Delhi Riots ‘Conspiracy’: Why Bail for UAPA Accused is Significant

The bench highlighted that the definition of “terrorist act” in UAPA is “wide and somewhat vague.”

The Big Story Podcast on Delhi High Court bail judgment on UAPA Accused. Image used for representation only.

(Photo: Kamran Akhter/The Quint)

In some big news on 15 June, the Delhi High Court granted bail to three UAPA accused-Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha in the Delhi riots case.

The Bench led by Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, while granting the bail, noted that the State failed to produce evidence to show that the three accused committed a terror offense, adding that “in its anxiety to suppress dissent, in the mind of the State, the line between constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred.”

However, what makes this judgment significant is the impact of the observations made by the high court.

The bench highlighted the differences between “protests” and “acts of terror” in its order and that the definition of “terrorist act” in UAPA is “wide and somewhat vague.”

For today’s episode, we will go through the charges made against the three accused, how the UAPA law has been used in the past to clamp down free speech and dissent, and the significance of the Delhi high court judgment.

To navigate through the details of the charge sheet and legal judgment, for today’s episode, we spoke with The Quint’s Principal Correspondent Aishwarya Iyer and The Quint’s Legal Editor, Vakasha Sachdev. You will also hear from Kalpana Kalita, mother of Devanga Kalita, on her views on the judgment.