A Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi granted the State one additional week to submit its response, making it clear that no further adjournment would be allowed. he Supreme Court on Wednesday gave the Maharashtra government a final extension to file its affidavit in response to a petition moved by advocate Surendra Gadling – accused in the 2016 Surjagarh iron ore mine arson case.
A Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi granted the State one additional week to submit its response, making it clear that no further adjournment would be allowed. The order came after Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the State, sought extension of time to file the affidavit. Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Gadling, objected to the delay and pointed out that nearly six weeks had passed since the Supreme Court (on September 24) directed the State to explain the reasons for the prolonged pendency of the trial. He maintained that such delays were unjustified and had resulted in continued incarceration of the petitioner Gadling.
Earlier, the apex court had voiced concern over the slow pace of proceedings, questioning whether an undertrial could be kept in jail indefinitely. “How many years can a person be kept in custody without the trial progressing,” the Bench had asked the state government.
Responding to this, ASG Raju submitted that the delay was not attributable to the prosecution but to the accused himself, contending that Gadling had filed a discharge application but refused to argue it unless permitted to appear physically in court.
The proceedings arise out of Gadling’s bail plea in connection with the 2016 Surjagarh mine arson incident, in which Maoist insurgents allegedly set fire to 76 vehicles engaged in transporting iron ore from the mines in Gadchiroli district on December 25, 2016.
Earlier, on January 31, 2023, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court had dismissed Gadling’s bail plea, observing that prima facie the allegations against him appeared to be true.
The prosecution alleges that Gadling, a Nagpur-based lawyer and rights activist, had links with Maoist operatives and provided them with confidential information, including maps of strategic areas, while urging local residents to resist mining operations at Surjagarh.
According to the State, Gadling conspired with several co-accused—some of whom remain absconding—and maintained contact with underground Maoist networks. He has been charged under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).