Delhi High Court Questions UAPA Charges in 2020 Delhi Riots Case
The Delhi High Court, during a hearing on Wednesday, raised critical questions about the application of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in connection with the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots. The court sought clarification from the Delhi Police on whether the act of setting up a protest site is sufficient to invoke UAPA charges.
Key Accused and Context
The division bench, comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, is hearing bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others. The accused have been charge-sheeted under UAPA for their alleged involvement in a larger conspiracy that purportedly led to the riots.
Court’s Query on UAPA Application
The bench posed pointed questions to Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad, representing the Delhi Police, regarding the evidence required to establish UAPA charges. “Is organising a protest site sufficient to attract UAPA, or did those protest sites lead to violence? Most importantly, UAPA necessitates the establishment of intent. How is that intent being demonstrated in this case?” the court asked.
The justices emphasized that for UAPA to apply, the prosecution must prove a deliberate intent to disrupt the sovereignty, security, or unity of the nation.
Prosecution’s Argument
SPP Amit Prasad argued that the accused were part of a “deep-rooted conspiracy” aimed at inciting violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). He alleged that the accused had used various platforms, including WhatsApp groups, to plan and instigate violence.
Court’s Skepticism on Evidence
The bench further questioned the evidence presented by the prosecution, asking whether the alleged conspiracies discussed in WhatsApp groups were substantial enough to prove intent under UAPA. “Is the mere existence of WhatsApp groups with instigating messages sufficient to establish a conspiracy, or is there concrete evidence linking those discussions to the actual acts of violence?” the court inquired.
Next Steps in the Case
The High Court has listed the case for further arguments on Thursday. The bail pleas of the accused hinge on the prosecution’s ability to substantiate its claims of conspiracy and intent to cause unrest under UAPA provisions.
Significance of the Hearing
This case underscores the broader debate around the application of UAPA in protest-related cases and raises questions about balancing national security concerns with citizens’ right to dissent. The outcome of this hearing could have significant implications for how UAPA is interpreted and applied in similar cases in the future.
The court’s insistence on clarity and evidence-based arguments highlights the importance of upholding the rule of law while addressing issues of public safety and security.
