Tripura violence | Supreme Court relief for journalists, lawyers in UAPA case

No ‘coercive action’ by Tripura Police.

Updated - November 17, 2021 11:02 pm IST

Published - November 17, 2021 04:51 pm IST - NEW DELHI

DYFI members on November 16, 2021 protest in New Delhi against UAPA cases in Tripura.

DYFI members on November 16, 2021 protest in New Delhi against UAPA cases in Tripura.

A Special Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana protected two lawyers and a journalist booked under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) from any “coercive action” by the Tripura police.

The lawyers had led a fact-finding mission and released a report on the “targetted political violence against Muslim minorities in the State” in October and the journalist had tweeted “Tripura is burning”.

Journalist Shyam Meera Singh. Photo: Twitter/@ShyamMeeraSingh

Journalist Shyam Meera Singh. Photo: Twitter/@ShyamMeeraSingh


Advocates Mukesh and Ansarul Haq Ansar and journalist Shyam Meera Singh had petitioned the court to quash the FIR lodged against them and for protection from arrest.

They said the State of Tripura was “monopolising the flow of information and facts emanating from the affected areas by invoking the UAPA against members of civil society, including advocates and journalists, who have made the effort to bring facts in relation to the targeted violence in the public domain”.

The petition, filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, asked the court to restrict the vague and wide definition given to what amounts to “unlawful activity” under the UAPA. The definition gave a free hand to the State to crush dissent and free speech with the threat of the UAPA, it argued.

Notice to State

The Bench, also comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant, issued notice to Tripura.

The petitioners said the registration of UAPA cases against them amounted to the “criminalisation of the very act of fact-finding and reporting”. The stringent sections of the UAPA were being used to spread a chilling effect on free speech and expression of civil society. Anticipatory bail was barred under the UAPA and the possibility of bail was remote.

“The only facts that will come in the public domain are those convenient to the State due to the ‘chilling effect’ on the freedom of speech and expression of members of civil society. If the quest for truth and reporting itself is criminalised then the victim in the process is the idea of justice,” the petition stated. The shadow of the UAPA would choke the ‘free flow of information and ideas’.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.