Activist Gulfisha Fatima, arrested in connection with the 2020 riots in the national capital, Delhi, has now moved to the Supreme Court. On September 2nd, the Delhi High Court rejected the bail petitions of Fatima and several other defendants. The court stated that while the Constitution grants citizens the right to protest and demonstrate, it is not an unrestricted right, and appropriate legal limitations apply.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur highlighted in its order that the right to peaceful, non-violent protest is protected under Article 19(1)(a) but must remain within the boundaries of law. It was emphasized that conspiratorial violence under the guise of protest cannot be allowed. Before Fatima, Sharjeel Imam had challenged the High Court's order in the Supreme Court.
The court also warned that granting unrestricted protest rights could pose a grave threat not only to the constitutional framework but also to the law and order of the country. Fatima was actively involved in protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and was arrested in April 2020. She stands accused under UAPA and several other serious sections.
The Delhi Police claimed in court that Fatima, along with Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Mohammad Salim Khan, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, and Abdul Khalid Saifi conspired to incite violence in Delhi. These riots resulted in the deaths of 53 people and over 700 injuries. The High Court clarified that granting bail depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Current under trial inmates Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal have already been granted bail, but on similar grounds, petitions by other accused were dismissed. Now, all eyes are on the forthcoming Supreme Court decision, which will determine whether Fatima gets bail.
