By Mumbai Mirror Bureau

Following newspaper reports on Thursday of the murder of a well known RTI activist of Pune, and the recent attack on a Mumbai-based activist and member of an NGO that filed a PIL on matters related to slum and illegal hawkers, the Bombay High Court on Thursday took suo motu notice on the issue of threats received by citizens and activists who are fighting various causes and have approached the court for justice. RTI activist of Pune Satish Shetty, who was murdered on January 13 by two unidentified assailants, was known to have opposed land deals for the Mumbai-Pune Expressway Project and nefarious land deals in Pune area. The court also mentioned the recent attack at the residence of Mumbai-based activist Nayana Kathpalia, a member of Citispace that filed a PIL in HC related to the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, illegal hawkers and open spaces. Mentioning reports of Shetty’s death, the court said: "This incident came immediately after the attack on another activist (Kathpalia) who is a petitioner before this court."

A division bench of Justice F I Rebello and Justice J H Bhatia said: We direct the State Government and also the Director General of Police to file an affidavit regarding what steps are being taken to investigate these matters, and what steps the government proposes to take to address the threat perceptions received by others who move this court.

While taking suo motu cognisance on the issue of threats to litigants, the division bench stated that it cannot close its eyes to these incidents. “We will not take threats to citizens and activists who approach court for relief, lightly. We will take it very seriously. Such incidents are simply to dissuade public interest litigants from approaching courts. So this court cannot close its eyes to these incidents, and hence takes suo motu notice, especially that of  the murder of Mr. Shetty,” observed the bench.

The directions came up during the hearing of Pune-based urologist Dr Rohit Mehta, whose case regarding land grab has been clubbed with an ongoing PIL on the issue.

Last year, Dr Mehta moved an intervention application saying that his land was being usurped by revenue and police authorities. Mehta said that after he approached HC, he received threats from a police inspector right outside HC. “My client was also asked to withdraw the petition,” said Amit Kumar Bhoumik, Mehta’s lawyer. Mehta had sought police protection.

During the morning session, taking a cue from the Shetty case, Mehta informed the court that even he apprehended danger to his life. The court asked Mehta to file a detailed report on the threat he received, and kept the matter for the post lunch session.

However, Advocate General Ravi Kadam said that the complaint was bogus, and no security should be provided to Dr Mehta. “There is no merit in this case. How and why will any person threaten him and ask him to withdraw the petition? In none of his affidavits did the applicant state what exactly was the threat. Two earlier affidavits too are silent on the threat aspect. The applicant is merely riding on newspaper reports and there is no substance in it,” said Kadam.

The court did not instruct the Pune police commissioner to provide protection to Mehta, but left it open to Mehta to file a complaint with the police commissioner who could then investigate and provide protection if needed.