New Delhi, June 18
Expressing surprise over the Delhi High Court writing a 100-page judgement granting bail to three student activists facing charges under UAPA in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, the Supreme Court on Friday said the order can’t be treated as a precedent.
“In a bail application, 100 pages of judgment and judges discussing all laws… that’s what is surprising us…The way UAPA has been interpreted by the high court, probably will require examination by us,” a Bench led by Justice Hemant Gupta said.
“It’s troubling that the high court has gone on to narrow down the scope of the UAPA in a bail application when there was no challenge to the statute,” it noted.
Terming it an “important issue” that can have pan-India ramifications, the top court issued notices to accused – Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha – who were released from Tihar Jail on Thursday.
“Let the counter be filed in four weeks… Meantime this (Delhi HC) order will not be treated as a precedent by any party before any court,” the Bench said posting the matter for hearing in the week starting from July 19.
However, the three accused will remain out at this stage as it said the relief granted to them would not be affected at this stage.
The order came on a petition by Delhi Police challenging the HC order granting bail to the activists after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought a stay on the HC order.
Mehta said the high court’s findings called for acquittal of the accused and others were also moving for bail based on this judgement.
“It’s virtually an acquittal order. The trial court will have to entertain a discharge application and replace it with this judgment,” the Solicitor General submitted.
“Right to protest, how does it include right to kill people?” Mehta said, adding 53 people were killed and 700 others injured in the Delhi riots that happened during the then US President Donald Trump’s India visit last year.
On behalf of the accused, senior advocate Kapil Sibal opposed Mehta’s submission and urged the court not to stay the HC verdict.
Holding that right to protest is a fundamental right which can’t be termed as a ‘terrorist act’, the Delhi High Court had on Thursday granted bail to the three student activists who faced charges under various provisions of the IPC and the UAPA in Delhi riots conspiracy case.
The high court had said it was constrained to note that in its anxiety to suppress dissent and in the morbid fear that matters may get out of hand, “the state has blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed ‘right to protest’ and ‘terrorist activity’. If such blurring gains traction, democracy would be in peril”.
Terming as “somewhat vague” the definition of ‘terrorist act’ under the UAPA, the HC had cautioned against its use in a “cavalier manner”.
