8 Petitions Against UAPA To Be Withdrawn As Supreme Court Allows For The Same  

On Thursday, the Supreme Court granted permission for the withdrawal of eight petitions challenging different facets of India’s anti-terrorism legislation, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). This decision allows the petitioners to pursue their cases in the respective high courts.

“The counsel for petitioners seek permission to withdraw the petitions and approach the concerned high courts within two weeks. Permission to withdraw is granted. Needless to say, the petitioner will be at liberty to file proceedings as permissible under law before the high court,” a bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said on Thursday.

Rigorous bail conditions of the act

Student activist Umar Khalid, who has been incarcerated since his apprehension by the Delhi Police on September 13, 2020, opted to retract his bail petition and a writ petition questioning the constitutional validity of certain UAPA provisions, including the rigorous bail conditions under Section 43D, on Wednesday.

During that moment, the bench also encouraged other attorneys to consult with their clients regarding their preference to either proceed with the case in the Supreme Court or return to the high court initially. This recommendation came following objections from the central government and the Tripura government regarding the admissibility of the petitions.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Tightens Security After Bomb Threat

PIL filed by different organizations

A public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Foundation of Media Professionals, a writ petition filed by Biyumma, the mother of Zakariya, an undertrial prisoner in the 2008 Bangalore blasts, and petitions filed by individuals, including attorneys and journalists, who were charged in relation to the 2021 Tripura violence are among the petitions that were withdrawn on Thursday.
On behalf of a group charged under the UAPA for their fact-finding report on the violence titled “Humanity Under Attack in Tripura: Muslim Lives Matter,” advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared before the top court and requested an extension of the temporary arrest shield that had been granted to them on November 17, 2021. Advocate Shahrukh Alam, who represented five students questioned by the Tripura police over posts they had made on social media about the violence, said that similar orders were also passed in five other cases related to the violence in Tripura.
The bench declined to extend the interim orders “but we will orally request the state not to take any action for two weeks”.

Bhushan requested that the petitioners be allowed to appear in court via video conference, claiming that although there was no longer any violence in the state, “the moment we go to the high court, they will arrest us.” The request was turned down by the bench. Nothing can be claimed in the abstract. We are unable to micromanage everything after we send you back to the high court.”
This was the final round of petitions that the top court was considering contesting different UAPA provisions.

UAPA challenged

The UAPA was comprehensively challenged by the Foundation of Media Professionals, but other petitions called into question the legality of some of its most important provisions, such as section 43D, which permits the court to order the accused’s release on bail if it finds that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that the charge is prima facie false.

The bench filed two preliminary objections on Wednesday to the petitions regarding whether the accused should file a challenge to the law on their own initiative under the UAPA or whether the accused who have filed a petition should go before the high court since they have also requested relief in individual cases.

Appearing on behalf of one of the petitioners, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi contended that legal questions can be raised by anyone, not just the accused. She cited the 2003 ruling upholding the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), which was made in response to a petition filed by the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).