|  |  | 

India Top Headlines

New Delhi Riots: HC’s bail order is ‘shocking’, cannot be cited as precedent, says SC | India News


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday noted serious problems with the Delhi high court ruling that bailed activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha in the cases of riots in northeast Delhi, and ordered that it could not be cited as precedent by other defendants seeking bail even when Delhi police said they were not trying to put the three back in jail.
A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam said it was surprised by the unprecedented sentence of more than 100 pages handed down by the HC in a case where the only issue at stake was the bail requested by the defendant. “What worries us is that in a request for bail, the HC writes a sentence of 100 pages, and that also discussing all the laws. This is something very, very surprising. What we can say is that since the bail was granted , those who got relief will not be affected. But, otherwise, we will keep the effect of this order. ”
The court’s task was facilitated by Attorney General Tushar Mehta, who said Delhi police were not seeking to re-imprison the three defendants. However, he lobbied for a stay by raising several questions that affect the basis of HC’s ruling and the logic used to post bail. The SC emphasized that the HC, while listening to a bond statement, went on to insist on the constitutionality of the Law for the Prevention of Illegal Activities, the key law against terrorism.
The SC bank said: “We agree with you. There are many questions that arise. Because the legality or constitutionality of the UAPA was not questioned before the HC. Therefore, all these important questions raised by the Delhi Police should be We understand that and the way the UAPA has been interpreted will likely require a review by the Supreme Court. That is why we are issuing notices. ”
He called on Narwal, Kalita and Tanha to respond to the Delhi police appeals within four weeks and ordered that the lengthy sentence of the Delhi HC would be of no value to other defendants in the Delhi riots cases, since he could not be cited for requesting bail in any court.
Mehta said that HC’s sentence should be suspended as it was full of unwarranted remarks and incorrect interpretation to lay the foundation for a dangerous situation where terrorism and disruptive activities should be addressed by the Indian Penal Code instead. of the specialized antiterrorist fight. UAPA law.
Significantly, even the defendant’s attorney, lead attorney Kapil Sibal, agreed that the HC’s statements about UAPA could have repercussions across India. “I fully agree with the Supreme Court that it should consider the ramifications and interpretations of the UAPA. There is no question about it. We should have a ruling from this court. Otherwise, it will affect everyone. The HC ruling should not be suspended. . what we are dealing with is the application of the bond, “he said.
Mehta said that if the HC sentence was to be implemented, then no terrorist could be prosecuted under UAPA, as they could be prosecuted for crimes prescribed under IPC. He said that even the accused Rajiv Gandhi murder case could have been registered under IPC charges and not under TADA.
“Up to 53 people were killed, including police personnel. More than 700 people were injured in the northeast Delhi riots. But the HC says that since the riots were finally brought under control, the defendants cannot be charged. Under the UAPA. This means, If someone places a bomb somewhere, but the bomb disposal squad defuses it, then the UAPA cannot be hit against the person who planted the bomb. This also means that, if a terrorist kills a person, then, since he could be booked under Section 302 IPC, UAPA could not be slapped the terrorist ”, argued the SG.
The SG lobbied for the sentence to be postponed, saying: “The right to protest does not include the right to engage in terrorist activities and kill people. So many people died in the Delhi riots. And the HC in its unjustified broad remarks says that the Did the state blur the line between the right to protest and terrorist activity? And that the state tried to suppress the right to freedom of expression? HC says protests against the CAA were limited to northeast Delhi, so that it would not be correct for the police to say the protests affected the community in general. ”
Mehta added: “The HC says that the protesters had a perceived belief that CAA was against a particular community. If we follow this logic, even the woman who assassinated the former prime minister was protesting only because her opinion was that something was wrong. against a particular community. Therefore, she could not have been charged under the anti-terrorism law. ”

Reference page