1
1 Min Read

In this episode of The 39A Dialogues, Senior Advocate and criminal law practitioner Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan discusses what sets apart the stringent bail provision under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 and makes it almost impossible for an accused to secure bail once charged for offences of ‘terrorist activities’ and ‘terrorist organization’ under the Act. She comments on the decision of the Delhi High Court from June 2021, granting bail to three student activists – Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita while coming to the finding that that their acts of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 did not meet the standard of a ‘terrorist act’ as defined under the UAPA. Ms. Ramakrishnan argues that the decision of the Delhi High Court is logically sound and does not come in conflict with the Supreme Court’s 2019 landmark ruling in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali.

1
1 Min Read

In this episode of the 39A Dialogues, commemorating the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, human rights lawyers Babloo Lointongbam (Human Rights Alert, Manipur) and Henri Tiphagne (People’s Watch, Tamil Nadu) share their experiences of working, supporting and building relationships with victims of torture.

1
1 Min Read

In the first episode of The 39A Dialogues, criminal law expert Siddharth Aggarwal argues that the stage of “discharge” is an integral feature of all criminal trials and cannot be arbitrarily eliminated from summons triable cases