Context:
- Case: Bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots case
- Court: Delhi High Court
- Query: The court questioned if organizing a protest alone could justify invoking the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), an anti-terror law, in the case.
Relevance : GS 2(Governance )
Legal Context
- UAPA Invocation: UAPA provisions are typically applied in cases involving terrorism or activities threatening national security.
- 2020 Riots: The Delhi Police charged Khalid, Imam, and others with being part of a larger conspiracy behind the communal violence in February 2020, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries.
Court’s Observation
- Focus on Intent: The Delhi High Court emphasized that intent is a crucial factor under UAPA. The court pointed out that simply organizing protests isn’t enough unless there is evidence showing an intention to instigate violence.
- Facades of Peaceful Protests: The Special Public Prosecutor argued that the peaceful protests were a “facade” for an actual violent plan. The court asked the prosecution to provide specifics of how the accused were instigating violence rather than organizing a peaceful protest.
Evidence and Allegations
- WhatsApp Group (JACT): Evidence was presented linking the accused to a WhatsApp group involved in organizing protests.
- Prosecutor’s Claim: Mr. Prasad argued that the accused were part of a larger conspiracy, using the protest as a cover for violence.
- Court’s Direction: The court asked the prosecution to present specific evidence showing the transition from peaceful protest to organized violence.
Implications and Legal Path Forward
- Clarity on UAPA: The court’s inquiry reflects the need for clarity on how UAPA provisions apply in cases where protests may be involved.
- Prosecution’s Challenge: The prosecution must prove that the accused intended to incite violence, not just engage in peaceful protest.
- Next Hearing: The court scheduled the next hearing for Thursday, as it seeks more specific evidence to determine if UAPA is applicable in this case.
Way Forward
- Strengthening Evidence for Terrorism Charges: The prosecution needs to demonstrate concrete evidence linking the accused to terrorist activities or violent conspiracies, beyond organizing protests.
- Legal Precedent: This case could influence future applications of UAPA in cases where the line between peaceful protest and terrorism is contested.
