SC declines to interfere with release of student activists in Delhi riots case

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with the release of three student activists on bail in a Delhi riots case but directed that the Delhi High Court's judgment, concerning anti-terror law, should not be treated as a precedent in other cases.

A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian agreed to examine a petition by Delhi Police against the June 15 judgment interpreting provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, saying it would have pan-India ramifications.

"A 100-page judgment discussing all laws is very surprising in a bail application. What we can say is, bail has been granted and they will not be affected but will stay the effect of the HC order," the bench said.

The court issued notice to JNU students Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal and Jamia Milia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha, released from Tihar jail here on Thursday in a case of larger conspiracy for Delhi riots in February 2020, which claimed the lives of 53 people and left hundreds of others injured.

Read more: Got tremendous support inside jail, will continue our struggle, says student activist after release

The court sought a response from the activists without four weeks and posted the matter for consideration in July.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing for Delhi Police, contended the High Court has turned the entire UAPA and the Constitution on its head. He said the riots took place as the three accused have conspired with others when the US president was on a visit to the country.

He said as many as 53 people were killed and over 700 others were left injured.

The High Court, however, said no offence was made out. "If I put a bomb somewhere and the squad diffuses the bomb, then it reduces the offence," he asked, pressing for the stay of the judgment.

He said the right to protest cannot include the right to kill people. Mehta said if the High Court judgment was accepted the woman who assassinated former Prime Minister (Rajiv Gandhi) was innocent as she in her mind was just protesting.

He said he would not object to the three accused being remained out on bail but the effect of the judgment must be stayed.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the activists, submitted that the High Court's judgment should not be stayed but it can be said that the verdict would not be treated as a precedent.

In its plea filed on Wednesday, the police questioned the approach adopted by High Court, saying the three separate bail judgments, were without any foundation and appeared to be based more on the social media narrative than the evidence gathered and elaborated in the charge sheet.

"The misdirection of the High Court is writ large from the observation that the present case was foisted in anxiety to suppress dissent," the police contended, adding this was "an insinuation, albeit unfounded and perverse," and was "beyond the purview of the bail petition".

In its appeal, the police said, "The High Court has not only conducted a mini-trial but has also recorded perverse finding which is contrary to the record and the arguments made during the hearing of the case."

"Unfortunately, the High Court has decided the case on a pre-conceived and a completely erroneous illusion, as if, the present case was a simpliciter case of protest by students," it added.

The February 2020 riots were triggered after a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act. All three were in jail for over one year.

The police claimed the High Court completely lost sight of the evidence and statements, which clearly made out "a sinister plot of mass-scale riots being hatched by the three accused along with other co-conspirators".

The police contended that the High Court's view that provisions of UAPA can only be applied to deal with matters of profound impact on the ‘defence of India’, nothing more and nothing less, was "an irrelevant consideration to grant bail to the accused".

“Secondly, it will have far-reaching consequences for cases investigated by NIA and other investigating agencies. The order is thus unsustainable in law and deserves to be stayed," the police said.