The Supreme Court has refused to cancel the bail granted to 3 accused of Delhi riots from the High Court. But it has been clarified that on the basis of this order of the High Court, relief cannot be sought in UAPA cases anywhere in the country. The judges expressed surprise that the High Court ordered 125 pages in Bell’s case. No one had challenged the validity of UAPA. Yet the High Court interpreted the law. questioned its constitutionality.
The Supreme Court has called for a detailed hearing on the broad points of this decision. The judges issued notices to the three accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Tanha on the plea of Delhi Police. Giving 4 weeks’ time to reply, the court said that the matter will be put up for hearing in the week starting July 19.
On June 15, a bench of Delhi High Court Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anoop Bhambani granted bail to Natasha, Devangana and Asif. The judges had said that the FIR lodged by the police is an attempt to suppress the voice of dissent against the government. All three did not threaten the security of the country. It is wrong to impose UAPA against him.
The Delhi Police, who reached the Supreme Court against this decision, has argued that the High Court neither looked into the seriousness of the allegations made under the Unlawful Activities Prohibition Act (UAPA), nor paid attention to the concrete evidence gathered by the police. He has given a completely illogical decision coming under the influence of what is being written on behalf of a section in social media. This was not a peaceful protest by students. There was a well-planned conspiracy to throw Delhi in the fire of riots by spreading violence on a large scale. 53 people were killed and 700 were injured in the riots. The High Court ignored these things.
Seeking to set aside the High Court’s decision, the police have also said that this order will have an effect on all cases of violence and terrorism across the country. The High Court has said that UAPA should be imposed only in those cases in which national security is being affected. If this conclusion is taken as the basis, then all the cases of internal violence, which are being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), will not be able to survive in the court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on behalf of Delhi Police, argued that he is not demanding to send the three back to jail. But the decision should be stayed. Disagreements and protests do not mean taking lives of people.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the accused, opposed the demand to stay the verdict. He said that there should be a comprehensive hearing on the issue.