Delhi riots case: We don’t believe in unnecessarily keeping people behind bars: SC  

What may appear a reprieve to scores accused in the 2020 Delhi’s riots case, the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that it does not “believe in keeping people imprisoned unnecessarily”.

The Supreme Court made the comment while hearing an appeal filed against the bail given to activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha by the Delhi High Court. The three were accused of hatching conspiracy to trigger communal rift in northeast Delhi during the protest against the citizenship regime.

“We don’t believe in unnecessarily keeping people behind the bars,” said the SC bench headed by Justice SK Kaul and also comprising Justices AS Oka and JB Pardiwala. The bench noted that spending hours hearing the bail petitions in the case was a “complete wastage” of time of the Delhi High Court.

However, the SC did not give the ruling in the appeal and posted the matter to January 31 as the lead lawyer for one of the parties was not available because of engagement elsewhere.

What happened in Court?

Advocate Rajat Nair, appearing for police, requested the Supreme Court to post the petitions for hearing after two weeks, saying Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is leading him, is arguing before a Constitution bench in a separate matter, according to Outlook.

“We have a case that bail granted by the high court should be cancelled,” said Nair.

The SC bench, while noting that Mehta is arguing in a matter before a Constitution bench, posted the pleas for hearing on January 31.

One of the advocates, appearing for the accused, said in this matter the police had argued on the merits before the high court, wrote Outlook. Nair said the police had only answered the question put by the high court as to whether the act committed by the accused is an act of terror or not.

“You have spent hours in bail matters. It is complete wastage of time of the high court. You want a full trial in bail matters? This I don’t understand,” Justice Kaul observed.

Past hearings

The Supreme Court in July 2021 had indicated its reluctance to consider the aspect of cancellation of bail granted to the three activists, who were booked under the provisions of the stringent anti-terror law – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The top court termed as troubling that the bail petitions were being argued at length debating the provisions of the law.

The SC had earlier expressed its displeasure over the high court discussing the entire anti-terror law in a bail matter and made it clear that the judgements shall not be treated as a precedent and may not be relied upon by any of the parties in any of the proceedings. The top court had refused to stay the high court verdicts.

The SC had also clarified that the release of the three activists on bail was not being interfered with at this stage.

The Delhi High Court had said although the definition of a ‘terrorist act’ in section 15 of the UAPA is “wide and somewhat vague”, it must partake the essential character of terrorism and that the phrase ‘terrorist act’ cannot be permitted to be applied in a “cavalier manner” to criminal acts that squarely fall under the purview of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), according to Outlook.

The Delhi Police had assailed the HC verdicts, saying the interpretation by the high court will weaken the prosecution in terror cases, as per media reports.

The high court had granted them bail, saying in an anxiety to suppress dissent the State has blurred the line between the right to protest and terrorist activity, and if such a mindset gains traction, it would be a “sad day for democracy”.

-INDIA NEWS STREAM