Is Organising a Protest Alone Enough for UAPA Charges?
High Court Asks Delhi Police
January 9, 2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the state’s police, which reports to the central government, whether an individual who merely organises a protest site could face charges under the anti-terror Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Judges pressed for clear evidence showing that the act of setting up demonstrations against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act warranted a law typically invoked for serious offenses.
The court raised the question on Jan. 8 while examining the bail pleas of individuals accused in the so-called 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The prosecution opposed bail on grounds that certain WhatsApp group chats allegedly demonstrated premeditated intent among protest organisers.
“Is it your case that only setting up of a protest site is good enough for UAPA or is it your case that protest site which resulted in violence is good enough for a case under UAPA?” the court asked, as quoted by Bar and Bench. “But most importantly, for us, it is the intent, under UAPA, which has to be established.”
The court challenged the prosecution to identify specific evidence showing that the accused instigated violence rather than participated in constitutionally permissible protests.
The court observed that individuals might have felt compelled to organise chakka jam (road blockade) to express opposition to the law. It then questioned whether holding a chakka jam would by itself justify charges under the legislation. The court stated, “But when you draw attention... your argument is well they were organising protest sites, is that good enough?”
The prosecution asserted the protests, notably at Shaheen Bagh, were not spontaneous but carefully planned, as reported by LiveLaw. The judges sought explicit links between the accused and any violent acts.
The trial court has not yet framed charges in the case, but the accused remain in custody, seeking bail primarily on the ground of delayed proceedings.
In a July 2024 judgment regarding a bail appeal filed by a man charged under the UAPA, the Supreme Court pointed out that bail should not be used as a punishment and clearly articulated the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Court reasserted a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence: the presumption of innocence, as enshrined in the Constitution of India. That judgment was particularly critical of the prosecution and the trial court for not framing charges even after four years – that’s nearly 1,500 days – and for planning to examine an extensive list of 80 witnesses. The Court stated that if the state and prosecuting agencies do not make efforts to uphold the accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial, they are not entitled to oppose the accused’s bail.
During a hearing on Jan 7, the Delhi High Court questioned the police for “selectively naming people” based on WhatsApp messages. As part of evidence, the prosecution had pointed to a chat involving two individuals who were not listed as co-accused.
The court is hearing bail pleas filed by several accused, including former student leader Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi and others who have been in detention under the charges.
Data on UAPA usage, drawn from the National Crime Records Bureau, shows that over 24,000 individuals were charged under the law from 2016 to 2020, with only 386 acquittals during that period. A human rights advocate, G. Haragopal, a retired University of Hyderabad professor, has asserted that 97 percent of those charged under the law are eventually found innocent but spend years in prison awaiting trial.
Among the issues associated with UAPA are broad definitions of “unlawful activities” and “terrorism,” extended detention up to 180 days without formal charges and stringent bail provisions under Section 43D(5). Critics argue these elements contribute to a system that makes it difficult for the accused to secure bail, prolonging incarceration before any determination of guilt.
