The Delhi High Court advised considering the Supreme Court's expanded definition of a terrorist act in the 2023 Parliament security breach case.
The Supreme Court's January 5th judgement in the 2020 Delhi riots case created a hierarchy of offenders under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Accused in the Parliament security breach case, Manoranjan D, Lalit Jha, and Sagar Sharma, face charges under UAPA for a coordinated gas attack on December 13, 2023.
The High Court will continue hearing the bail pleas of the three accused on February 2.
Detailed Insights:
The Supreme Court's ruling broadened the definition of a terrorist act under UAPA, stating that the means are not limited to conventional weapons.
The Delhi High Court questioned the accused about their choice of December 13th, the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, for the protest.
Previously, the High Court granted bail to Neelam Ranolia and Mahesh Kumawat, noting their protest was symbolic and didn't constitute a terrorist act under UAPA.
Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma allegedly opened smoke canisters inside Parliament, while Lalit Jha is accused of destroying evidence related to the conspiracy.
Key Concepts Involved:
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA): Indian law aimed at preventing unlawful activities and addressing terrorism.
Terrorist Act: As defined under UAPA, it includes acts intended to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India.
Bail: The temporary release of an accused person awaiting trial, often under specific conditions.