Delhi Police files appeal in Supreme Court against Delhi HC order granting bail to Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal

“The line between terrorist activity and the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest is getting somewhat blurred”, this was the observation of the Delhi high court on the arrest of the three students under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. On 15th June, the court conferred bail to Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal on the grounds that our Constitution under Article 19 guarantees a right to freedom of peaceful protest and that the evidence adduced upon investigation does not merit an action under the UAPA. The court further added in its order that the investigation agencies must earnestly differentiate between an act of “terrorism” and an act of “dissent” while invoking the UAPA. The ground level report is that still the students were not freed from the jail irrespective of the court order. The police on being questioned provided procedural delays in paperwork as the reason for such attack on right to life and personal liberty. Today, the Delhi Court has passed a release order for these students after they moved the court seeking their release from the jail.  

However, the Delhi Police has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court order of 15th June, on the grounds that the High Court did not advert to or analyze the cogent evidence on record of the case and has applied irrelevant considerations while granting the bail to the respondent and other co-conspirators. According to the plea filed before the apex court, the police allege that decision by the High Court is based more on the social media narrative than the evidence gathered and elaborated in the chargesheet.

As per Delhi Police, the trio and other accused persons conspired to cause disruption of such an extent that would lead to disorderliness and disturbance of law. However, this contention was defeated by the High Court safeguarding, right to protest peacefully without arms, under Article 19(1)(b), and even went on to state that even if activities cross the permissible line of peaceful protests, it would still not amount to commission of a “terrorist act” or a “conspiracy” as understood under UAPA. Now, all eyes would be on the Supreme Court, whether it would accept the plea of the Delhi Police, or agree with the Delhi High Court, and decide on the faith of the fundamental rights of the citizens.