Twenty-eight persons summoned in con nection with the October 2024 agitation over for mer RSS Goa chief Subhash Velingkar’s remarks on St Francis Xavier appeared before the First Addition al Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Court in Mar gao on Friday, questioning the number and nature of charges against them. The appearance followed the court taking cognisance of the chargesheet filed by Fatorda police over the blocking of the National Highway during the agita tion.
The accused contended that several charges did not correspond to what occurred during the protest and ques tioned why they faced such a wide range of serious provi sions for protesting Veling kar’s remarks and demand ing action against him. Advocate and activist Pratima Coutinho, speaking after the proceedings, criti cised the action against the protesters and questioned how the case had been pur sued, maintaining that the charges were excessive. The issue of selective ac tion was also raised. Fidol Pereira questioned why Ve lingkar had not faced simi lar police action over a road blockade during his recent Marathi-language agitation in Panjim, while the Margao protesters were booked for blocking the National High way.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Meshu D’Costa, another accused, also raised con cerns over the charges and police action. The case stems from the October 4 and 5, 2024 agi tation in Margao and other parts of Goa following Ve lingkar’s controversial re marks on St Francis Xavier. Protesters demanded his ar rest and action against him, while blockades at Old Mar ket Circle, Fatorda, and the National Highway caused major traffic disruption. Fatorda police registered multiple FIRs and later filed chargesheets against 154 protesters in four FIRs. The present chargesheet invokes BNS provisions relating to unlawful assembly, obstruc tion of public transport, obstructing police in their duties and breach of peace, besides Section 8-B of the National Highways Act and Section 92 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. The protesters have ob jected not only to their prosecution but also to the breadth of the charges and what they describe as une qual application of the law.
