Updated: October 28, 2020 10:33:36 am
With this, the UP police have so far invoked the NSA against 13 people accused of acts of violence that occurred during the CAA protest in the state. (Proceedings)
A Delhi court on Tuesday refused bail to a 27-year-old college student, saying that “vociferous agitation under the guise of a citizens’ amendment bill, along with other activities of violence, would demonstrate that it was intended to cause or was intended to cause disaffection against India.”
This is the second time that Asif Iqbal Tanha from Jamia Millia Islamia, who has been charged under the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act (UAPA) In the North East Delhi Riot Conspiracy Case, he has been denied bail.
Police have accused Tanha of conspiring with former JNU student Umar Khalid and JNU student Sharjeel Imam to “overthrow the government” by establishing a chakka jam (road blockade) in Muslim-dominated areas. Police have alleged that Tanha used false documents to purchase a mobile phone SIM card to use in the riots. This SIM was later handed over to another Jamia student and he co-accused Safoora Zargar to organize more protests, police said.
Read also | No offense under UAPA against Delhi riot defendant: HC
When Tanha’s lawyer, Sidharth Aggarwal, argued that organizations like the Jamia Coordination Committee (which coordinated protests against the citizenship law) or the Islamic Student Organization were not terrorist organizations under the UAPA, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat said: “Acts that threaten the unity and integrity of India, … causing social discord and creating terror in any sector of the people, making them feel surrounded and resulting in violence, is also a terrorist act.”
ASJ Rawat agreed that these groups were not banned by the UAPA, but said, “We have to understand terrorist activity” under Section 15 (“Terrorist Law”) of the Act.
“… The entire conspiracy beginning in December 2019 to intentionally block roads to cause inconvenience and disruptions in the supply of services… which resulted in violence with various media and then led to the February incident with the focus on the blockade of roads in mixed population areas and creating panic and attacking police personnel with a facade of female protesters at the front and causing riots would be covered by the definition of a terrorist act, ”the court said in its order.
“Acts that threaten the unity and integrity of India, to the extent that they cause social disharmony and create terror in any sector of the population, by making them feel surrounded and resulting in violence, is also a terrorist act.”
Read also | Violence in Northeast Delhi: High Court Bail Defendants in UAPA Case
The court said that Tanha’s claim that she had no role in raising funds for the riots is misplaced, as it is alleged that other defendants in the case carried out this part of the conspiracy.
“The conspiracy must be read as a whole and not in parts. Furthermore, the question of the presence of defendants at the northeastern Delhi site at the time of the riots is not a sine qua non for a conspiracy case. Hence, in the present case the provisions of the UAPA have been rightly invoked, ”said the court.
The court also said that while the disclosure statements were meaningless, the statements made by protected witnesses have “sufficient incriminating material” against Tanha.
ASJ Rawat highlighted “in no uncertain terms that there is freedom of protest available to all citizens of the country but that it is subject to reasonable restrictions.”
He said: “There is also no doubt that every citizen can have an opinion on any legislation that he considers unfair,” and all citizens have “the right to protest against any law.”
However, “what really must be seen in the context of the present case is whether there was a conspiracy that caused disturbances under the pretext of protesting against CAA or not, in terms of the content of the charge sheet.”
.
