Hierarchy of roles, Pg8

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court used a 'hierarchy of participation' under the UAPA to differentiate accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case.
• Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were denied bail, while Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed were granted bail under strict conditions.
• The Court emphasized Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, requiring only a prima facie assessment of accusations.
• The Court interpreted "terrorist acts" under Section 15 of UAPA broadly, potentially impacting preventive detention.

Detailed Insights:

• The prosecution argued the riots were a coordinated plan through protest networks and WhatsApp groups, with the Court persuaded by the state that organizational articles evidenced a terroristic design.
• The Court's interpretation of "terrorist acts" to include threatening to disrupt services could embolden governments to use stringent preventive detention under UAPA, potentially chilling dissent.
• The prolonged incarceration of Khalid and Imam, who have spent five years in custody, raises concerns about the irreversible damage caused by detention without trial, especially for young individuals.
• The article highlights a concern that the UAPA is being invoked to suppress dissent and opposition, rather than solely addressing acts of terrorism, impacting the constitutional right to protest.
• The trial against Khalid and others is delayed due to pending charge framing and a large number of witnesses, emphasizing the need for trial courts to expedite proceedings and rationalize witness lists.

Key Concepts Involved:

• UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act): Indian anti-terrorism law allowing preventive detention and proscribing organizations.
• Section 43D(5): A clause within UAPA that guides bail considerations based on a prima facie review of evidence.
• Section 15: Defines "terrorist act" under UAPA, which the court has interpreted broadly in this case.