector 25 on May 6, reclaiming around 10 acres worth ₹350 crore. The site is now being earmarked for a dispensary, primary school, community centre and shopping area. On April 24, over 1,000 makeshift structures were razed in Sanjay Colony, Industrial Area, Phase 1. The colony had been encroaching on nearly six acres of prime government land worth ₹300 crore. In 2013, it razed Colony Number 5, followed by Colony Number 4 in 2022. Together, these two slums had occupied over 165 acres. Other demolished slums include Mazdoor Colony, Kuldeep Colony, Pandit Colony, Nehru Colony, Ambedkar Colony, Kajheri Colony and Madrasi Colony.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Telangana HC ends 16-year land row: Bholakpur slum status under review; collector told to act in 6 months, inform GHMC
HYDERABAD: The Telangana high court has disposed of a long-pending dispute over a property located in Bholakpur, Secunderabad, originally filed in 2008, along with a connected contempt case from 2021. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court directed the Hyderabad district collector to conduct an inquiry under the provisions of the Slum Improvement Act and to complete it within six months. The court further directed the collector to issue a reasoned order, taking into account all relevant facts, and to communicate the same to the petitioners in both the writ and contempt petitions, as well as to GHMC for necessary action. The dispute concerns approximately 12,056 square yards of private land known as 'Ramaswamy compound,' of which 9,000 square yards were notified as a slum area in 1999. The writ petitioners, claiming to be absolute owners of the land, challenged slum notification. Meanwhile, the contempt petitioners contested the 2007 GHMC eviction orders and a 2016 HC direction to maintain status quo. They also claimed to have been in possession of land for several decades, while the 2008 petitioners stated they had already secured eviction orders under Rent Control Act. While the petitioners in the contempt case alleged unauthorised demolition on the disputed land, the advocate commissioner's report found no proof of such activity.
