Delhi HC verdicts granting bail in riots case turn anti-terror law upside down , Police tells SC

@the_news_21

The Delhi High Court verdicts granting bail to three student activists in the north-east Delhi riots case have turned the anti-terror law UAPA upside down and its findings virtually record acquittal for the accused, Delhi Police told the Supreme Court on Friday.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the police, told a vacation bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian that 53 people had died and over 700 were injured during the riots which took place when the then American president and other dignitaries from the US were here.

Assailing the high court verdicts granting bail to JNU students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita and Jamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha in the case, Mehta said if these verdicts are applied, then a person who plants a bomb which ultimately gets defused would also escape the clutches of law.

I can venture to say that entire UAPA has been turned upside down on its head along with the Constitution, Mehta told the bench at the outset.

The issue is important and can have pan-India ramifications. We would like to issue notice and hear the other side, the bench said.

Mehta, while seeking stay on the high court verdicts, said the findings virtually record acquittal for these accused .

Others are already moving for bail relying on this, he said, adding that issues of what constitutes a terrorist activity and legislative competence were not argued before the high court.

From when does the right to protest include the right to kill people and hurl bombs, Mehta argued, adding that several people were killed but the high court says that eventually riots were controlled and thus Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) would not apply.

Meaning thereby if a person plants a bomb and the bomb disposal squad defuses it, then it reduces the intensity of the offence?, he said.

They are out on bail, let them remain out but please stay the judgements, Mehta said, adding, Stay by the Supreme Court has its own meaning.

The apex court said these verdicts would not be used as precedent by courts in the country.

While reading down some paragraphs from the high court verdicts regarding right to protest, Mehta said, If we go by this judgement, even the lady who assassinated the former Prime Minister was also protesting .

Mehta argued that the high court has noted in the verdicts about the intent and purpose of introducing UAPA and has said that it was to be applied to offence limited only to defence of India as provided in Entry 1 of Union List of the Constitution.

There are many questions which arises as legality of the UAPA was not challenged before the high court. These were bail applications, the bench said, adding it was issuing notice on the appeals filed by the police challenging the high court verdicts.

Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, who also appeared in the matter, said that these high court verdicts could be misinterpreted.

The apex court agreed to hear the appeals filed by the police challenging the verdicts of the high court and issued notices to Narwal, Kalita and Tanha seeking their responses.

It is clarified that release of the respondents (Narwal, Kalita and Tanha) on bail is not interfered with at this stage, the bench said.

The top court said the matter would be heard in the week commencing July 19.

The high court had on June 15 granted bail to these three student activists saying in an 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 high court, in three separate judgments, set aside the trial court’s orders denying bail to these student activists and allowed their appeals by admitting them to regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each along with two sureties of the like amount.

These three student activists were released from jail on June 17.

The case relates to the last year’s communal violence in north-east Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

In its three separate appeals filed in the apex court, Delhi Police has said that the high court’s findings are perverse and contrary to record and appeared to be based more on the social media narrative.

Kalita, Narwal and Tanha are accused in four, three and two cases respectively relating to communal riots that broke out on February 24 last year.

@the_news_21

The Delhi High Court verdicts granting bail to three student activists in the north-east Delhi riots case have turned the anti-terror law UAPA upside down and its findings virtually record acquittal for the accused, Delhi Police told the Supreme Court on Friday.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the police, told a vacation bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian that 53 people had died and over 700 were injured during the riots which took place when the then American president and other dignitaries from the US were here.

Assailing the high court verdicts granting bail to JNU students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita and Jamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha in the case, Mehta said if these verdicts are applied, then a person who plants a bomb which ultimately gets defused would also escape the clutches of law.

I can venture to say that entire UAPA has been turned upside down on its head along with the Constitution, Mehta told the bench at the outset.

The issue is important and can have pan-India ramifications. We would like to issue notice and hear the other side, the bench said.

Mehta, while seeking stay on the high court verdicts, said the findings virtually record acquittal for these accused .

Others are already moving for bail relying on this, he said, adding that issues of what constitutes a terrorist activity and legislative competence were not argued before the high court.

From when does the right to protest include the right to kill people and hurl bombs, Mehta argued, adding that several people were killed but the high court says that eventually riots were controlled and thus Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) would not apply.

Meaning thereby if a person plants a bomb and the bomb disposal squad defuses it, then it reduces the intensity of the offence?, he said.

They are out on bail, let them remain out but please stay the judgements, Mehta said, adding, Stay by the Supreme Court has its own meaning.

The apex court said these verdicts would not be used as precedent by courts in the country.

While reading down some paragraphs from the high court verdicts regarding right to protest, Mehta said, If we go by this judgement, even the lady who assassinated the former Prime Minister was also protesting .

Mehta argued that the high court has noted in the verdicts about the intent and purpose of introducing UAPA and has said that it was to be applied to offence limited only to defence of India as provided in Entry 1 of Union List of the Constitution.

There are many questions which arises as legality of the UAPA was not challenged before the high court. These were bail applications, the bench said, adding it was issuing notice on the appeals filed by the police challenging the high court verdicts.

Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, who also appeared in the matter, said that these high court verdicts could be misinterpreted.

The apex court agreed to hear the appeals filed by the police challenging the verdicts of the high court and issued notices to Narwal, Kalita and Tanha seeking their responses.

It is clarified that release of the respondents (Narwal, Kalita and Tanha) on bail is not interfered with at this stage, the bench said.

The top court said the matter would be heard in the week commencing July 19.

The high court had on June 15 granted bail to these three student activists saying in an 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 high court, in three separate judgments, set aside the trial court’s orders denying bail to these student activists and allowed their appeals by admitting them to regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each along with two sureties of the like amount.

These three student activists were released from jail on June 17.

The case relates to the last year’s communal violence in north-east Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

In its three separate appeals filed in the apex court, Delhi Police has said that the high court’s findings are perverse and contrary to record and appeared to be based more on the social media narrative.

Kalita, Narwal and Tanha are accused in four, three and two cases respectively relating to communal riots that broke out on February 24 last year.