Read Time: 08 minutes

The Supreme Court issued notice in the appeal filed  by Delhi Police against the Delhi High Court order granting bail to student activists Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the Delhi Riots case.

The vacation bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian clarified that the order of the Delhi High Court may not be treated as a precedent in other cases while posting the matter for next hearing in the week following July 19.

Court, while issuing notice stated, 

"...the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent and may not be relied upon by any of the parties in any of the proceedings. It is clarified that the release of the respondents on bail is not being interfered at this stage"

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta urged the bench to stay the order of the High Court on the pretext that it would serve as a precedent and people would knock the doors of the Judiciary citing the judgement of the High Court.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the accused however said that the order was passed in a bail plea and was not required to be stayed. The Court may however say that it would not be treated as a precedent.

SGI Mehta however taking the Court through the Judgement of the High Court said that the High Court had said in the judgement that the right to protest cannot be termed as a “terrorist act”, but these accused were responsible for killing many people and the right to protest does not allow one to kill people.

Mehta further argued that in that sense the lady who assassinated the former PM may also be said to be protesting.

Calling the accused “co-conspirators playing different roles”, Mehta urged the bench to stay the order of the High Court while allow the accused to remain on bail.

The bench was however of the view that at this stage the order cannot be stayed and listed the matter for further hearing in July.

On June 15, the Delhi High Court bench led by Justices Siddhartha Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani had passed an order granting 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.

Taking a stern view on the allegations made against the Pinjra Tod Activists Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita the Court 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”.

Pursuant to the bail order, the Delhi Police filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which has submitted that the High Court’s observation that the “State has blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed ‘right to protest’ and ‘terrorist activity in its anxiety to suppress dissent”, was beyond the purview of the bail petition.

The Delhi Police has submitted that the “the judicial scrutiny was not to ascertain as to whether on evidence on record prima facie the accusation were true or not but to somehow establish that the present case was a case of protest by students and suppression of dissent by the government of the day.”

The Delhi Police further submitted that the observation of the High Court was “without any foundation and appears to be based more on the social media narrative than the evidence gathered and elaborated in the chargesheet”.