Inconsistencies in Bail Orders Mean Individual Liberty Is the Outcome of Judicial Lottery
posters by @/bakeryprasad
The Wire / by Gautam Bhatia
The judgments denying bail to Jyoti Jagtap and Umar Khalid – from the Bombay and Delhi high courts respectively – reveal that UAPA adjudication continues to be inconsistent and judge-centric.
In June and October 2021, the Delhi and Bombay high courts had passed two important judgments on bail under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The Delhi high court’s judgment(s) granted bail to Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal, who were accused of various UAPA offences arising out of the February 2020 Delhi riots. The Bombay high court granted bail to Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, who was accused of criminal conspiracy involving members of the banned ISIS group.
The significance of these judgments – I had written at the time – lay in how they articulated a “jurisprudence of liberty” within the stringent confines of the UAPA.
● As Bhima Koregaon case completes its fourth anniversary, State reprisal is writ large in its twists and turns (The Leaflet / June 2022)
● Video: Dafachya Talavar (Songs of Defiance) – A short documentary on Kabir Kala Manch | Hindi, Marthi (subtitles: English) | 24:01min | 2022