New Delhi: In its anxiety to suppress dissent the state has blurred the line between right to protest and terrorist activity and if such a mindset gains traction, it would be a “sad day for democracy”, the Delhi High Court said on Tuesday while granting bail to three students from JNU and Jamia Millia Islamia in a north-east Delhi riots case.

Terming as “somewhat vague” the definition of ‘terrorist act’ under the stringent UAPA and warning against its use in a “cavalier manner”, the High Court set aside the trial court orders denying bail to JNU students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita and JMI’s Asif Iqbal Tanha, allowing their appeals and admitting them to regular bail.

“We are of the view that the foundations of our nation stand on surer footing than to be likely to be shaken by a protest, however vicious, organised by a tribe of college students or other persons, operating as a coordination committee from the confines of a university situate in the heart of Delhi,” a bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani said.

In three separate judgments of 113, 83 and 72 pages, the High Court said that although the definition of ‘terrorist act’ in Section 15 of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is wide and somewhat vague, it must partake the essential character of terrorism and the phrase ‘terrorist act’ cannot be permitted to be applied in a “cavalier manner” to criminal acts that squarely fall under the IPC.

“We are constrained to express, that it seems, that in its anxiety to suppress dissent, in the mind of the state, the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred. If this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy” which would be in peril,” the bench said, adding there was nothing to show the possible commission of a terrorist act.