Are we not humans? Have we lost all touch of humanity? Former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Gupta on incarceration of Stan Swamy, UAPA

Former Supreme Court judge, Justice Deepak Gupta on Saturday expressed anguish at the incarceration of 84-year-old Father Stan Swamy for offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in relation to Bhima Koregaon case with Swamy eventually passing away in custody. .He said that misuse of UAPA is leading to incarceration of lot of persons and the law in its current form is unconstitutional.“Father Stan Swamy, 84 years old, suffering from Parkinson’s disease. I mean are we not humans, have we lost all touch of humanity that this man requires bail even if there is 43D or 43E. There the powers of superior court must be used to grant bail to these people,” he said..Justice Gupta was speaking at a public discussion organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms on the topic "UAPA: Democracy, Dissent and Draconian laws".He also cited other examples in this regard including Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan who has been booked under UAPA by the Uttar Pradesh government and is currently lodged in a jail in Mathura.“What is worrying is what has happened recently. Mohammad llyas and Mohammad Irfan were released after 9 years. 122 persons in Surat release after 20 years. Natasha narwal did get bail but her father died when she was in jail. Similarly, Siddique Kappan’s mother died while he was in jail,” the former judge said..Regarding the case of Father Stan Swamy, the judge opined that while Bombay High Court ensured that he got proper treatment in jail, there was no reason for keeping him in jail.“No doubt the Bombay High Court did ensure that he got proper treatment in jail. What is the purpose of jail – that he should not influence witnesses, he should not run away from justice and should be available for investigation. And the court had adequate powers to put such restrictions if bail was to be granted to Father Stan Swamy or others like him.”.However, what comes in the way is Section 43D of UAPA and Supreme Court judgment in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali case, he added.“In my opinion which effectually takes away power of superior courts to grant bail is unconstitutional. You can lay down conditions like in NDPS Act etc. (But) here the condition is that you have to believe that everything said in Section 173 report. Then there would be no bail. Any police officer worth his salt will ensure that his 173 report will prima facie appear true,” he said.Justice Gupta also praised the recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in Delhi riots case in which bail was granted to Asif Iqbal Sinha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal.“The Delhi High Court judgment of Justice Anup Bhambani in Delhi riots case is remarkable in that sense. They (Delhi High Court) said that no case under UAPA is made out. They did not have to go into Section 43D because according to them no case under UAPA was made out because they (accused) were organising some chakka jams, protests against CAA and there was no occasion to apply UAPA,” he said..Hence, UAPA should not remain in statute book in the current form, Justice Gupta opined.“I can cite Lal Bahadur Shastri who said if he wants to deal with problems in Nagaland and Manipur, he does not need a law like this to deal with the problem and can deal with it on a face to face basis by talking to them,” Gupta added.However, Justice Gupta maintained that anti-terror is required but it should be strictly interpreted and drafted in such a way that there is no scope of misuse.“We cannot totally shut our eyes to the fact that terrorism is a worry in today’s world. When something like Bombay attacks happens, it is a worry for all us. I would not go to the extent that no law is required against terrorism. But that law should be very strictly interpreted. It should be used only against terrorist activities and it should be drafted in such a manner and interpreted in such a manner that there is no scope for misuse,” he said.