Human Rights Defenders Data Information Knowledge Solidarity

'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 )

Back to the Basics: The Delhi High Court’s Bail Orders under the UAPA June 15, 2021 Gautam Bhatia https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2021/06/15/back-to-the-basics-the-delhi-high-courts-bail-orders-under-the-uapa/ 

the following.- indisputable – principles emerge from the High Court’s three orders:

1.The UAPA is a special statute, designed to deal with a state of exception, and its operation should not be blurred with ordinary legislation.
2. Criminal statutes must always be narrowly construed, and their terms given due specificity.

3 A combination of (1) and (2) implies that the word “terrorism” in the UAPA must be given specific meaning that relates to the defence of India, and is distinguishable from public order offences.
4. In order to establish a prima facie case of terrorism under the UAPA against an accused, the allegations must be individualised, factual, and particularistic. The gap between what an individual is accused of, and the actual events, cannot be filled by inferences or speculation.
5. As long as that gap exists, the prima facie case under the UAPA – and the prosecution’s prima facie burden – remains undischarged, and normal principles of bail (not S. 43(D)(5) will apply.
6. This is specifically important when the allegations pertain to organising – and participating in – protests, which are guaranteed rights under the Constitution. The Court will be specially vigilant to prevent the use of UAPA-type statutes to blur the lines between protests, illegalities committed during protests, and terrorism.

 "In Its Anxiety To Suppress Dissent...": Court's Sharp Words For Centre.. Delhi Riots: Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Tanha were arrested in May last year on conspiracy charges linked to violence over the citizenship law  https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pinjra-tod-activists-jamia-student-arrested-in-connection-with-delhi-riots-case-get-bail-from-high-court-2464070 There is a difference between the "constitutionally guaranteed right to protest" and terrorist activity, the Delhi High Court said Tuesday, as it granted bail to three activists arrested more than a year ago in connection with riots that followed protests against the controversial citizenship law.