[BREAKING] Delhi High Court order in Delhi Riots case not to be treated as precedent, three accused to remain out on bail: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in the Delhi Police's appeal against the Delhi High Court order in the Delhi Riots case registered against Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal under the the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)..A Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian, however, made it clear that the three accused will remain out on bail, and there would be no stay on the order to that effect.But, the judgment for other purposes, particularly regarding its operation with respect to UAPA offences, cannot be treated as a precedent for other accused under the Act to claim bail, the Court said. .Appearing for Delhi Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued,"Entire UAPA Act is turned on its head along with the Constitution (in the Delhi High Court judgment).".Justice Gupta said in response,"Since the issue is important and can have a pan-India ramification, we will issue notice and hear the parties.".SG Mehta then prayed for a stay of the High Court order granting bail. He said,"With profound respect, this incident was caused when President of US was visiting and these people wanted to create a stir during that time."Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi also called for a stay of the order, saying that it imports ambiguity in Section 15 of UAPA, which defines terrorism..Justice Gupta agreed that the way the UAPA has been interpreted by the High Court needs to be examined by the apex court. He said,"In a bail application, a 100-page judgment discussing all laws is very surprising. What we can say is, bail has been granted and they will not be affected, but will stay the effect of the High Court order."SG Mehta concurred, saying,"I agree that the Delhi High Court order be not stayed so that bail to three is cancelled, but let it not be a precedent.".Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the accused, said,"Staying this would mean the order is prima facie stayed. We too also have a lot to say. Let us not do this...in the meantime let us not treat the High Court order as a precedent.".The Bench eventually stated in its order:"Issue notice. Let the counter be filed in four weeks. list in a non-miscellaneous week starting from July 19. In the meantime, this order will not be treated as a precedent by any party before any court.".The case pertains to the Delhi Police probe into the alleged conspiracy by the accused that led to the riots in the capital’s North-East area in February 2020..Kalita, Narwal and Tanha were arrested in May 2020 and were in custody for almost a year, before the Delhi High Court granted them bail on June 15..While granting bail to the trio, High Court had stated that that the State, in its anxiety to suppress dissent, blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity. The judgment delivered by a Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup J Bhambhani stated:"We are constrained to say, that it appears, that in its anxiety to suppress dissent and in the morbid fear that matters may get out of hand, the State has blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed ‘right to protest’ and ‘terrorist activity’. If such blurring gains traction, democracy would be in peril.".The High Court had held that prima facie, no offence under Sections 15, 17 or 18 UAPA was made-out on the basis of the material on record in the present case against the three..Right to protest peacefully not outlawed and not a ‘terrorist act’; inflammatory speeches, chakka-jams not offence under UAPA: Delhi High Court.The High Court underscored that right to protest peacefully without arms is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution and has not been outlawed yet."Considering however, that the right to protest is a fundamental right that flows from the constitutionally guaranteed right to assemble peaceably and without arms enshrined in Article 19(1)(b) of our Constitution, surely the right to protest is not outlawed and cannot be termed as a ‘terrorist act’ within the meaning of the UAPA, unless of course the ingredients of the offences under sections 15, 17 and/or 18 of the UAPA are clearly discernible from the factual allegations contained in chargesheet and the material filed therewith," the judgment said..In its plea before the Supreme Court, the Delhi Police strongly deprecated the approach of the High Court, stating that it wanted to somehow establish that the present case was a case of protest by students and suppression of dissent by the government of the day.Such a conclusion is without any foundation and based more on the social media narrative than the evidence gathered and elaborated in the chargesheet, the plea said..[Delhi Riots Bail] Delhi High Court somehow wanted to establish protest was mere dissent: 5 grounds raised by Delhi Police before Supreme Court.The Delhi Police further told the Supreme Court that the High Court completely lost sight of the evidences and statements which were produced before it and had arrived at the judgment without considering that a sinister plot of mass-scale riots was being hatched by the accused..It was also submitted that the High Court did not advert to or analyse the cogent evidence on record of the case and has applied irrelevant considerations while granting bail to the accused.The petition stated that there was a cause and evidence of terrorist activity against the accused. However, the High Court misdirected itself and gave ex-facie perverse findings to arrive a conclusion that no case of UAPA was made out, the appeal stated..[Read Order]