The higher court diluted UAPA on a bond matter, where it was not being contested, said a SC vacation bank of Judge Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian. The court, however, did not suspend the bond granted to Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Tanha, but said it was “concerning” that the HC had discussed UAPA in 100 pages while posting the bond.
In response to Attorney General Tushar Mehta’s submission that the higher court “turned UAPA upside down” by issuing bail, the SC court said: “The issue is important and may have ramifications across India.” We would like to issue an advisory and listen to the other side. ”
The higher court had said that the UAPA provisions make bail virtually impossible unless the defendant can prove that he is not involved in the case, adding that the law was enacted to deal with matters related to national defense and nothing else. . The HC criticized the government for using the UAPA to ‘suppress dissent’ and said it would not tolerate the state using the term ‘terrorist act’ casually in reference to acts of omission and commission defined in other laws.
Urging the Supreme Court to suspend the HC order, Mehta expressed fear that a large number of defendants in jail would use the new interpretation of the law. Judge Gupta admitted that the interpretation had ramifications across India and said the court would hear the case on July 19 and decide the matter quickly.
Representing the student activists, lead advocate Kapil Sibal said there was no question that SC should consider the ramifications and interpretation of the UAPA in order for a judgment to be made on the issue, but now “we are dealing with bail requests ”. The bench responded: “That is what worries us. It is surprising that in a bail application, there is a 100-page sentence that discusses the entire law. There are many questions that arise, since the legality of the UAPA was not challenged in the higher court. These were bail requests, ”said SC’s bank.