logo
Welcome Guest! You are here: Home » India

SC refuses to interfere in Delhi HC order granting bail to student-activists

The Apex Court however said the Delhi High Court order needed to be re-examined and posted the matter for further hearing next month

Friday June 18, 2021 5:54 PM, ummid.com with inputs from IANS

SC Hearing on student activists bail

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India Friday refused to immediately interfere in the Delhi High Court order granting bail to student-activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha.

The Apex Court however said the Delhi High Court order needed to be re-examined and posted the matter for further hearing next month.

"Pan-India Ramifications"

Noting that the bail-order could have "pan-India ramifications" because of the way the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) had been interpreted, SC stressed that it could not, in the meantime, be used as precedent for other cases.

The SC said this while hearing the Delhi Police petition challenging the High Court order granting bail to the three student-activists. In its petition the Delhi Police had urged the apex court to stay the HC bail order.

Earlier, during the hearing on the Delhi Police petition in SC, the Centre unleashed a barrage of criticism on the Delhi HC bail-order granting to three student-activists.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, assisted by advocate Rajat Nair, representing the Delhi Police, submitted that if the finding of the High Court is applied across the country, even a person who had planted a bomb, which ultimately got defused, would escapee the clutches of the law.

"The interpretation of the Delhi High Court sets a dangerous precedent and ought not to be sustained," said Mehta before the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian.

The Delhi Police claimed that the High Court digressed to issues which were not even argued by parties or the lawyers for the activists, and the issue of what constitutes a "terrorist activity" was never argued.

"The issue of legislative competence was never argued. Hence, why, how and for what purpose the Delhi High Court ventured into the territory of interpreting as to what constitutes a terrorist activity," Mehta asked.

While granting bail to the activists, the Delhi High Court held that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was to be applied to offence limited only to defence of India, as provided in Entry 1 of Union List of the Constitution.

Mehta contested this and argued that this finding virtually sets aside the Act, as Delhi High Court could not have gone into Entry 1 of Union List of the Constitution, as it was relatable to military actions during the war.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the activists, contended that the top court may issue notice and examine the issue.

After hearing arguments in the matter, the Supreme Court directed that the order of the Delhi High Court may not be relied upon by any court in the country while examining any such issue and posted the matter for further hearing next month.


For all the latest News, Opinions and Views, download ummid.com App.

Select Language To Read in Urdu, Hindi, Marathi or Arabic.

Google News

Share this page

 Post Comments
Note: By posting your comments here you agree to the terms and conditions of www.ummid.com
.
Logo