SC Rejects Stay On Bail Granted To 3 Students Activists, To Examine HC Interpretation Of UAPA

The way the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) has been interpreted by the High Court will need further study, Supreme Court noted.

Student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha outside Tihar prison. (Image: PTI)

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to cancel the bails granted to Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, the three student activists accused in the Delhi riot case of February 2020. The SC also added that the way the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) has been interpreted by the High Court will need further study by the top court. 

“The way it has been interpreted probably will require examination by the Supreme Court,” said a special bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian, while also making it clear that, in the meantime, the HC order will “not be treated as a precedent” and shall not be relied upon by anyone before any court. 

"The issue of reading down of anti-terror law UAPA is important and can have pan India ramifications. The way the act has been interpreted, probably it will require interpretation by the Supreme Court”, added the judges. 

The SC, however, did not stay the order saying that not interfering with the permission of the bail to the activists as of now.  

The Supreme Court has agreed to the Delhi Police’s appeal against the verdict of the High Court. Furthermore, they have also issued notices to the student activists, now out on bail, seeking answers.  

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Delhi Police said that the High Court has turned the entire Unlawful Activities Prevention Act upside down by granting bail to the students.  

“If we go by this judgment, even the lady who assassinated the former Prime Minister was also protesting,” said Mr. Mehta while expressing his disagreement with the HC’s order. 

The Delhi high court had on June 15 granted bail to these activists saying, "in its anxiety to suppress dissent, line between right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting blurred”.