News: The Supreme Court of India recently decided bail pleas in the Delhi riots (2020) case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Court classified the accused based on a “hierarchy of participation”.

Background:

• Bail denied to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
• Bail granted (with strict conditions) to: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shadab Ahmed

Hierarchy of Participation

• The Court grouped accused persons according to their alleged level of involvement:
  • Higher-level organizers / ideologues → denied bail
  • Lower-level participants → granted bail
• This classification was done before the trial has begun and before evidence has been tested in court.

Expansion of “Terrorist Act” under UAPA:

Under Section 15, the Court accepted a broad interpretation:

• Terrorist acts need not involve direct physical violence
• Even threatening disruption of services may qualify

Why is this controversial?

Protest planning via: WhatsApp groups and messaging platforms is normal democratic activity

Treating such organization as terrorist design risks:

• Criminalizing dissent
• Creating a chilling effect on the right to protest

Significance of Bail Granted to Five Accused

Bail to five accused is a positive signal. Indicates courts should:

• Rationalize witness lists
• Avoid unnecessary delay
• Ensure speedy trial (Article 21)

Justice delayed = Justice denied.

Constitutional Concerns

• Article 21: Right to life & personal liberty
• Right to protest vs national security
• Prolonged incarceration without trial = punitive detention

Legal Provisions

• Section 43D (5), UAPA: Bail only if accusations not prima facie true
• Section 15, UAPA: Broad definition of terrorist act