Snehal Upadhyay-
The Supreme Court pointed out various issues on the granting bail judgement given by the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court granted bail on June 15th to the student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha who were involved in the Northeast Delhi riots case.
A division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramaniam ordered that the bail judgement given by the Delhi High Court could not be used as a precedent by the accused to seek bail.
The bench reacted surprisingly to the 100-page judgement.
The court said, “What is troubling us is that in a bail petition, the High Court authors a 100-page judgment, and that too discussing all laws. This is something very, very surprising. What we can say is since the bail has been granted, those who got the relief will not be affected. But otherwise, we will stay the effect of this order.”
The Apex Court while hearing the bail plea emphasized that the High Court mull over the constitutionality of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) which is a key to anti-terrorism law in India.
“There are many questions which arise. Because the legality or constitutionality of UAPA was not challenged by the High Court.” said the Apex Court.
Ironically, senior advocate Kapil Sibal who was the counsel from the side of the accused agreed with the observation made by the Supreme Court on the High Court’s remarks on UAPA.