NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday pointed out serious issues with the Delhi high court judgment granting bail to activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha in the northeast Delhi riots cases, and ordered that it could not be cited as precedent by other accused to seek bail even as Delhi Police said they were not seeking to put the three back in jail.
A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam said it was surprised by the unprecedented, over 100-page judgment rendered by the HC in a case where the only issue at stake was bail sought by the accused. “What is troubling us is that in a bail petition, the HC authors a 100-page judgment, and that too discussing all laws. This is something very, very surprising. What we can say is since bail has been granted, those who got the relief will not be affected. But, otherwise, we will stay the effect of this order.”
The court’s task was made easier by solicitor general Tushar Mehta who said Delhi Police was not seeking to put the three accused back in jail. However, he pressed on for a stay by raising several questions which hit at the basis of the HC judgment and the logic employed for granting bail. The SC emphasised the HC, while hearing a bail plea, went on to dwell on the constitutionality of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the key anti-terror law.
The SC bench said, “We agree with you. There are many questions which arise. Because the legality or constitutionality of UAPA was not challenged before the HC. Therefore, all these important questions raised by Delhi Police will have to be considered. We understand that and the way the UAPA has been interpreted will probably require examination by the Supreme Court. That is why we are issuing notices.”
It asked Narwal, Kalita and Tanha to respond to Delhi Police’s appeals within four weeks and ordered that the lengthy Delhi HC judgment would be of no value to other accused in Delhi riots cases as it could not be cited for seeking bail in any court.
Mehta said the HC judgment should be stayed as it was laced with unwarranted observations and incorrect interpretation to lay the foundations of a dangerous situation in which terror and disruptive activities would have to be dealt with by the Indian Penal Code rather than the specialised anti-terror law UAPA.
Significantly, even counsel for the accused, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, agreed that the HC’s remarks about UAPA could have pan-India repercussions. “I entirely agree with Supreme Court that it should consider the ramifications and interpretations of UAPA. There is no doubt about that. We should have a judgment from this court. It will otherwise impact everybody. The HC judgment should not be stayed. What we are dealing with is the bail application,” he said.
Mehta said if the HC judgment was to be implemented, then no terrorist could be booked under UAPA as he could be booked for offences prescribed under IPC. He said even the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case accused could have been booked under IPC charges and not under TADA.
“As many as 53 people, including police personnel, were killed. More than 700 people were injured in the north-east Delhi riots. But the HC says since the riots were eventually controlled, the accused cannot be charged under UAPA. This means, if someone plants a bomb somewhere, but it gets defused by the bomb disposal squad, then UAPA cannot be slapped against the person who planted the bomb. This also means, if a terrorist kills a person, then since he could be booked under Section 302 IPC, UAPA could not be slapped on the terrorist,” the SG argued.
The SG pressed on for stay of the judgment and said, “Right to protest does not include the right to indulge in terrorist activities and killing people. So many people died in Delhi riots. And the HC in its wide-ranging unwarranted observations says the state blurred the line between right to protest and terrorist activity? And that the state tried to suppress the right to freedom of expression? HC says the anti-CAA protests were restricted to north-east Delhi so it would not be right for police to say protests affected the community at large.”
Mehta added: “The HC says the protesters were under a perceived belief that CAA was against a particular community. If we go by this logic, even the woman who assassinated the former PM was protesting only because her view was that something was going against a particular community. So she could not have been charged under the anti-terror law.”
View More | Source: Times of India