The issue of the in-depth reading of the UAPA counterterrorism law is “important” and may have “ramifications across India,” the Supreme Court said on Friday, making clear that the Delhi High Court verdicts grant bail to three student activists in northeast Delhi. The case of riots will not be used as a precedent by the courts of the country.
A vacation bench by Judge Hemant Gupta and Judge V Ramasubramanian called it “concerning” that the higher court has written more than 100 pages discussing the entire UAPA anti-terrorism law while deciding the bail requests in the case and said it will require interpretation by the party. of the dome. Court.
The high court agreed to hear appeals filed by Delhi police challenging HC’s verdicts and issued notices to JNU students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita and Jamia Asif student Iqbal Tanha seeking their answers.
While it declined to stay the higher court verdicts granting bail to the three defendants, the court said these judgments will not be treated as a precedent by either party in any court.
“Meanwhile, the contested judgment will not be considered a precedent and neither party may invoke it in any of the proceedings. It is clarified that the release of the defendants (Narwal, Kalita and Tanha) on bail is not being interfered with at this stage, ”the court said in its order.
“Issue notice,” he said, adding: “Allow the answering affidavits to be filed within four weeks. Include in the week beginning July 19, 2021 on an unchanged day. “
ALSO READ: HC extends activist Stan Swamy’s stay in private hospital until July 5
The court took note of Attorney General Tushar Mehta’s submission that the higher court has “turned UAPA upside down” by granting bail in the case.
“We would like to issue a notice and listen to the other party,” he added.
Mehta urged the supreme court to stay the superior court’s verdicts saying that the findings of these sentences “virtually record the acquittal of these defendants” and other defendants would also seek bail relying on them.
“The way the Act has been interpreted will probably require interpretation by the Supreme Court. That is why we are issuing a notice,” the court said.
Lead advocate Kapil Sibal, who came forward on behalf of student activists, said there is no question that the higher court must consider the ramifications and interpretation of the UAPA for there to be a judgment on the issue by the higher court.
“We are dealing with bail requests,” Sibal said.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is automatically generated from a syndicated feed.)