The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha regarding the Delhi Police appeal against granting bail to the accused student activists in the riots case. However, the Supreme Court refused to stay the Delhi High Court order granting bail to these students in the northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case.
The Supreme Court said that it was surprised by the over 125-page judgement of the Delhi High Court making long observations about the constitutionality of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) provisions, even when the validity of UAPA was not challenged by the accused. It also said that the order will not be treated as a precedent and the same shall not be relied upon by any parties in the case before any proceedings in any court.
The way the Delhi High Court has interpreted UAPA when it was not even requested to do so, requires the apex court to examine the issues raised by the Delhi police, the Supreme Court added. “Reading down UAPA is an important issue and can have pan-India ramifications,” the apex court said.
The SC was hearing a petition by the Delhi Police challenging the Delhi High Court’s order in which it has granted bail to Asif, Devangana, and Natasha who were charged under the UAPA in connection to the riots that burned the capital in February last year. The Delhi Police, in its petition, stated that the High Court while granting bail to the appellant before it, has to render findings touching upon the merits of the matter that will affect other similar cases jeopardising the cases going on before the trial court. Hence, the same must stay immediately.
The Delhi High Court has ignored material evidence against the petitioners that were present on record and the allegations have been made of flippant use of UAPA for which there is no basis and when there is enough evidence available to invoke the same against the appellant, the plea said.
The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, had granted bail to the three students saying in its anxiety to suppress dissent, the state has blurred the line between the right to protest and terrorist activity and if such a mindset gains traction, it would be a “sad day for democracy”.
The High Court had observed, “We are constrained to say, that it appears, 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.”