New Delhi: Were the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the communal riots in North-East Delhi in February 2020 “terrorist acts”? Two benches of the Delhi High Court have differing views.
The two benches, which decided bail for the accused in the February 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, have different views on whether the charges are classified as “terrorist act”. Their disagreement stems from their definition of the word.
FIR no. 59/2020, which was filed on March 6, stated that “the riots in Delhi were a pre-planned conspiracy”. Since then, the prosecution has alleged That the anti-CAA/NRC protests in Delhi caused various “intermittent violent activities” in the capital and finally “ended up with riots” in Delhi in February 2020.
Giving HC decisions Bail Pinjra Tod activists Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, and Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha – who were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in June last year – claimed that even though it was believed To be taken that inflammatory speech, traffic jam (the blockade), and in this case the provocation of the female protesters crossed the limits of peaceful protest, they would not amount to “acts of terrorism”.
However, the decision denial of bail Former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) leader Umar Khalid, who has also been booked under the UAPA, on Tuesday insisted that the protests and riots be prima facie covered under the definition of a “terrorist act”, Explaining: “Attack on police front personnel by women protesters, being chased only by other ordinary people and involving the area in rioting is the hallmark of such pre-mediation plan and thus prima facie a ‘terrorist act’.” will be covered by the definition.”
Section 15 of the UAPA defines a “terrorist act”. It includes acts done with the intention of endangering the security of the country or spreading terror among the people. Among other things, these acts may include bombs, explosive substances, lethal weapons, etc., which may cause death, damage to property, or disrupt essential services/supply.
when three different but similar decisions In the case of Tanha, Narwal and Kalita, a bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J Bhambhani passed the decision on the bail plea of Umar Khalid by a bench of Justice Mridul and Justice Rajneesh Bhatnagar. Justice Mridul was common in all the cases, but the decisions were written by other judges of the bench.
However, on June 18, two days after the verdict in the Kalita, Narwal and Tanha cases, the Supreme Court intervened Saying that the orders of the High Court were “astonishing”.
The court had then directed that these orders shall not be treated as precedent in any other matter or relied upon in any court proceeding. The order was passed on appeals filed by Delhi Police against bail orders. The top court had made it clear that the three activists, who had been released from jail by then, would be out on bail.
‘No ordinary protest’
During the hearing, senior advocate Tridip Paes, appearing for Khalid, had argued that the ‘terrorist act’ as defined under Section 15 of the UAPA has not been made out in the present case.
He had referred to the Supreme Court judgments which held that mere creating disturbances in law and order would not amount to a ‘terrorist act’. He had also submitted that a terrorist act includes activities that cannot be controlled by a law agency under ordinary criminal law, and which causes fear among a large section of people.
However, in response, the court observed that if the earlier evidence is taken at face value, “it appears to be a premeditated conspiracy to create a disruptive conspiracy. flywheel and pre-planned protests at different places in Delhi, designed to lead to confrontation flywheel and incitement to violence and naturally result in riots on specific dates. ,
It asserted that the planned protest was “not a general protest in political culture or democracy, but a further disastrous and damaging one with extremely serious consequences”. It said the deliberate blocking of roads caused inconvenience and disruption of essential services in North-East Delhi, leading to panic and a sense of insecurity.
Read also: News watchdog condemns ‘media trial’ of Umar Khalid, orders Zee, India TV, Aaj Tak to remove video
‘Unreliable and unconvincing’
However, in bail order Kalita, Narwal and Tanha were explained by the High Court how terrorism differs from “traditional, heinous crimes”.
It relied on Supreme Court rulings that “the extent and reach of terrorist activity should be beyond the effect of a common crime and should not arise only by causing disturbance to law and order or even public order”. “.
The High Court had also emphasized the right to protest, and in its order granting bail to Tanha, observed that “the foundation of our nation is far stronger than is likely to be shaken by a protest, however vicious, organized by A tribe of college students or other persons working as a coordinating committee from the limits of a university situated in the center of Delhi.
While the prosecution had argued that it was “not a specific protest but a fierce protest”, the court said it was “unheard of and unconvincing”.
In the order granting bail to Kalita, the court had further observed that it is not unusual for protesters to push the limits permissible in law. It said, “making inflammatory speeches, organizing” traffic jamAnd such actions are not uncommon when there is widespread opposition to government or parliamentary actions.”
(Edited by Therese Sudeep)
Read also: ‘Wage war on terrorism but follow procedure’: What HC said while quashing GN Saibaba’s sentence