SC: HC Judgement Not To Be Treated As Precedent; Notice Issued To Delhi Police

WHAT DID THE COURT SAY

• The Supreme Court clarified that it was not intervening with the bail granted the student protesters.
• It however noted that the judgement of the Delhi high Court was not to be treated as a precedent for such cases.
• The decision was given by the Vacation Bench composed of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian.
• Since no significant challenge had been made towards the UAPA, the judgement could not be given the status of precedent.

ARGUMENTS MADE

• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was representing the Delhi Police in this case.
• He requested for a stay on the impugned judgement.
• He clarified that he had no objection towards the grant of bail, however, the effect of the judgement would lead to the acquittal of other accused in the Delhi Riots Case.
• The Respondents, being represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, requested that the judgement not be stayed but not be treated as a precedent til; the case was settled.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

• The Delhi High Court in its judgement granted bail to Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita on the ground that offences under the UAPA couldn't be made out against them.
• It was held that the right to protest couldn’t be termed as a terrorist act under the UAPA.
• The judgement was given by the High Court Bench comprising Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani.
• The Division Bench also stated that the accused were to be granted bail under the CrPC as Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

What do you think of this case? Share your opinions in the comment section and let us know!