Being Maoist is a Crime; HC Ruling was Illegal: Kerala Govt

KOCHI: Being Maoist is a crime and a single bench’s ruling that it is not so is illegal, state government has contended at the Kerala High Court.
Questioning the judgment delivered by a single bench on May 22nd, government has filed an appeal demanding that the order must be set aside. The single bench had held that being a Maoist is no crime and that police cannot detain a person merely because he is a Maoist, unless police forms a reasonable opinion that his activities are unlawful.
Government’s appeal said the single bench’s finding is absolutely illegal and against the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
In the appeal, the government reasons, “Maoism is an ideology which is accepted by certain persons who formed an organization which is banned in the country. Therefore nobody can be a member of that banned association and can indulge in any Maoist activities or partake or be a sympathizer by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise as defined by section 2(o) of the Act. The word ‘otherwise’ is having wider amplitude and nobody can self-proclaim that he is a Maoist, which itself is an offence.”
Not only acts of violence can be punished as per UAPA but acts that seem to be innocent, such as advocating or advising or indirectly abetting or incite the commission of any unlawful activity and everybody associated with the dissemination, propagation, and spreading of the ideology will be held liable, government said in the appeal.
It is also argued by the government that police taking a person for questioning cannot be said to be under illegal detention or custody. The single bench had held that arrest not only includes a formal arrest recorded by police but also deprivation of liberty when taken in for questioning.
However, government has claimed in the appeal that it is a settled principle of law that a person who is taken for a lawful purpose such as interrogation or enquiry cannot be said to be in illegal custody. In Shyam Balakrishnan’s case, which was considered by the single bench, police only took him for questioning, which cannot be termed as an illegal custody attracting Article 21 (protection of life and liberty), the appeal said.