NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday observed that the Delhi High Court’s order granting bail to three activists, arrested in connection with last year’s riots in the national capital, was based on a watered-down reading of the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and said it will not set a precedent. The top court agreed to examine the HC’s order saying the issue of reading down of UAPA is important and can have “pan-India ramifications”.
The court, however, did not stay the bail order. A bench headed by Justice Hemant Gupta issued notices to three activists—Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Jamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha— on an appeal filed by the Delhi Police against the high court’s bail order.
Appearing for the Delhi Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the high court’s order should not be used as a basis by other co-accused in the case to seek bail. He said the HC had turned the UAPA on its head. “It virtually pronounced the acquittal of the accused in a bail order, and the observations regarding the application of UAPA have a far-reaching effect on other cases,” he said.
He submitted that going by the HC’s interpretation of the UAPA, a terrorist accused of murder cannot be tried under the Act. “The court has said that since the riots eventually were contro l l e d , UAPA should not have been invoked. This means if a probe agency diffuses a bomb planted somewhere, then as per this judgment, anti-terror law shall not apply,” Mehta contended. He further said, “The right to protest did not include the right to kill”.
‘Judgment surprising’
The Supreme Court expressed surprise that the high court came up with a 100- page judgment touching on the constitutionality of the UAPA. “It was a bail order and for the High Court to write 100 pages on it
and to discuss the laws is surprising,” the apex court said