The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, October 31, issued a notice to the Centre regarding the plea of former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar and activist, Umar Khalid. Khalid has challenged various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and has also sought bail in connection with the Delhi riots conspiracy case. The hearing for both matters has been scheduled for November 22.
Also read- Umar Khalid Bail Plea Adjourned (lawchakra.in)
A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi was presiding over the case. Justice Bose stated,
“We are listing the writ petition along with the special leave petition for bail because they have overlapping implications. Other connected matters also will be taken up with these, since they are also challenges against Sections 15(1)(a) and 18 of the UAPA.”
The plea comes in the backdrop of Khalid’s arrest in September 2020, where he has been accused of being involved in the larger conspiracy surrounding the communal violence that erupted in Delhi in February 2020. Khalid, along with 59 others, including Pinjra Tod members Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha, and student activist Gulfisha Fatima, has been charged in connection with the North-East Delhi communal riots case.
Also read- Sibal: Umar Khalid Can Prove No Case In 20 Mins, Supreme Court Adjourns (lawchakra.in)
Khalid’s plea in the Supreme Court challenges the Delhi High Court’s verdict from last year, which upheld a trial court’s decision denying him bail. The High Court had observed that the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) were linked to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots through various ‘conspiratorial meetings’ held from December 2019 till February 2020. The court also took note of Khalid’s use of phrases like ‘inquilabli salam’ (revolutionary salute) and ‘krantikari istiqbal’ (revolutionary welcome) in a speech, interpreting them as potential incitements to violence.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing another petitioner, clarified,
“There are two provisions of the UAPA that we have challenged – one is the bail provision, and the other is the definition of unlawful activity.”
To which Justice Trivedi responded,
“That is there in all the petitions.”
The Supreme Court also issued a notice in Khalid’s latest petition and a writ petition filed by the Foundation of Media Professionals. The court directed,
“In the event that any of the respondents want to file any counter-affidavit, they should do so before the next date of hearing.”
