The Supreme Court on Friday said the bail granted by the Delhi High Court to three student-activists in Delhi riot cases will continue but the bail could not be treated as precedent in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, argued that the Delhi HC’s bail order given to JNU students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita and Jamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha had totally turned upside down the UAPA provisions. This bail order has gone like a mini trial on the UAPA enacted by Parliament, said Mehta.
The vacation bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian termed as “troubling” that the High Court has written 100 pages discussing the entire anti-terror law UAPA while deciding the bail applications in the case and said it will require interpretation by the apex court. While refusing to stay the High Court verdicts granting bail to the three accused, the bench said that these judgments will not be treated as precedent by any party before any court.
“It is clarified that release of the respondents (Narwal, Kalita and Tanha) on bail is not interfered with at this stage,” the bench said. Taking note of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s submission that the UAPA has been “turned upside down” by the high court in granting bail in the case, the bench said that the issue is important and can have pan-India ramifications.
“We would like to issue notice and hear the other side,” said the bench. Mehta urged the apex court to stay the high court verdicts saying the findings arrived at in these judgments “virtually record acquittal for these accused” and other co-accused would also seek bail relying on them. “The way the Act has been interpreted, probably it will require interpretation by the Supreme Court. That is why we are issuing notice,” the bench said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the student activists, said there is no doubt that the apex court should consider the ramifications and interpretation of the UAPA so that there is a judgement on the issue from the top court. “We are dealing with bail applications,” Sibal said. “That is what is troubling us. It is surprising that in a bail application, there is 100-page judgment discussing the entire law,” the bench said.
“There are many questions which arise as legality of the UAPA was not challenged before the high court. These were bail applications,” the bench observed. The top court issued notices to these student activists and said that the matter would be heard in the week commencing July 19. At the outset, Mehta referred to the judgments of the high court and said that “the entire UAPA has been turned upside down on its head”. He argued that after these verdicts, technically the trial court is required to place these findings in its order and discharge the accused in the case.
Mehta said that 53 persons died and over 700 were injured during the riots which took place at a time when the then US President and other dignitaries were here. “The high court has made wide ranging observations,” said Solicitor General, criticizing heavily the Delhi High Court’s Judgment passed the Bench of justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup J Bhambhani.
While reading down some paragraphs from the High Court verdicts regarding right to protest, Mehta said, “If we go by this judgment, even the lady who assassinated the former Prime Minister was also protesting”. “Kindly stay these orders,” he told the bench. 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.