FEATUREDLatestNationalNewsTOP NEWS STORIESTOP STORIES

SC Said Decision Of Delhi HC Will Not Be Considered An Example

SC said decision of Delhi HC will not be considered an example. On granting bail to the accused of Delhi riots, the Supreme Court said, the decision of the Delhi High Court will not be considered an example

While granting bail to three Delhi riots accused Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha.

The Supreme Court, apprehensive over the interpretation of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in the High Court, said it could have wide-ranging consequences.

Therefore, this matter is important and the court will consider it. At the same time, it was also ordered that the decision of the High Court should not be taken as a precedent.

That is, the basis on which the decision has been taken, no party will be able to refer to it in the court.

The top court has also issued notices to the three accused and sought their response in four weeks.

Also, the three accused, who have come out on bail by the order of the High Court, will remain out for the time being because the Supreme Court has not interfered in that issue.

These orders were given by a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramaniam after hearing a petition filed by Delhi Police challenging the High Court order.

The High Court, in its judgment on June 15, while granting bail to the three accused, Devangana, Natasha, and Asif, had made sharp comments about the case.

The Delhi Police’s petition was heard in the Supreme Court on Friday, while the matter will be heard in the third week of July.

The High Court has acquitted the accused in a way: Mehta.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Delhi Police, opposed the High Court’s decision, saying that the High Court in its order, while granting bail to the accused, overturned the UAPA Act itself.

In the order, in a way, the accused have been acquitted. Mehta said 53 people, mostly policemen, were killed in the violence and over 700 were injured.

SC said decision of Delhi HC will not be considered an example:  This violence took place when the US President came to India.

The High Court said in the order that the government is not able to differentiate between the constitutional right to protest and terrorist activities in the concern of suppressing the protests.

The line of protest and terrorist activities is getting blurred. Mehta asked whether the right to protest included the right to kill people and throw bombs.

Many people were killed and the High Court is saying that the violence was controlled and UAPA would not apply in this case.

That is if someone plants a bomb and the bomb disposal squad deactivates it, will the intensity of the crime be reduced?

Responding to Mehta’s submissions, the bench said, “We agree with you that this matter is important and may have wide-ranging consequences, so the court will consider it.” Notice is being issued and the other side will also be heard.

The bench said the UAPA law was not challenged in the High Court.

There is no doubt that the Supreme Court should consider the interpretation of UAPA and its consequences, said advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the accused.

But here we are dealing with the issue of the bail application. On Sibal’s submissions, the bench said, “We are surprised that the 100-page judgment on the bail application has been given and the entire law has been discussed.

The bench said that many questions arise as the constitutionality of the UAPA Act was not challenged in the High Court. The bail application was before the High Court.

Mehta said, in the decision of the High Court, many such issues need to be considered.

Tushar Mehta said that the accused have come out after bail, they should be allowed to stay out, but interim stay on the order should be done because the stay order of the Supreme Court has its own meaning.

He said the High Court says that the reason behind the protest was the belief that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is against a community.

If it is to be believed, then the woman who killed the former prime minister also did so in the belief that injustice was done to a community. Mehta said that there are many issues that need to be considered in the High Court’s decision.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2023 ANN All Rights Reserved