Read Time: 07 minutes
In its charge sheet, the Delhi Police had said that the three were involved in instigating the local population in North East Delhi and participated in the larger conspiracy to commit offences under the UAPA.
The Supreme Court has dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Delhi Police challenging the Delhi High Court order granting bail to Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the Delhi Riots case.
When the case was taken up today by a bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the State. Hearing this, the Justice SK Kaul said, "No no, you argue, every time an adjournment cannot be sought. Today you cannot say that SG is before Constitution Bench, because I am a part of the Constitution Bench."
Moreover, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the accused told Court that while the plea was decided holding that observations will not influence trial, every time an adjournment could not be sought when the accused were granted bail 2 years back.
Justice Kaul then went on to dictate the order stating, "SLP dismissed. In conformity with April order, we observe that trial shall not be influenced by HC's observations. This order will not be treated as precedent owing to elaborate discussion on merits..No further orders required. We note that again a request for the nth time is made for adjournment."
As the court was dictating its order, SG Mehta appeared virtually before Court to state that the impugned order had effectively declared UAPA to be unconstitutional. "I can read para after para..from the judgment", SG added.
"We have said it will not be considered as precedent...", Justice Kaul told the SG while clarifying that he had already made such an observation in his order.
Justice Kaul then went on to deprecate the practice of dealing with merits of a case, in a bail hearing.
"We have said again and again that bail orders should not be so long, only if bail can be granted should be considered..judges should silence the lawyers..", Justice Kaul observed.
In June 2021, an appeal was filed by the Delhi Police challenging the Delhi High Court order granting bail to the three accused in the Delhi Riots case.
Notably, the Division bench comprising Justices Siddhartha Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani in its impugned order pronounced on June 15, 2021, had granted bail to the three observing that there was nothing in the chargesheet which would make-out the ingredients of the offences under sections 15, 17 or 18 of the UAPA.
The High Court also drawing attention to the intent of the legislature in enacting the law had said that the phrase ‘terrorist act’ has been given a very wide and detailed definition under Section 15 and the court must be careful in employing the definitional words and phrases used in section 15 to differentiate a “terrorist act” from a conventional heinous crime.
Taking a stern view on the allegations made against the Pinjra Tod Activists Natasha Narwal and Debangana Kalita the Court had said “Foisting extremely grave and serious penal provisions engrafted in sections 15, 17 and 18 UAPA frivolously upon people, would undermine the intent and purpose of the Parliament in enacting a law that is meant to address threats to the very existence of our Nation”.
Case Title: State of NCT Delhi vs. Devangana Kalita and Ors.
Please Login or Register
