Back
SC Justice Chandurkar Recuses from Gadling Bail Plea
In a development underscoring persistent procedural challenges in high-stakes terror-related litigation, Justice Atul Chandurkar recused himself on Thursday from hearing the bail plea of advocate in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case. The matter, listed before a bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Chandurkar, now proceeds before a reconstituted bench led by Justice Maheshwari. This marks the second judicial recusal in the case, following Justice M.M. Sundresh's earlier withdrawal, highlighting repeated bench changes that have prolonged proceedings for Gadling, who has remained in custody since .
Gadling's appeal, docketed as , challenges a order denying him bail in the alleged Maoist-orchestrated arson at Surjagarh mines. Amid allegations of violations tied to Naxalite activities, the has repeatedly voiced concerns over Gadling's without trial conclusion—now exceeding seven years. Earlier hearings flagged systemic issues like trial delays, evidentiary hurdles, and infrastructural lapses, raising fundamental questions under Article 21 of the Constitution on the .
The Gadchiroli Arson Case: Origins and Allegations
The case traces back to , in the Maoist-affected Etapalli tehsil of Maharashtra's Gadchiroli district. Prosecution alleges that over 80 vehicles—reports vary between 39 and 80+—transporting iron ore from Surjagarh mines were set ablaze by Maoist insurgents, causing significant property damage and underscoring the region's ongoing Naxalite insurgency. Gadchiroli, a dense forest area bordering Chhattisgarh, has long been a hotbed for left-wing extremism, with frequent attacks on security forces and infrastructure.
, a human rights lawyer, stands accused of masterminding the attack as a "top comrade" in the Maoist hierarchy. The FIR, registered by , invokes stringent provisions: , alongside and select sections. Prosecutors claim Gadling directed co-accused to execute the arson, linking it to a broader conspiracy disrupting economic activities in "Maoist-infected areas."
Compounding matters, Gadling is also implicated in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence case, probed by the under for alleged Maoist instigation. Detained in Taloja Central Prison, his dual prosecutions exemplify the overlapping investigations in urban Naxal narratives, where electronic communications often serve as pivotal evidence.
Path to the : Denials and Appeals
Gadling's bail trajectory reflects the rigours of litigation. The rejected his plea, citing , which bars bail if the court finds " " to believe the accused guilty based on the case diary. Undeterred, Gadling escalated to the , where proceedings have been marked by fits and starts.
Judicial Recusals and Bench Reconstitutions
Recusals have been a recurring theme. Justice M.M. Sundresh withdrew earlier, shifting the matter to Justice Maheshwari's bench. No reasons were assigned for Justice Chandurkar's recusal—a standard practice under judicial norms to preserve impartiality—yet it exacerbates delays. Such reconstitutions, while ensuring fairness, risk eroding judicial continuity, particularly in complex, evidence-heavy cases like this.
SC's Scrutiny of Trial Delays and Detention
The
has not shied from critiquing the prosecution's pace. In a
hearing, the bench questioned:
"whether an undertrial can be kept in custody for years without meaningful progress in proceedings."
It issued pointed queries to Maharashtra: reasons for trial delays, status of discharge applications, prosecution's trial scheme (including splits with absconding co-accused), and expected completion timeline.
Gadling's counsel highlighted the trial court's vacuum—no permanent public prosecutor and, critically, no presiding judge in the designated . The bench indicated it would escalate the judge appointment to the Chief Justice. Nationally, data reveals over 70% of prisoners are undertrials, with cases averaging multi-year delays, amplifying Article 21 concerns as articulated in precedents like .
Clash of Arguments: Defence vs. Prosecution
Senior Advocate , for Gadling, hammered procedural lapses: voluminous electronic evidence (overlapping with Bhima Koregaon) not supplied, repeated video conferencing glitches (failing on five dates despite directives), and stalled charge-framing due to inspection barriers. Grover stressed: seven years' custody without trial commencement violates liberty.
Opposing vehemently,
portrayed Gadling as integral to Maoist logistics:
"the case was 'of Naxalite activities...attacking our jawans..these persons have provided the logistics..in the Maoist infected areas...'"
The State labeled him a
"top comrade"
, noting a pending application to transfer Bhima Koregaon records and Gadling's delayed response.
Judicial Directives for Progress
Responsive to concerns, the Court mandated: improved video facilities; appointing an officer for defence inspection of electronic records to expedite charges; and urgency on staffing. In , it granted Maharashtra one week for its affidavit. Earlier, on Grover's plea, it adjourned for arguments post-progress review, balancing security with fairness.
Legal Analysis: Balancing Security and Liberty
This saga illuminates tensions in jurisprudence. Section 43D(5) tilts towards detention, but rulings like Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) permit bail if trial stagnation infringes Article 21. Gadling's case mirrors Bhima Koregaon developments, where activists like Stan Swamy secured interim reliefs before tragic outcomes, prompting scrutiny of " " under .
Recusals invoke the principle—judges must recuse on , sans explanation. Yet frequent ones, as here, invite criticism for stalling justice. Electronic evidence protocols ( compliance) and special court infrastructure emerge as pain points, necessitating reforms akin to NCLAT/NCLT models for speedy disposal.
Implications for Litigation and Practice
For legal practitioners, this underscores strategies: leveraging trial delays for bail (post- Najeeb ), demanding evidence supply under , and challenging court vacancies via writs. It spotlights Maoist cases' resource intensity—Gadchiroli's remoteness amplifies logistical woes. Broader impacts: potential CJI suo motu on staffing; policy pushes for amendments amid 2023 data showing 90%+ conviction denials on appeal; and defence tactics emphasizing overlap to argue multiplicity.
In Maoist heartlands, such cases fuel debates on overreach vs. security, with undertrial stats (61,000+ accused, per MHA) demanding legislative tweaks like time-bound trials.
Looking Ahead
With the bench reconstituted and affidavit pending, Gadling's plea hangs in balance. The 's proactive stance signals intolerance for indefinite detention, potentially paving way for bail if delays persist. Legal observers await whether this catalyzes systemic fixes, ensuring 's rigour does not eclipse constitutional safeguards. For now, the case exemplifies the justice system's tightrope in terror prosecutions.
