The Bench led by Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, while granting the bail, noted that the State failed to produce evidence to show that the three accused committed a terror offense, adding that “in its anxiety to suppress dissent, in the mind of the State, the line between constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred.”
However, what makes this judgment significant is the impact of the observations made by the high court.
The bench highlighted the differences between “protests” and “acts of terror” in its order and that the definition of “terrorist act” in UAPA is “wide and somewhat vague.”
For today’s episode, we will go through the charges made against the three accused, how the UAPA law has been used in the past to clamp down free speech and dissent, and the significance of the Delhi high court judgment.
Host and Producer: Himmat Shaligram
Guest: Aishwarya Iyer, The Quint’s Principal Correspondent, Vakasha Sachdev, The Quint’s Legal Editor, and Kalpana Kalita, mother of Devanga Kalita.
Editor: Shelly Walia
Music: Big Bang Fuzz
Listen to The Big Story podcast on:
Apple: https://apple.co/2AYdLIl Saavn: http://bit.ly/2oix78C Google Podcasts: http://bit.ly/2ntMV7S Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2IyLAUQ Deezer: http://bit.ly/2Vrf5Ng Castbox: http://bit.ly/2VqZ9ur