The Supreme Court docket on Thursday asked the Maharashtra executive at hand over your total case diary to search out out how the investigation into riots in Bhima-Koregaon village expanded into the discovery of a “Maoist procedure on the lifetime of a sovereign head”, main to the crackdown and arrests of rights activists across the nation.A Bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud reserved for supreme orders on Thursday on a petition filed by historian Romila Thapar and four others for a determined investigation crew probe into the conditions main to the raids and picking up of poet Vara Vara Rao, attorney Sudha Bhardwaj and activists Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves and Gautam Navlakha.The Maharashtra executive accused them of hyperlinks with the banned Communist Fetch together of India (Maoist). Extra Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the court docket of an honest probe and asked them to be handed over from home arrest into custody.Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the petitioners, described the arrests as a “check case”, foisted to learn the extent to which inside of most liberty of residents would be shackled.‘An amalgamation of ideology and lawlessness’Senior advocate Harish Salve, for Tushar Damgude whose criticism resulted in the Bhima-Koregaon FIR in January, countered that “one man’s freedom fighter is every other man’s terrorist”. Mr. Salve acknowledged the case represents an amalgamation of ideology and lawlessness.“Unlawful activities can’t be tolerated. You might be ready to hold any ideology, nevertheless it will perchance perhaps perchance aloof no longer skedaddle into unlawfulness. Contours where free speech ends and lawlessness begins can hold to be marked,” Mr. Salve argued.He acknowledged the court docket can hold to aloof note whether this probe is merely an expression of hostility to a political ideology. “If, on the diversified hand, Your Lordships feel we are on the path of unlawful activities, then let the investigation continue,” he submitted.The prayer for environment up a determined investigation crew might perhaps no longer be a ritual incantation. PILs now got right here in a “cleave-paste template” to the Supreme Court docket, he acknowledged.Mr. Salve argued that a determined investigation crew became dilemma up to originate good that an ongoing investigation became no longer derailed by persons in power or when there became no sanctity in an investigation. Here, the investigation became being performed as per the book.He acknowledged the quiz whether a particular person became rightly arrested or no longer can hold to be examined on a particular person-to-particular person basis. Courts beneath might perhaps dispassionately watch into the allegations. Shall we embrace, in the sensational 2G scam case, the trial deem waited for years and discharged the accused when no evidence became coming near near.“Our judiciary is necessary. Our magistrates can take care of prison law,” Mr. Salve acknowledged, raising the difficulty of petitioners straight having approached the apex court docket. “There are four tiers of charm for the accused. Then your lordships are always there. In the end, it [this case] might perhaps wind up right here,” he acknowledged.‘Case if framed’Mr. Singhvi alleged that your total case became framed to develop an air of prejudice.“The FIR filed became on the Koregaon violence, but the 5 activists were picked up on August 28 for a Maoist procedure on the lifetime of a sovereign head. Maoist procedure is never any longer per the FIR. This procedure finds no level out in any record produced in court docket. You enact no longer act adore this if there’s a Maoist procedure against the Prime Minister,” he submitted.Mr. Salve took stable objection to Mr. Singhvi’s references to a press convention held by Maharashtra Police ADGP (Regulations and Affirm) Parambir Singh. Mr. Singhvi acknowledged Mr. Singh had “flashed and circulated” documents allegedly to connect the arrested activists to Maoists.Mr. Salve acknowledged the senior police officer can hold to be allowed to file an affidavit in court docket on whether he did distribute any documents and which ones. He can’t be accused carte blanche, he objected.Mr. Singhvi asked how a Mr. Salve’s client, a mere intervenor, might perhaps forward arguments in favour of the Maharashtra police. In reply, Mr. Salve acknowledged Mr. Singhvi’s purchasers were “third occasions” and no longer the arrested activists.At one level, Chief Justice Misra asked Mr. Singhvi to forestall arguing as if in trial court docket on a remand utility. “That is a writ petition beneath Article 32,” he observed.Justice Khanwilkar acknowledged even if the prayer might perhaps perchance be for environment up of a determined investigation crew, the arguments made by the petitioners pressed for quashing of the charges itself.