New Delhi| The Center on Friday criticized the Delhi High Court order granting bail to one of the three student activists in a major conspiracy case related to the violence in northeast Delhi in February 2020. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Delhi Police, along with advocate Rajat Nair, presented the Centre’s side. He submitted in the top court that if the High Court’s finding is implemented throughout the country, a person who has planted a bomb somewhere and it is eventually defused, that person will be free from the clutches of law.
He argued that if the High Court judgment becomes law, then those who have attacked and bombed the Indian Prime Minister in the past will not be treated as terrorists, as they also truly believe in their root cause.
“The Delhi High Court’s interpretation sets a dangerous precedent and should not be upheld,” Mehta said before a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramaniam.
The Center presented its stand during the hearing in the Delhi violence case.
Further, the Supreme Court on Friday expressed dissatisfaction with the 100-page judgment of the Delhi High Court granting bail to one of the three student activists in a case of larger conspiracy related to the violence in northeast Delhi in February 2020.
The court made this observation in a case related to the Delhi violence in which 53 people lost their lives and hundreds were injured. During the hearing, the apex court expressed displeasure over the order from the Delhi High Court and said that the decision of the Delhi High Court cannot be treated as a precedent, but at the same time the court refused to stay the bail.
The bench emphasized that the High Court’s decision can have cascading implications and, therefore, the apex court has to examine it and favored a stay of the effect of the judgment, so that it is not used as a precedent in any other case. Can go The issue is important and it may have an impact at the pan India level, we would love to issue notice.
We will not stay the High Court’s decision, the bench said. But it cannot be taken as a precedent for seeking bail by any accused in the Delhi riots case.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the police, argued that the High Court had made extensive observations and the apex court should stay the decision.
Mehta insisted that the entire UAPA and the Constitution have been turned upside down by the High Court in the judgment.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the student activist, submitted that he does not oppose the apex court’s inquiry into the High Court order, but opposes the stay on the operation of the judgment. Mehta said the High Court order would be cited before the trial court; Hence, there is a need to put a stay on it.
The top court said that the way the Delhi High Court has interpreted the UAPA, when it was not even requested to do so, it needs to examine the issues raised by the Delhi Police.
After hearing the arguments, the top court issued notice on an appeal filed by the Delhi Police challenging the high court’s decision to grant bail to three student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha.
The top court directed that the order of the Delhi High Court on bail shall not be treated as precedent and shall not be relied upon by any party before any court. The top court also refused to interfere with the release of the three accused in the case.
The three were given relief on Tuesday on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each and two sureties of the same amount, paving the way for their bail. Other conditions for his release ranged from submission of his passport to not indulging in any activity that could have any bearing on the case. A Delhi court on Thursday ordered the release of three activists.
The top court will hear the matter further in the week beginning July 19.
