Student activist Umar Khalid, on Wednesday detained by Delhi Police since September 13, 2020, opted to retract his bail petition and a writ challenging the constitutional validity of certain UAPA provisions, notably Section 43D, which imposes strict bail conditions. The Supreme Court, on Thursday, made a significant decision regarding the contentious Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), India’s stringent anti-terror legislation
The Supreme Court of India, on Thursday, made a significant decision regarding the contentious Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), India’s stringent anti-terror legislation. The apex court granted permission for the withdrawal of eight petitions that had challenged various aspects of the UAPA, marking a crucial moment in the ongoing debate over the law’s constitutionality and application.
The bench, comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal, articulated their decision, stating,
“The counsel for petitioners seek permission to withdraw the petitions and approach the concerned high courts within two weeks. Permission to withdraw is granted. Needless to say, the petitioner will be at liberty to file proceedings as permissible under law before the high court.”
This directive not only underscores the Supreme Court’s approach to decentralize judicial scrutiny but also highlights the strategic importance of empowering lower courts to examine the nuances of such a complex law.
Justice Trivedi stated,
“Normally we would not have entertained such petitions directly under Article 32…nor would have granted an interim order”,.
Background of the Withdrawals
Also read- Supreme Court Grants UAPA Challenge Petitioners Time To Decide On High Court Approach (lawchakra.in)
Among the notable withdrawals was the petition of student activist Umar Khalid, incarcerated since September 13, 2020, who sought bail and challenged the constitutional validity of UAPA’s stringent bail conditions under Section 43D. The bench’s decision came after the central and Tripura governments raised objections to the petitions’ maintainability, prompting a reconsideration of the strategy to contest the law’s provisions.
The withdrawn petitions encompassed a wide array of appellants, including a public interest litigation (PIL) by the Foundation of Media Professionals, individual pleas like that of Biyumma (mother of Zakariya, an under-trial prisoner in the 2008 Bangalore blasts), and several others implicated in the 2021 Tripura violence. These cases brought to light the diverse and often controversial application of UAPA across different contexts and incidents in the country.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing a group charged under UAPA for their report on the Tripura violence, sought an extension of the interim arrest shield. Similarly, Advocate Shahrukh Alam, representing five students investigated for social media posts on the violence, echoed this request. However, the bench opted not to extend the interim orders, instead making an oral appeal to the state for restraint over the next two weeks.
Bhushan’s plea for video-conferencing facilities for petitioners, citing fears of arrest upon approaching the high court, was declined by the bench, emphasizing the principle,
“You can’t allege anything in the abstract. Once we are sending you back to the high court, we cannot micro-manage everything.”
This series of petitions and their withdrawal highlight the broader legal and societal debate surrounding UAPA, a law that has been criticized for its potential for misuse against political dissent and activism. The Supreme Court’s decision to redirect these challenges to high courts reflects a procedural strategy, possibly aimed at ensuring a more granular examination of the law’s provisions and their impact.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi’s argument, referencing the ability to challenge laws irrespective of the petitioner’s status as accused, points to the fundamental legal principle that the validity of legislation can be contested by any citizen, drawing parallels with past challenges to similar laws like the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).
Conclusion
As these petitions make their way to various high courts across the country, the legal community and civil society observers will be keenly watching the outcomes. These cases not only test the boundaries of India’s anti-terror legislation but also probe the judiciary’s role in balancing national security concerns with individual rights and freedoms. The Supreme Court’s recent directive is a reminder of the intricate dance between different levels of the judiciary in shaping the contours of law and justice in India.
Also read- Supreme Court Introduces New Procedure For Circulating Adjournment Letters (lawchakra.in)
