How did the UAPA accuse get bail in the riots case?

Three student activists; Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha were arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for association with the Delhi Riots that occurred over some time in 2020. Natasha and Devangana are both students at Jawaharlal Nehru University.

In February 2020, a series of riots took place in the Northeast Delhi region. The riots were transpiring against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019. During this time, a lot of activists were arrested under UAPA. After more than a year later, in June 2021 the Delhi High court granted bail to all three activists. This action was exceedingly met with repercussions from the Delhi Police. They were not appeased and were “concerned” about the decision made by the court.

Meanwhile, the activists were arrested, they were also put under “terrorism” charges. It has been fundamentally expressed that protests are not terrorism, there are rudimentary principles that differentiate between protests and acts of terror. However, the activists were still arrested even with the lack of evidence. Due to this and the state’s failure to lay down basic substantiate they were granted bail one year later. Protests that are threatening the law and order of a country even if they comprise mild violence are never reasoned to pigeonhole people under the “terrorist” classification. Essentially the riots that took place in Delhi were against an act that was blatantly Islamophobic towards the Muslims that were residing in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. It provided Indian citizenship to religious minorities. This law would unquestionably leave copious Muslims stateless. In this case, instigating protests would seem like the only option against the government to any person with ethical and moral beliefs.

---