RESIDENTS...

In addition to this, the dates of vaccination were incorrect on the issued certificates. They had paid the Rs1,260 fee between May 27 and 28, while enrolling for the camp.

“We didn’t know the rules that on-the-spot registration is compulsory while taking the jab. So, we didn’t demand for spot registration on the CO-WIN portal. After seven-eight days, the beneficiaries started getting calls, seeking the CO-WIN registration OTP received on their phones. Then they received messages of the certificates,” said a resident from the society whose 34-yearold son took the jab. But when he downloaded his vaccination certificate, Nanavati Hospital was mentioned as the vaccinator. “In fact, his date of vaccination is recorded as June 12, which again indicates a spurious activity,” he added.

However, the hospital issued an official statement, clarifying that they weren’t involved in the camp. “We wish to clarify that we have not conducted any vaccination camp at the said residential complex. We have informed authorities concerned and are lodging a formal complaint regarding the same,” read the statement.

Dr Neelam Andrade, dean of NESCO jumbo centre, said no vials of Covishield have been sent out for the camp. “Firstly, we don’t vaccinate outside our centre. Secondly, being a civicrun centre, we don’t charge the public for the vaccination. If certificates have been issued in the name of NESCO, then how are the people being charged?”

A senior officer from Lifeline Hospital, Malad also refuted any involvement in the camp. “After the residents got in touch with us, we also investigated the matter. Though the certificates are real, we didn’t issue those,” said the officer.

Many of the residents haven’t received their vaccination certificates yet.

“We agreed for the vaccination as it was claimed that it would be done in an association with Kokilaben Hospital. But on the day of vaccination, we were being told that due to staff shortage, they arranged for vaccinators from a nearby private hospital,” said another resident.

Dr Santosh Shetty, chief executive officer of Kokilaben Hospital, said, “I am aware of the incident. But we don’t know anyone who got in touch with us for the vaccination. We aren’t filing a police complaint so far as the certificates issued to the beneficiaries don’t mention the name of our hospital.”

The residents also said that no one has complained of the usual side effects of fever, body aches or other physical discomfort, which is surprising and hence they suspect the genuineness of the vaccine. “There are doubts about whether we were actually given Covishield or was it just glucose or expired/waste vaccine,” a software engineer Neha Alshi wrote in a Twitter thread.

Some residents are even planning to take a spike antibody test to check if it was actually Covid-19 vaccine. vaccines. Later, he had asked the association to make payment to the third person, Mahendra Singh, who had arrived at the end of the vaccination camp. When the members from the Management Committee of Associations (MCA) of the society asked about the certificates, they were being asked to wait for three-four days.

“If the vaccine is found to be spurious, the people who got vaccinated will have a medical emergency to deal with. Therefore, there is an urgent need to investigate the whole episode so that such fraudulent activities are not repeated at other places,” the complaint of association states.

Police have started their investigation into the matter and recording statements of the organisers. When contacted Vishal Thakur, deputy commissioner of police (zone 11) said that they were verifying the written complaint received by them. “We have not registered an FIR yet. We are verifying the complaint,” said Thakur.

Another police officer said that the agent involved in the case had claimed that he had received the doses from Kokilaben Hospital, but had actually used vaccination doses from a few other hospitals, which were surplus or unused and gave the society members certificates from some other hospitals. “The certificates are being verified. We cannot reveal any names at this stage as an FIR has not been registered yet,” said the other officer.

Meanwhile, the BMC has also initiated an inquiry into the matter. They have asked their department to find out two major concerns— how the vials were procured and how the names of the hospitals were updated on the CO-WIN portal. They have also sought the issued certificates to check for its verification. “At present, we don’t know much about the issue. We will hold our own investigation into the matter to check how the vials were procured and the authenticity of the data uploaded on the CO-WIN portal,” said Suresh Kakani, additional commissioner, BMC.

Kandivali MLA Yogesh Sagar raised concern over the allegations and demanded stringent action against the culprits. “There are guidelines that need to be followed. If people are vaccinated on May 30, then why would they get inoculation on another day? This would also reflect on the overall figures of vaccination maintained centrally,” he said.

(With inputs from Megha Sood) 2020, leaving 53 people dead and over 400 injured. Over 750 FIRS were filed in connection to the riots and several people were arrested. In September 2020, the police filed its first charge sheet running into 17,500 pages charging 15 accused of allegedly hatching a conspiracy to orchestrate riots. The charge sheet was filed under various sections including rioting, unlawful assembly, conspiracy, sedition, promoting disharmony between religions and relevant sections of the Epidemic Act.

The specific charges against the three in this case were that they orchestrated the blocking of roads in the area. Narwal and Kalita have already been granted bail in the two other cases, which accuse them of unlawful assembly and inciting the riots. Tanha, has already received bail in the other case where he is an accused; that alleges that he was part of a “premeditated conspiracy” to orchestrate the riots. However, they were not released on Tuesday for want of verification of sureties by the trial court judge. “They are not coming out today as judge wants to verify sureties for their bail. We have been asked to come again tomorrow,” a statement from activist group Pinjra Tod, of which Narwal and Kalita are members said on Tuesday evening.

The Delhi Police have decided to challenge the high court order. “We are not satisfied with the interpretation of the provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act by the Hon’ble High Court in a matter concerned with grant of Bail. We are proceeding with filing of a Special Leave Petition before the Honble Supreme Court of India said DCP Chinmoy Biswal, spokesperson, Delhi Police.

The high court, in its orders, has criticised the invocation of the anti-terror law against the student activists by the Delhi Police. “We are afraid, that in our opinion, shorn of the superfluous verbiage, hyperbole and the stretched inferences drawn from them by the prosecuting agency, the factual allegations made against the appellant do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence under sections 15, 17 and/or 18 of the UAPA,” read one of the orders. The sections relate to involvement in activities with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror.

Citing the Supreme Court’s take on protests in 2018, in the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs Union of India and Anr case, the court said that uprisings against governmental and parliamentary actions are legitimate; and though such protests are expected to be peaceful and non-violent, it is not uncommon for protesters to push the limits permissible in law

“Even if we assume for the sake of argument, without expressing any view thereon, that in the present case inflammatory speeches, chakkajams (blockades), instigation of women protesters and other actions…crossed the line of peaceful protests permissible under our Constitutional guarantee, that however would yet not amount to commission of a ‘terrorist act’ or a ‘conspiracy’ or an ‘act preparatory’ to the commission of a terrorist act as understood under the UAPA,” the bench added.

The bench was emphatic that there was “absolutely nothing” showing the possible commission of a terrorist act; or an act of raising funds to commit a terrorist act; or an act of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act.

“Allegations relating to inflammatory speeches, organising of chakka jaam, instigating women to protest and to stock-pile various articles and other similar allegations, in our view, at worst, are evidence that the appellant participated in organising protests, but we can discern no specific or particularised allegation, much less any material to bear out the allegation, that the appellant incited violence, what to talk of committing a terrorist act or a conspiracy or act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act as understood in the UAPA,” it said.

Cautioning against the frivolously invocation of the “extremely grave and serious penal provisions” under UAPA, the court added that such an approach “would undermine the intent and purpose of the Parliament in enacting a law that is meant to address threats to the very existence of our Nation”.

“Wanton use of serious penal provisions would only trivialise them... Where the court finds that an act or omission is adequately addressed and dealt with by the ordinary penal law of the land, the court must not countenance a state agency crying wolf,” the bench added.

The court also said that it would be “a stretch” to “say that the protest affected the community at large for it to qualify as an act of terror.”

Citing the delay in trial caused by the coronavirus outbreak, the court pointed out that it was hardly likely that the trial will proceed, much less conclude anytime soon, particularly when there were as many as 740 prosecution witnesses.

“Should this court then wait until the appellant has languished in prison for a long enough time to be able to see that it will be impossible to complete the deposition of 740 prosecution witnesses in any foreseeable future, especially in view of the prevailing pandemic when all proceedings in the trial are effectively stalled? Should this court wait till the appellant’s right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is fully and completely negated, before it steps in and wakes up to such violation? We hardly think that would be the desirable course of action,” it noted while granting bail to the trio.

Considering the educational background, profile and their positions in life, the court said, there is no reason to suspect or apprehend that the accused were either a flight risk or that they will tamper with the evidence, the court added.

THE COURT SAID IT WOULD BE “A STRETCH” TO “SAY THAT THE PROTEST AFFECTED THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE FOR IT TO QUALIFY AS AN ACT OF TERROR.”