The Purulia Arms Drop Case is one of the most deplorable
instances in the history of national security in India, and all the agencies in
the Indian national security apparatus are to be blamed for this. Most people
now do not know about this case, as the last discussion over this issue was in
2015 when BJD MP from Orissa, Tathagata Satapathy, raised this issue in
Parliament, and we still have not received many answers from the government
regarding this issue.
Background
The story starts when an AN 32 aircraft took off from
Karachi Airport in Pakistan, with its intended destination being Dhaka,
Bangladesh. However, it diverted on the way to drop a consignment of arms, like
the airdrops in the famous game PUBG. An aircraft taking off from Pakistan is
enough to raise alarms, but after the plane re-entered Indian airspace, it was
pursued and forced to land at Mumbai International Airport. All the accused
passengers were caught, but one, who was also the mastermind of the operation,
managed to escape from this high-security cordoned-off area. He later revealed
that he was helped by an Indian MP who is still an MP as of 2024.
Government's Side of the Story
The government's side of the story is simple: it was a case
of terrorism, and all the accused will be tried, and the one who escaped will
be extradited.
Accused Side of the Story
There was a total of eight members, consisting of five
Russians, one Singaporean of Indian origin, one British national, and one
Danish citizen who is also the mastermind of the operation. The mastermind, Kim
Davy, claims that the arms were dropped with cooperation from Indian agencies
to supposedly bring down the communist government led by Jyoti Basu in West
Bengal. The arms were dropped for an organization named Ananda Marga, which had
various conflicts with the communists of Bengal. The main mastermind, Kim Davy,
has written a book about this case.
Case Law
After this fiasco, the accused were convicted under the Arms
Act, Explosives Act, Aircraft Act, and for waging war against India as per
Section 121A of the IPC. Soon, the accused challenged this order in Calcutta
High Court in the case of Peter James Gifran Von Kalkestein ... vs State Of
West Bengal And Ors. on 20 September 2002. In this case, one of the
accused, Peter Bleach, made an interesting argument. He raised some intriguing
questions over the President's power of pardon as per Article 72 of the Indian
Constitution and Article 161 for the Governor, along with Article 361, which
gives the President the power to not answer the court in the exercise of his
power.
Peter Bleach contended that since the other five Russians
were convicted for the same offence he did, they got a pardon from the
President, but he did not, as he was discriminated against. He argued that
Article 14 of the Constitution, which ensures equality before the law, is
applicable to all, including foreigners, and the President, being the head of
the executive, cannot make any decision contrary to the Constitution. For his
support, he produced many landmark judgments such as Swaran Singh Vs State
of UP, Satpal Vs State of Haryana, SR Bommai Vs Union of India,
and Harbans Singh Vs State of UP.
The Hon'ble Court considered the merits of all those
judgments but ultimately found that Peter Bleach was not on equal footing with
the other accused, as he was instrumental in buying the aircraft. Therefore,
the question of whether the President or Governor can be held liable for using
the powers of pardon in a discriminatory manner or contrary to the Constitution
was left unanswered.
Conclusion
The Purulia Arms Drop Case remains a dark chapter in India's
national security history. Despite the various narratives and legal battles,
many questions remain unanswered, reflecting the complexities and challenges in
addressing such significant security breaches. This case serves as a stark
reminder of the need for vigilance, transparency, and accountability within the
national security apparatus.
No comments:
Post a Comment