New Delhi: While the Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court verdict of granting bail to activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha in the northeast Delhi riots cases, the apex court had also said that the HC judgement will not be used as a precedent in any court in the country.
The fact that the Delhi High Court discussed the entire anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), in this bail matter was something that the top court said that they found troubling.
"It is surprising that in a bail application, there is 100-page judgement discussing the entire law. That is what is troubling us. There are many questions which arise as legality of the UAPA was not challenged before the high court. These were bail applications," it observed.
The issue of reading down of UAPA is "important" and can have "pan-India ramifications", said a vacation bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian, adding this law will require interpretation by the apex court.
The apex court agreed to hear the appeals filed by the Delhi Police challenging the verdicts of the high court and issued notices to JNU students Natasha and Devangana and Jamia student Asif seeking their responses. While refusing to stay the high court verdicts granting bail to the three accused, the bench said these judgements will not be treated as a precedent by any party before any court.
"In the meantime, 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 (Narwal, Kalita and Tanha) on bail is not being interfered at this stage," the bench said in its order. "Issue notice," it said, adding, "Let the counter affidavits be filed within four weeks."
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had urged the apex court to stay the high court verdicts, saying the findings arrived at in these judgements "virtually record acquittal for these accused" and other 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.
At the outset, Mehta referred to the judgements of the high court and said, "the entire UAPA has been turned upside down on its head". 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," he said, adding, "They are out on bail, let them remain out but please stay the judgements". "Stay by the Supreme Court has its own meaning," he said.
These three student activists were released from jail on June 17. The case relates to the last year's communal violence in north-east Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
The high court had said although the definition of 'terrorist act' in Section 15 of the UAPA is wide and somewhat vague, it must partake the essential character of terrorism and the phrase 'terrorist act' cannot be permitted to be applied in a cavalier manner to criminal acts that squarely fall under the IPC. The Delhi police had assailed the verdict, saying the interpretation of the high court would weaken the prosecution in terror cases.
(With PTI inputs)
