The bail granted to student-activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Tanha by the Delhi High Court needs to be seen in perspective. Tuesday's pronouncements were only a bail order. The activists have not been absolved of any of the charges they face as the court did not go into the evidence placed against them. But the order does two things: Firstly, it is a severe reprimand of the prosecution, in this case the Delhi Police, which has the potential to weaken the case. Secondly and more importantly, the court has protected the rights of individuals against the abuse and excesses of state power. Questioning the use of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the students, the court observed that the police, in order to “suppress dissent”, misused “grave and serious penal provisions” of the Act against the activists.
The UAPA's origins lie in the trying times India was going through in the mid-60s. India had not yet acquired the military and economic heft of today. The country was badly bruised in the war against China in 1962 and its integrity was further threatened by political parties with secessionist calls. It is in this backdrop that Parliament passed the UAPA in 1967 on the recommendations of the Committee on National Integration and Regionalisation set up by the National Integration Council. The law was envisioned to be used only against secessionist forces. Lately, it has been used to curb terrorism. The law was not even remotely conceived of as a means to gag legitimate dissent against the state. But, as the court said, the lines have blurred and it has been abused for political and sectional ends.
The HC's order, coupled with the Supreme Court's recent pronouncement that it will define the parameters of the sedition clause, will hopefully strengthen the rule of law. Democratically elected governments are supposed to uphold Abraham Lincoln's dictum of by the people, for the people and of the people. But the misuse of such laws by all governments, irrespective of the political hue, is increasing by the day. But for the courts, such transgressions would have continued without hindrance, impunity and regret. This has to end.