Delhi HC Calls 'Regime Change' Allegation in Riot Case 'Extraordinary'
The Delhi High Court termed the 'allegation of regime change' in a 2020 riot case as 'extraordinary,' while a UAPA accused approached the Supreme Court.
Photo by Abhishek Sagar
Quick Revision
Delhi High Court observation on 'allegation of regime change' in 2020 Delhi riots case.
Prosecution alleged protests were a conspiracy to destabilize the government.
Accused Gultisha Fatima, charged under UAPA, approached Supreme Court for bail.
Raises questions about right to protest, sedition, and UAPA application.
Key Dates
Visual Insights
2020 Delhi Riots: Geographic & Judicial Context
This map highlights Delhi, the central location of the 2020 riots, where the High Court's 'extraordinary' observation was made and from where the accused has approached the Supreme Court. It contextualizes the legal proceedings geographically.
Loading interactive map...
Delhi Riots Case: Key Events & UAPA Context
This timeline illustrates the chronological progression of events related to the 2020 Delhi riots case, from the significant UAPA amendment in 2019 to the recent High Court observation and Supreme Court appeal, highlighting the legal journey.
The 2019 UAPA amendment significantly broadened the scope of the law, allowing for individual designation as terrorists, which has been a point of contention regarding its application in cases involving dissent and protests, as seen in the Delhi riots case.
- 2019UAPA Amendment: Empowered Central Govt. to designate individuals as terrorists. (Increased stringency)
- Feb 2020Delhi Riots: Widespread violence in North-East Delhi, leading to multiple FIRs and arrests.
- Sep 2020UAPA Charges Filed: Several individuals, including Gultisha Fatima, charged under UAPA for alleged conspiracy in Delhi riots.
- 2021-2023Lower Court Proceedings & Bail Denials: Accused seek bail, often denied citing stringent UAPA provisions.
- Early 2024Delhi High Court Bail Hearing: Prosecution alleges 'regime change' conspiracy. HC calls allegation 'extraordinary'.
- CurrentAccused Gultisha Fatima approaches Supreme Court challenging HC bail denial.
Exam Angles
Constitutional provisions related to fundamental rights (Article 19) and their reasonable restrictions.
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA): its provisions, amendments, and impact on civil liberties.
Bail jurisprudence in India, especially under special laws like UAPA.
The concept of sedition (Section 124A IPC) and its constitutional validity, though not directly mentioned, is implicitly linked to 'regime change' allegations.
Role and powers of the High Courts and Supreme Court in safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring due process.
View Detailed Summary
Summary
Background
Latest Developments
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA): 1. Under UAPA, the burden of proof to establish innocence generally shifts to the accused in certain serious offenses. 2. The Act allows for the designation of individuals as terrorists without requiring a judicial review at the initial stage. 3. Bail under UAPA is governed by Section 43D(5), which makes it difficult to obtain if the court finds a prima facie case against the accused. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement 1: Correct. UAPA often places a reverse burden of proof on the accused, especially in serious cases, making it harder to get bail. Statement 2: Correct. The 2019 amendment allowed the government to designate individuals as terrorists, which can be challenged later but doesn't require prior judicial review. Statement 3: Correct. Section 43D(5) of UAPA states that if the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true, bail shall not be granted. This is a stringent condition.
2. With reference to the right to protest in India, consider the following statements: 1. The right to protest is explicitly guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 2. The Supreme Court, in the Shaheen Bagh case, held that while the right to protest is fundamental, public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely. 3. Reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble peacefully and without arms can be imposed in the interests of public order, morality, or the sovereignty and integrity of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1: Incorrect. The right to protest is not explicitly guaranteed. It is derived from Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(b) (right to assemble peacefully and without arms). Statement 2: Correct. In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (Shaheen Bagh case), the SC indeed stated that while the right to protest is fundamental, it cannot be exercised in a manner that causes indefinite obstruction of public ways or spaces. Statement 3: Incorrect. Article 19(3) allows reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble peacefully (19(1)(b)) in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order. 'Morality' is a ground for restricting freedom of speech (19(1)(a)) but not specifically for the right to assemble (19(1)(b)).
3. In the context of laws dealing with national security and public order in India, which of the following statements is NOT correct?
- A.Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealing with sedition has been held constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court in the Kedar Nath Singh case.
- B.The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was originally enacted to deal with unlawful associations and has been subsequently amended to include terrorism-related offenses.
- C.Both sedition and UAPA provisions have been criticized for their potential to curb legitimate political dissent and freedom of speech.
- D.The Supreme Court has recently struck down the provision of sedition (Section 124A IPC) as unconstitutional, citing its misuse.
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement A: Correct. The Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A IPC, but narrowed its scope to acts involving incitement to violence or public disorder. Statement B: Correct. UAPA was enacted in 1967 to deal with unlawful associations. It was significantly amended in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2019 to include provisions against terrorist acts and individuals. Statement C: Correct. Both laws have faced consistent criticism from civil society, legal experts, and international bodies for their broad definitions and potential for misuse against dissent. Statement D: Incorrect. The Supreme Court has not struck down Section 124A IPC. In May 2022, the SC stayed the operation of the sedition law and urged the central and state governments to refrain from registering new FIRs under it, while the government re-examines the provision. It did not strike it down.
4. Consider the following statements regarding the Indian judicial system concerning bail matters: I. The power to grant bail is primarily governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but special laws can override its provisions. II. A High Court can grant anticipatory bail even in cases where the accused is charged under a stringent law like UAPA, though with greater scrutiny. III. The Supreme Court is the final appellate authority for bail matters, and its decisions are binding on all lower courts. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.I and II only
- B.II and III only
- C.I and III only
- D.I, II and III
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement I: Correct. CrPC is the general law for criminal procedure, including bail. However, special laws like UAPA have specific, more stringent bail provisions (e.g., Section 43D(5) of UAPA) that take precedence over CrPC. Statement II: Correct. High Courts (and Sessions Courts) have the power to grant anticipatory bail (under Section 438 CrPC) or regular bail, even in UAPA cases. However, the conditions for granting bail under UAPA are very stringent, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true. Statement III: Correct. The Supreme Court is the apex court and the final court of appeal in India. Its judgments, including those on bail, are binding on all other courts under Article 141 of the Constitution.
Source Articles
2020 riots larger conspiracy case: | Allegation of regime change quite extraordinary: Gulfisha Fatima in SC | Legal News - The Indian Express
2020 Delhi riots ‘larger conspiracy’: Year after court ordered day-to-day hearings, where does the case stand? | Delhi News - The Indian Express
‘Regime change’ conspiracy behind 2020 riots, Delhi Police tell SC; oppose bail to accused | Legal News - The Indian Express
Delhi riot chargesheet details how fake messages were weaponised by mob | Delhi News - The Indian Express
In 17 of 93 acquittals in Delhi riots cases, courts red-flag ‘fabricated’ evidence, pull up police | Express Investigations News - The Indian Express