Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal Of Petitions Challenging UAPA Provisions

At request of petitioners, the Supreme Court today allowed pleas challenging provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) to be withdrawn.

The Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned High Courts.

The bench also remarked that the interim orders of protection given to some of the petitioners will stand vacated with the withdrawal of the peittions. 

At the onset of the hearing, when a counsel representing some of the petitioners requested for extension of the interim orders while they approached concerned High Court, the Court dismissed the prayer. "No, no, no...interim order shall stand vacated forthwith", remarked Trivedi, J.

It may be recalled that while issuing notice in this batch of pleas, the top Court had passed interim directions for no coercive steps (including arrest) to be taken against the some petitioners.

To persuade the Court otherwise, Advocate on Record Prashant Bhushan, representing two advocates and a journalist booked by Tripura police under UAPA, submitted that the only allegation against the 2 lawyers was that they had given a fact-finding report  about the situation in Tripura, while the journalist had been roped in because he tweeted "Tripura is Burning". In this backdrop, FIR was registered under UAPA and notices served on petitioners under Section 41 CrPC.

He explained that when the petitioners approached the Supreme Court, conditions were very bad in Tripura and they could not have gone to the state authorities apprehending arrest. Now, however, the petitioners can withdraw the plea from before the top Court and approach the High Court. Although, interim protection granted to them earlier may be extended for 2 weeks, otherwise they may be arrested as soon as they go to Tripura.

"Normally we would not have entertained such petitions directly under Article 32...nor would have granted an interim order", opined Justice Trivedi on hearing the submission.

Bhushan pressed, "In the nature of the circumstances, I'm praying..."

Turning to State (represented by ASG SV Raju), Justice Trivedi said, "We are not passing any order but atleast for two weeks, don't do anything"

At this juncture, Bhushan prayed that the Court may also allow petitioners to appear through video conferencing before the High Court, in case they are unable to go to Tripura for some reason.

Justice Trivedi said, "We can't micromanage everything...let the High Court take a call whether you should be permitted to appear through video or not".

Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed as withdrawn.

Some of the petitioners were JNU Scholar Umar Khalid,  Foundation for Media Professionals, former IAS officials Harsh Mander, Wajahat Habibullah, Amitabha Pande, Kamal Kant Jaiswal, Hindal Hyder Tyabji, MG Devasahayam, Pradeep Kumar Deb, Baldev Bhushan Mahajan, decorated former IPS officer Julio Francis Ribeiro, former IFS officer Ashok Kumar Sharma, and ex-IPS Dr.Ish Kumar.

Case Title: Amreen v. Superintendent of Police | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 88 of 2022 and connected matters

Click Here To Read/Download Order