New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said in its anxiety to suppress dissent, in the mind of the State, the line between constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred.

There is a difference between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity, the Delhi High Court said. The Court granted bail to three activists Ms Narwal and Ms Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha more than a year ago in connection with riots that followed protests against the controversial CAA.

The High Court also said use of the anti terror law UAPA which was invoked to file charges against the activists must recognize the essential character of terrorism and a terrorist act, and that the law could not be casually applied to criminal acts.

Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, who are members of women’s rights group Pinjra Tod, and Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha were arrested in May 2020. They were accused of being the masterminds of the February 2020 violence and denied regular bail by the trial court.

High Court Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani’s bench set aside the Lower Court’s orders and allowed bail on a personal bond and two sureties of ₹ 50,000 each, the surrender of passports and other conditions. The bench delivered two judgements on Tuesday morning.

The Judges also said if this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy. The bench said in Tanha’s bail plea judgement that the phrase terrorist act’ cannot be permitted to be casually applied to criminal acts that fall squarely within the definition of conventional offences under the IPC.

Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita were arrested in May last year. Both are PhD students at the Department of Women’s Studies in Jawaharlal Nehru University.