'Right To Protest Not 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA' : Delhi High Court Finds No Prima Facie Case Against Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal & Devangana Kalita LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 2021-06-15 https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/right-to-protest-not-terrorist-act-uapa-delhi-high-court-asif-iqbal-tanha-natasha-narwal-devangana-kalita-175736
Reiterating that right to peaceful protest is a constitutional right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the High Court said :
"...the right to protest is not outlawed and cannot be termed as a 'terrorist act' within the meaning of the UAPA, unless of course the ingredients of the offences under sections 15, 17 and/or 18 of the UAPA are clearly discernible from the factual allegations contained in charge-sheet and the material filed therewith"
Even if it is assumed that the protests have crossed the line of peaceful protests permissible under Constitution, that will not amount to a 'terrorist act' under the UAPA.
"The making of inflammatory speeches, organising chakkajams, and such like actions are not uncommon when there is widespread opposition to Governmental or Parliamentary actions. Even if we assume for the sake of argument, without expressing any view thereon, that in the present case inflammatory speeches, chakkajams, instigation of women protesters and other actions, to which the appellant is alleged to have been party, crossed the line of peaceful protests permissible under our Constitutional guarantee, that however would yet not amount to commission of a 'terrorist act' or a 'conspiracy' or an 'act preparatory' to the commission of a terrorist act as understood under the UAPA"
The police argued that even acts which are "likely to strike" terror come under the ambit of Section 15 UAPA.
In this regard, the Court said :
"Having given our anxious consideration to this aspect of 'likelihood' of threat and terror, we are of the view that the foundations of our nation stand on surer footing than to be likely to be shaken by a protest, however vicious, organised by a tribe of college students or other persons, operating as a coordination committee from the confines of a University situate in the heart of Delhi"
The Court said that the chargesheet, which employed "superfluous verbiage", "hyberbole", "stretched inferences", "grandiloquence", did not reveal any prima facie offence. (The article gives links to the full text of all three judgements )