[ad_1]
The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected the Delhi Police appeal against the bail granted in 2021 to activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha in the 2020 North East Delhi riot plot, stating that it “sees no purpose in keeping this matter alive”.
The panel of judges SK Cole and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said: “The defendants have been out on bail for nearly two years. We see no purpose in keeping this matter alive.”
Judge Cole also noted orally that “nothing was recorded to say that bail should be set aside.”
In its appeal, the Delhi Police raised concerns about comments made by the Humanitarian Coordinator on the Prevention of Unlawful Activities Act, 1967, in the bail order.
Referring to this, the High Court bench, in its order on Tuesday, said: “However, we make it clear that the observations made by the High Commission in the contested judgment are solely for the purpose of granting bail and will not be treated as an expression of opinion during the trial… We have noted Indeed in our order of 18.6.2021 that the contested judgment is not to be treated as a precedent and may not be relied upon by any of the parties in any of the proceedings, more so in light of a detailed discussion on the merits of the case.And therefore we hold that other than the foregoing, No further orders are required in this matter.”
Elaborating, the SC said: “The impugned order is a very detailed order on bail that accounts for the various provisions of UAPA. In our opinion the only thing that needs to be examined in such matters is whether, in a realistic scenario, the accused is entitled to bail.” Or not.It is this argument that persuaded us during the issuance of the notice dated 18.6.2021 to note that the contested judgment should not be treated as a precedent and may not be relied upon by any of the parties in any other proceeding.The idea was to protect the state from using the judgment to enact the law in the matter of bail.
As it considered the matter on Tuesday, the Delhi police urged the court to postpone it, saying the government law officer who was to appear had some personal difficulties. Refusing to pray, the court said, “We may notice in the end that a request for postponement has been submitted for the ninth time, and we have already made it clear that nothing really survived in the matter and therefore we were not ready to accommodate the request.”
Advocate General Tushar Mehta, who joined the proceedings midway, said that “an enlightened judge has practically declared the ICU law unconstitutional”.
In response, Justice Cole referred to the court’s earlier order and where he said the Supreme Court order would not be treated as precedent and said, “The idea was to protect the state from being used for any other purpose.”
He added that such detailed orders are being passed because “questions of bail are being discussed by both sides as if the final prosecution were to be decided.”
“The judges make their decisions as if the trials were over,” said the Secretary-General. He added that the Supreme Court’s order includes “a large number of personal opinions of the learned judge.”
Judge Cole said, “The order of June 18 protects you. When we issued notice, we protected you. We protected you saying in the meantime the contested judgment will not be treated as precedent and may not be relied upon by either party in any of the proceedings.”
Mehta urged the court to continue that protection in the dismissal order, in which Judge Cowell said, “We have protected you with this order. I indicated in today’s (Tuesday’s) order also that we have protected you with this order.”
Meanwhile, a lawyer representing one of the defendants in the case said before the court that his case seeking equality with the other defendants who were released on bail had been rejected by the Supreme Committee in light of the Apex Court’s notes in June. 18 orders. He asked the court to say that the notes would not get in the way of his client, who is asking for bail on par.
Then the court added in its order, “We may note that one of the accused has filed an application, seeking in some way to interpret our provisional direction of 18.6.2021 and stating that the said note was in the way of seeking bail on par. Said applicant is a co-defendant. If the co-defendant has The right to seek equivalence, that is up to him and for the court to consider.We want to make it clear on account of repetition that the purpose of the provisional order of 18.6.2021 is that the legal position clarified in relation to legal interpretations in the matter of bail should not be used in the proceedings of any of the accused or in the Any further action. Procedure. We make it clear that we have therefore not entered into the legal position as to legal interpretation…”
[ad_2]
