Holding that the right to protest is a fundamental right that can’t be termed as a “terrorist act”, the Delhi High Court today granted bail to JNU student Devangana Kalita in a case related to communal violence in northeast Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act.
By a separate judgment, it also granted bail to another JNU student Natasha Narwal and Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
A division bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup J Bhambhani didn’t mince words in three separate bail orders, saying it was “constrained to say that it appears that in its anxiety to suppress dissent and in the morbid fear that matters may get out of hand, the state has blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed ‘right to protest’ and ‘terrorist activity’.”
The court cautioned that “if this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy, which would be in peril” and highlighted the lack of evidence to back Delhi police’s charges under the anti-terror law UAPA against JNU students Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal and Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha that they were conspirators and instigators of the riots last year.
Citing the Supreme Court’s take on protests in 2018, in the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs Union of India and Anrcase, the court said that uprisings against governmental and parliamentary actions are legitimate; and though such protests are expected to be peaceful and non-violent, it is not uncommon for protesters to push the limits permissible in law
“Even if we assume for the sake of argument, without expressing any view thereon, that in the present case inflammatory speeches, chakkajams (blockades), instigation of women protesters and other actions…crossed the line of peaceful protests permissible under our Constitutional guarantee, that however would yet not amount to commission of a ‘terrorist act’ or a ‘conspiracy’ or an ‘act preparatory’ to the commission of a terrorist act as understood under the UAPA,” the bench added.
