The petitioners, who were arrested under the UAPA for their comments on the violence in Tripura, contend that police can use imprecise definitions to target legitimate criticism of the government.
Tripura Police recently charged two attorneys and a journalist with violating the harsh anti-terror law UAPA, and they have petitioned the Supreme Court to have the FIRs dismissed and the constitutional validity of numerous clauses of the UAPA challenged.
The petitioners question the constitutionality of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act’s Section 2(1)(o) (which defines “unlawful conduct”), Section 13 (penalty for unlawful action), and Section 43D(5) (restrictions on bail issuance).
After it was stated by Advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of the petitioners, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana consented to list the matter immediately on Thursday.
The petition was brought by the respected two lawyers i.e. Mr Mukesh & Mr. Ansarul, and journalist Shyam Meera Singh, who were charged with violating the UAPA by the Tripura Police Department for their social media posts about the state’s recent communal violence.
The petitioners claim that they filed the case at the Supreme Court in response to “targeted political violence against muslim minorities” in Tripura during the second half of October 2021.
Facts of the case: According to the petition, around the 14th of October, reports emerged from Bangladesh of violence against Hindu minorities.