Supreme Court upholds bail to Pinjra Tod activists; dismisses Delhi Police appeal
The Delhi Police had approached the top court to set aside the HC decision as besides discussion on bail, it questioned the various provisions of UAPA
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the appeal filed by Delhi Police challenging the bail granted to the three Pinjra Tod activists – Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha in connection with their provocative speeches during the Delhi riots of February 2020.
The trio are facing provisions under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
A bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah dismissed the appeal that was pending in the top court for nearly two years while clarifying that the June 15, 2021 order of the high court shall not be treated as a precedent by the accused in the trial or in any other proceeding.
The Delhi Police had approached the top court to set aside the HC decision as besides discussion on bail, it questioned the various provisions of UAPA.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta who appeared for the police said, “The HC judgment has declared the UAPA as unconstitutional.”
Also Read: No response from cops on plea seeking digital evidence: JNU students
The Court said that this was because nowadays lawyers argue bail matters as if they are arguing a final appeal.
Earlier, an adjournment was sought by the police as additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju who had to appeal in the case was in personal difficulty.
The top court refused to adjourn after it noted that the state had sought adjournments on three occasions in the past.
The bench said, “I think states are a category by themselves. Nobody in this Court seeks so much accommodation.”
The bench said, “For two years, the accused are out on bail. We see no purpose in keeping the matter alive.”
Mehta, who connected virtually during the proceedings, requested the Court to protect the state to the extent that this judgment is not cited in any other case.
The bench told Mehta that while issuing notice on the appeal on June 18, 2021, an order was passed to this effect.
However, the bench reiterated, saying, “We want to make it clear, at the cost of repetition that the purpose of our interim order of June 18, 2021 was to see that the expounded legal propositions on statutory provisions in bail matters should not be used in these proceedings or any other proceedings.”
The bench further stated that while deciding bail, the high court ought to examine only the factual scenario.
The activists were represented in Court by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Aggarwal who prayed that the appeal should not be kept hanging as two years had elapsed.
Another co-accused also approached the top court claiming that his bail was not being considered in light of the June 18 order.
The bench clarified that “if the co-accused is entitled to the plea of parity, then it is for him to make such a plea and for the court to consider.”
The three student activists were in custody since May 2020 and their bail pleas were rejected by the special trial judge following which they approached the high court.
The high court order held that the right to protest will not amount to a ‘terrorist act’ and said that right to protest was a constitutionally guaranteed right under Article 19(1)(a) and is not outlawed and cannot be termed as a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 15 of the UAPA.
The HC examined the charge sheet and concluded that the accused took part in a protest against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) that was lawful and was monitored by law enforcement agencies.
The Delhi Police termed the HC judgment “perverse” as it was of the view that the judges went overboard by giving an interpretation on the law which could impact pending trials under the UAPA.