‘RIGHT TO PROTEST IS NOT A TERROR ACT’: DELHI HC GIVES BAIL TO JNU, JAMIA STUDENTS
In its anxiety to suppress dissent, the state has blurred the line between right to protest and terrorist activity and if such a mindset gains traction, it would be a “sad day for democracy”, the Delhi high court said on Tuesday while granting bail to three students from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) in a north-east Delhi riots case.
“...the foundations of our nation stand on surer footing than to be likely to be shaken by a protest, however vicious, organised by a tribe of college students or other persons, operating as a coordination committee from the confines of a university situate in the heart of Delhi,” the court said, setting aside the trial court orders denying bail to JNU students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita and JMI’s Asif Iqbal Tanha, allowing their appeals and admitting them to regular bail.
NEW DELHI: In its anxiety to suppress dissent the State has blurred the line between right to protest and terrorist activity and if such a mindset gains traction, it would be a “sad day for democracy”, the Delhi high court said on Tuesday while granting bail to three students from JNU and Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) in a north-east Delhi riots case.
Terming as “somewhat vague” the definition of ‘terrorist act’ under the stringent UAPA laws and warning against its use in a “cavalier manner”, the high court set aside the trial court orders denying bail to JNU students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita and JMI’s Asif Iqbal Tanha, allowing their appeals and admitting them to regular bail.
“We are of the view that the foundations of our nation stand on surer footing than to be likely to be shaken by a protest, however vicious, organised by a tribe of college students or other persons, operating as a coordination committee from the confines of a University situate in the heart of Delhi,” a bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani said.
In three separate judgements of 113, 83 and 72 pages, the high court said that although the definition of ‘terrorist act’ in section 15 of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is wide and somewhat vague, it must partake the essential character of terrorism and the phrase ‘terrorist act’ cannot be permitted to be applied in a “cavalier manner” to criminal acts that squarely fall under the IPC. “We are constrained to express, that it seems, that in its anxiety to suppress dissent, in the mind of the State, the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred. If this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy” which would be in peril, the bench said, adding there was nothing to show the possible commission of a terrorist act.
The high court directed Pinjra Tod activists Narwal and Kalita and Tanha, who were arrested in May last year in connection with alleged larger conspiracy in the riots, to surrender their passports and not to offer any inducement to prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence in the case.
The three accused shall not indulge in any unlawful activities and shall reside at the address as mentioned in records, the high court said.
Kalita, Narwal and Tanha are accused in four, three and two cases respectively relating to communal riots that broke out on February 24 last year and will be released from jail now as they have already secured bail in other matters.
The bench said there is absolutely nothing in the charge sheet, by way of any specific allegation to show the possible commission of a ‘terrorist act’ within section 15 UAPA, an act of ‘raising funds’ to commit a terrorist act under section 17 and an act of ‘conspiracy’ to commit or an ‘act preparatory’ to commit, a terrorist act within section 18 UAPA.
Regarding Narwal and Kalita, the high court said considering their educational background, profile and position in life, it sees no reason to suspect or apprehend that they are either a flight risk or that they will impede the trial in any way.
We are of the view that foundations of our nation stand on surer footing than to be likely to be shaken by a protest organised by a tribe of college students or other persons DELHI HC BENCH
NEW DELHI: Three people from
among the millions who received Covid-19 vaccines between February 5 and March 31 developed anaphylaxis due to the vaccine, and one of them died, according to a government review of serious side effects that could be linked to the vaccines.
The findings represent the first time a fatality has been linked to the vaccines, and strengthen the trend that these are rare: the three cases were among close to 60 million doses that were given during this period. In all, 28 people died after getting a dose during this period but most appeared not to have been linked, while the cause could not be determined in at least nine of them.
“This is the first death where causality has been established, with vaccine resulting in an anaphylaxis reaction. But if you look at the overall numbers (crores of doses administered), and there is only this small number that got a severe reaction. There were 31 cases that were investigated and one death was due to vaccine, and among anaphylaxis cases, only two were found to be product-related. Most anaphylaxis reactions are managed,” said Dr NK Arora, chairperson, national AEFI committee.
Anaphylaxis is a severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction.
The person who succumbed due to anaphylaxis was a 68-year-old man who received his shot on March 8, 2021, shows the report accessed by HT.
The other two cases formally declared as vaccine product related reaction (anaphylaxis) were that of a 21-year-old woman, and a 22-year-old man who received their shots on January 19 and 16 respectively. Both recuperated after treatment in a hospital.
This analysis was in a set that was approved for causal investigation by the national AEFI committee between February 5 and March 31. HT’s data showed there were 59.1 million doses given during this period.
“Of the 31 causally assessed cases, 18 were classified as having inconsistent causal association to vaccination (coincidental - not linked to vaccination), 7 were classified as indeterminate, 3 cases were found to be vaccineproduct related, 1 was anxietyrelated reaction, and 2 cases were found to be unclassifiable,” said the committee report.
A special group has been formed to conduct causality assessment of AEFIs following Covid-19 vaccination. The results of causality assessment done by this special group are discussed in the National AEFI Committee meeting for final approval.
As per data in the first week of April 2021, the reporting rate is 2.7 deaths per million doses administered and 4.8 hospitalisations per million vaccine doses administered.
The committee in its report explains that vaccine product-related reactions are expected reactions that can be attributed to vaccination based on current scientific evidence, and examples of such reactions are allergic reactions and anaphylaxis.
Indeterminate reactions are those that occurred soon after vaccination but for which there is no definitive evidence or clinical trial data. Further observations, analysis and studies are required to establish a causal link in such cases.