Supreme Court Stays Bail for Delhi Riots Accused Under UAPA

Title:

The Supreme Court Stays Delhi High Court's Bail Granted to Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita in North East Delhi Riots Case

On June 16, 2021, the Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court's order that granted bail to three students, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal, and Devangana Kalita, who were arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the North East Delhi riots case. The bench comprised of Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, Justices Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose.

Full Article:

The recent North East Delhi riots case has sparked much controversy, especially the question of the grant of bail to persons arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, popularly known as UAPA. On June 16, 2021, the Supreme Court provided some clarity on this issue when it stayed the Delhi High Court's order granting bail to three students, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal, and Devangana Kalita, who were charged under the UAPA.

The bench, comprising of Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, Justices Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose, considered the appeal filed by the Delhi Police against the Delhi High Court's bail order issued on June 15, 2021. The High Court bench, led by Justice Siddharth Mridul, had granted bail to the three accused on the grounds of lack of tangible evidence linking them to the riots.

The Supreme Court, however, found that there were strong prima facie grounds to believe that the accused were involved in the planning and execution of the riots. It also noted the High Court's failure to sufficiently weigh the impact of the case on the larger society and the security of the nation.

The Apex Court's order to stay the High Court's bail order has important implications for the interpretation and implementation of the UAPA. This stringent law is often used against those who may pose a threat to national security and sovereignty. It enables the government to declare any organization as a "terrorist organization" and provides for preventive detention and trial in special courts for offenses related to terrorism.

In light of this, the Supreme Court's decision to stay the grant of bail to the three students under the UAPA is a significant step towards maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. It sends a message that the judiciary is willing to consider all factors when dealing with cases related to national security and that the interests of the nation cannot be compromised for any individual's personal liberty.

One of the key issues raised in this case was the interpretation of Section 15 of the UAPA, which states that confession recorded by a police officer shall not be admissible as evidence except in the limited circumstance that it is made in the presence of a Magistrate. The Delhi High Court had observed that the confession made by one of the accused was not recorded in the presence of a Magistrate, and thus, was not admissible.

However, the Supreme Court, in its order, pointed out that the Delhi High Court had failed to consider the fact that the accused had given the same confession to a Metropolitan Magistrate. This raises the question of whether the High Court sufficiently weighed all relevant material and evidence before granting bail.

Further, the Supreme Court also noted that the fact that the three accused had not been convicted prior to this case did not necessarily mean that they could not be considered as a potential threat to national security. It stated that the court must consider both antecedents and future conduct when deciding whether to grant bail to persons charged under the UAPA.

The High Court's order to grant bail has been widely criticized for its lack of sensitivity towards the gravity of the case and the impact it could have on society. It is also important to note that the three accused had been charged under the UAPA, which is an extremely stringent law that requires a high standard of evidence and scrutiny to prove an individual's involvement in terrorist offenses.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's stay on the bail order of the three accused in the North East Delhi riots case is a welcome step towards upholding the rule of law and maintaining national security. It has sent a strong message that the judiciary is willing to consider all relevant factors when dealing with cases related to national security.