The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the police if organising protests was enough to attract provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), an anti-terror law, in a February 2020 communal riots case.

A Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur posed the query to the Special Public Prosecutor, Amit Prasad, while hearing the bail pleas of former Jawaharlal Nehru University student Umar Khalid and student activist Sharjeel Imam, among others, in a case of “larger conspiracy” behind the violence.

The court said if there is evidence that the accused planned a violent act and executed it, provisions of the anti-terror law could be invoked.

“But when you draw attention to something like a JACT (a WhatsApp group), and your argument is that they are organising protest sites, is that good enough?” said the Bench.

It added, “Most importantly for us, it is the intent under the UAPA that has to be established.”

Mr. Prasad said that based on the evidence, including the statements of witnesses, the role of each accused in the case had been identified, which is why not all members of the WhatsApp group were named as accused.

To this, the court asked the Special Public Prosecutor to “come to the specifics then” and establish how the accused were “instigating violence rather than having a protest”.

Mr. Prasad argued that peaceful protests by the accused were merely a “facade” and that “the actual plan was to commit mass violence”.

Hearing on Thursday

The court scheduled the next hearing of the case for Thursday.

Mr. Khalid, Mr. Imam and several others were booked under UAPA and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.