Protesting without arms is a fundamental right and not a “terrorist activity”, the Delhi high court said on Tuesday, granting bail to three university students jailed under stringent anti-terror provisions in connection with the north-east Delhi riots last year.
A division bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup J Bhambhani didn’t mince words in three separate bail orders, saying it was “constrained to say that it appears that in its anxiety to suppress dissent and in the morbid fear that matters may get out of hand, the state has blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed ‘right to protest’ and ‘terrorist activity’.”
The court cautioned that “if this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy, which would be in peril” and highlighted the lack of evidence to back Delhi police’s charges under the anti-terror law UAPA against JNU students Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal and Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha that they were conspirators and instigators of the riots last year.
Citing the Supreme Court’s take on protests in 2018, in the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs Union of India and Anrcase, the court said that uprisings against governmental and parliamentary actions are legitimate; and though such protests are expected to be peaceful and non-violent, it is not uncommon for protesters to push the limits permissible in law
“Even if we assume for the sake of argument, without expressing any view thereon, that in the present case inflammatory speeches, chakkajams (blockades), instigation of women protesters and other actions…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 bench added.
The riots between 23 and 27 February 2020 were allegedly triggered by a clash between the supporters of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and those opposing it.
The Delhi Police, the Crime Branch, and the Special Cell jointly probed the 755 cases registered in connection with the riots. While 697 cases were probed by the northeast district police and 57 by the Crime Branch, one related to the larger conspiracy was looked into by the Special Cell.
Three supplementary charge sheets were filed in the UAPA case against 17 people, including Kalita, Narwal, and Tanha.
Opposing the bail petitions, the Delhi Police had argued that “a communally surcharged environment was deliberately created by the conspirators”, sharply dividing the religious communities to portray the political establishment as inimical to a religious community.
The protest planned was “not a typical protest” normal in the political culture or democracy but one “far eviller and injurious, geared towards extremely grave consequences”, affecting public tranquillity, creating terror, impacting unity and integrity and disturbing even “tempo of the life” of a particular community, it was contended.
