Organising "chakka jams" is a terrorist act - at least, that's what a recent Supreme Court order suggests.
On January 5th, India’s apex court in its bail order denied relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 “Delhi Riots” case. Remember, the duo have been booked under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including the stringent anti-terror law - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Now, beyond the immediate consequences for the duo - the 2-judge bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria also set a dangerous precedent.
The bench in its bail order accepted an expansive definition of a “terrorist act” under the UAPA. This after the prosecution argued that Khalid and Co’s alleged plan to organise “chakka jams”, or road blockades, fell under the ambit of “any other means”. They argued that a chakka jam, as alleged, is disruptive by design. That the sustained choking of roads, and the movement of crowds from minority clusters into mixed-population areas were meant to generate confrontation, overwhelm law enforcement, and create conditions for violence.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who was appearing for Khalid, did push back. He argued that calling for road blockades is a legitimate form of protest in a democracy. Adding that since Section 15 of the UAPA primarily refers to violent acts, the phrase “any other means” must be read as other violent means, and not peaceful protest.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. The court ruled that a terrorist act under the UAPA cannot be limited to just conventional forms of violence, like guns and bombs. Even non-violent disruptions, like blocking roads or choking essential supplies, can qualify as terrorism if they destabilise civic life and economy.
What is also troubling - is the Court’s reluctance to engage with its previous judgments on personal liberty and speedy trial. Remember, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have been in jail awaiting trial for over 5 years now.
It’s a known fact that getting bail under UAPA is extremely difficult. However, it is not impossible.
Take the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal vs State of Uttar Pradesh. This too was a UAPA case but the Court had held that, in spite of that, there was no justification to deny bail to an accused undertrial that has been incarcerated for a long time.
This time round though, the judgement noted that delay in trial is not a “trump card” to automatically grant bail. And this is why the order is troubling.
Because, India’s Supreme Court just legitimised the use of UAPA to criminalise political dissent and justified consigning the accused to years of incarceration without trial.
