‘Centre blurring line between protest, terrorism’: What HC said in Delhi violence case bail order
While granting bail to student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday made some sharp observations on the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, its interpretation by the government and the Delhi Police’s decision to file the case under the stringent law.
The division bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup J Bhambhani passed three separate orders for granting bail to the accused. In its bail order for Tanha, the court noted that charging people with UAPA “frivolously” will undermine the “intent and purpose” of the law. In Narwal’s case, the court highlighted upon the difference between right to protest and terrorist activities….
In its order, the court criticised the government’s actions in “suppressing dissent”. “…It seems, that in its anxiety to suppress dissent, in the mind of the state, the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred,” the court said in its order. “If this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy.”…
