E-Paper
Supreme Court allows pleas against UAPA to be withdrawn, filed before high courts
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed a batch of eight petitions challenging the provisions of the stringent UAPA to be withdrawn and granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the respective high courts.
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed a batch of eight petitions challenging the provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to be withdrawn and granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the respective high courts.
The development came a day after a bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal gave time to the petitioners to take instructions on whether they wish to pursue their cases pertaining to the anti-terror law before the top court or approach the high court first.
“The counsel for petitioners seek permission to withdraw the petitions and approach the concerned high courts within two weeks. Permission to withdraw is granted. Needless to say, the petitioner will be at liberty to file proceedings as permissible under law before the high court,” the bench said.
On Wednesday, the top court’s suggestion on withdrawal of petitions came after the Centre and Tripura government objected to the maintainability of the pleas, saying some of the accused even sought direction to quash the criminal cases against them.
At the same time, student activist Umar Khalid withdrew his bail plea from the top court in a case lodged against him, under UAPA, for his alleged involvement in a purported conspiracy behind the northeast Delhi riots of February 2020, saying he will approach the trial court.
The petitions withdrawn on Thursday include a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Foundation of Media Professionals – a team of media professionals – and a writ petition by Biyumma, mother of accused Zakariya in the 2008 Bengaluru blasts. The remaining six were filed by accused in the 2021 Tripura communal violence.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who represented a group of lawyers charged under UAPA over a fact-finding report on the Tripura communal violence, said that on November 17, 2021, the top court had ordered no coercive action and protected the accused from arrest.
Advocate Shahrukh Alam, who appeared for five students charged under UAPA in the same case, said similar orders were also passed against his clients.
To these, the bench said: “We are not extending our interim orders but we will orally request the state not to take any action for two weeks.”
Bhushan requested the court for permitting the petitioners to appear before the high court through video-conferencing. “Things seem to be normal as there is no violence now. The moment we will go to the high court, they will arrest us,” he said.
The bench declined the request and said: “You can’t allege anything in abstract. Once we are sending you back to the high court, we cannot micro-manage everything.”
On October 26, 2021, communal tension broke out in Tripura’s Panisagar after a mosque, a few houses and shops were reportedly vandalised by Vishwa Hindu Parishad activists during their rally. While four people were arrested, police later said that no mosque was burnt and photographs showing the same were not from Tripura.
As many as four Delhi-based advocates, who visited the state as part of an independent fact-finding team, were booked under section 13 of UAPA and sections of Indian Penal Code.
While the Foundation of Media Professionals has made a comprehensive challenge to the UAPA law, petitions filed by filed by Bhushan and Umar Khalid, have questioned the validity of some of the key provisions, including section 43D related to stringent conditions for bail.
While taking up the batch of petitions against UAPA on Wednesday, the bench raised two preliminary objections – whether the challenge to the law should be raised at the behest of those accused under UAPA and whether the accused, who have filed petitions, should be asked to approach the high court as they sought reliefs in their individual cases.
