'Right To Protest Not 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA' : Delhi High Court Finds No Prima Facie Case Against Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal & Devangana Kalita

The Delhi High Court has found that offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) are not made out prima facie against student leaders Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.The Delhi Police had filed chargesheet against them alleging that the protests organized by them against the Citizenship Amendment Act from December 2019 were part of a "larger conspiracy" behind the North East Delhi communal riots which took place in the last week of February 2020.However, a High Court bench comprising Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani, after a preliminary analysis of the chargesheet, observed that the allegations do not prima facie constitute the alleged UAPA offences relating to terrorist activities(Sections 15,17 and 18).Therefore, the division bench said that the rigour of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA against the grant of bail was not attracted against the accused, and hence they were entitled to grant of bail under the ordinary principles under the Code of Criminal Procedure."Since we are of the view that no offence under sections 15, 17 or 18 UAPA is made-out against the appellant on a prima facie appreciation of the subject charge-sheet and the material collected and cited by the prosecution, the additional limitations and restrictions for grant of bail under section 43D(5) UAPA do not apply; and the court may therefore fall back upon the usual and ordinary considerations for bail under the Cr.P.C"These three student leaders have spent over a period of one year in Tihar jail, even amid the two deadly waves of the COVID pandemic. The benefit of interim bail on account of the pandemic was not available to them as they were accused under the UAPA. After Natasha Narwal lost her father Mahavir Narwal to COVID last month, the High Court had granted her interim bail for three weeks to perform the funeral rites.Right to protest not a terrorist act under UAPAIn the three separate orders delivered allowing the bail applications of Tanha, Narwal and Kalita, the High Court has undertaken a factual examination of the allegations to ascertain if prima facie case is made out against them for the purposes of Section 43D(5) of UAPA. Also, there are important and significant observations made by the High Court relating to the fundamental right to protest and the frivolous use of UAPA to stifle citizens' dissent.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""The right to protest is not outlawed and cannot be termed as a 'terrorist act' within the meaning of the UAPA" - Delhi High Court in #DelhiRiots case against #AsifIqbalTanha, #DevanganaKalita and #NatashaNarwal.— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 15, 2021 No Specific allegation in chargesheet on commission of 'terrorist act' or 'raising funds' to commit terrorist actThe High Court observed that there is "absolutely nothing" in the charge-sheet, by way of any specific or particularised allegation that would show the possible commission of a 'terrorist act' within the meaning of section 15 UAPA; or an act of 'raising funds' to commit a terrorist act under section 17; or an act of 'conspiracy' to commit or an 'act preparatory' to commit, a terrorist act within the meaning of section 18 UAPA. The Court noted that the allegations in the chargesheet highlighted that the accused were part of mobilizing people and organizing chakka-jam(road blocks) as forms of protests against the CAA.As regards Tanha, the Court noted that the only specific and overt act alleged against him is that he had handed over a mobile SIM card, which was given to him by someone else, to another alleged conspirator, who in turn used the SIM card to form a WhatsApp group to send messages regarding CAA protest."Other than this one action that is specifically attributed to the appellant, this court is unable to discern any other act or omission attributed specifically to the appellant", the Court said.Furthhemore, the Court noted, there is no allegation whatsoever that the arms, ammunition and other articles, that were supposedly to be used as weapons, were recovered from or at the instance of the appellant.The Court observed that the prosecution allegations are not specific factual allegations and are based on certain inferences. It said that mere use of "alarming and hyperbolic verbiage" in chargesheet will not convince the court."It has been a recurrent theme, repeatedly urged by the State, that what was contemplated and in fact...

'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

The Court noted that the CAA protests were not outlawed or banned.The protest was monitored by law enforcement agencies. The student organizations, which the accused were leading, are not banned organizations.

Tags