Delhi High Court Directs Parties to Consider SC's UAPA Ruling in Parliament Breach Case
The Delhi High Court has instructed both the prosecution and the accused in the 2023 Parliament security breach case to factor in a recent Supreme Court judgment while presenting their arguments. This judgment broadens the definition of what constitutes a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Bench References Supreme Court's January 5 Verdict
On Thursday, a division bench comprising Justices Prathiba Singh and Madhu Jain made this suggestion during the hearing of bail pleas. The accused in this case are Manoranjan D, Lalit Jha, and Sagar Sharma. They face charges under UAPA for their alleged involvement in the security breach.
The bench specifically referred to the Supreme Court's January 5 ruling. In that decision, the apex court granted bail to five of the seven accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case. However, it denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
This verdict effectively established a hierarchy among offenders. It clarified that even when all accused face similar UAPA charges, distinctions can be made based on the nature and impact of their actions.
Expanded Definition of Terrorist Acts
The Supreme Court's ruling expanded the scope of terrorist acts under UAPA. It stated that such acts are not limited to the use of conventional weapons like bombs, explosives, or firearms. The means can encompass a wider range of activities intended to cause terror or disrupt public order.
The Delhi High Court bench emphasized that this expanded definition should guide the arguments in the Parliament security breach case. The bench orally remarked on the significance of the date chosen for the protest.
"It can't be a coincidence... it was the very same day... they picked the day," the bench noted. The breach occurred on December 13, 2023, which is also the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack.
Details of the 2023 Parliament Security Breach
On that day, the accused allegedly launched coordinated gas attacks both inside and outside Parliament. They purportedly did this to protest against unemployment. According to the prosecution, Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma jumped from the visitors' gallery into the Lok Sabha Hall and opened smoke canisters.
Lalit Jha is accused of destroying evidence related to the conspiracy. The High Court will next hear the bail pleas of these three accused on February 2.
Previous Bail Grants in the Same Case
In July of last year, the High Court granted bail to two other accused in this case. Neelam Ranolia and Mahesh Kumawat had allegedly opened smoke canisters and raised slogans outside Parliament. The court noted that their actions constituted a "symbolic protest" and did not prima facie meet the definition of a terrorist act under UAPA.
The court observed that they "have not propagated any movement which can be said to be against the interest of the nation." This previous ruling highlights how the interpretation of UAPA provisions can vary based on specific circumstances and evidence.
The current proceedings will now incorporate the Supreme Court's nuanced approach to defining terrorist acts. This could influence the outcome of the bail hearings for the remaining accused.
