EDITING

Passage 1:

Title: Supreme Court upholds bail to Pinjra Tod activists; dismisses Delhi Police appeal

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the appeal filed by Delhi Police challenging the bail granted to the three Pinjra Tod activists – Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha in connection with their provocative speeches during the Delhi riots of February 2020. The trio is facing provisions under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

A bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah dismissed the appeal that was pending in the top court for nearly two years while clarifying that the June 15, 2021 order of the high court shall not be treated as a precedent by the accused in the trial or in any other proceeding.

The Delhi Police had approached the top court to set aside the HC decision as, besides discussion on bail, it questioned the various provisions of UAPA. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the police, said, "The HC judgement has declared the UAPA as unconstitutional."

The court said that this was because nowadays lawyers argue bail matters as if they are arguing a final appeal. Earlier, an adjournment was sought by the police as additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, who had to appeal in the case, was in personal difficulty. The top court refused to adjourn after it noted that the state had sought adjournments on three occasions in the past. The bench said, "I think states are a category by themselves. Nobody in this Court seeks so much accommodation."

The bench said, "For two years, the accused are out on bail. We see no purpose in keeping the matter alive." Mehta, who connected virtually during the proceedings, requested the court to protect the state to the extent that this judgment is not cited in any other case.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Delhi Police challenging the bail granted to three Pinjra Tod activists - Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha in connection with their provocative speeches during the Delhi riots of February 2020. The Delhi Police had approached the top court to set aside the HC decision and questioned various provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), under which the trio is facing charges. A bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah dismissed the appeal, which was pending in the top court for nearly two years, while clarifying that the June 15, 2021 order of the high court shall not be treated as a precedent by the accused in the trial or in any other proceeding.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the police, said, "The HC judgement has declared the UAPA as unconstitutional." The bench told Mehta that an order was passed to this effect while issuing notice on the appeal on June 18, 2021. The bench reiterated that the purpose of its interim order was to see that the expounded legal propositions on statutory provisions in bail matters should not be used in these proceedings or any other proceedings. The bench further stated that while deciding bail, the high court ought to examine only the factual scenario.

The activists were represented in Court by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Aggarwal, who prayed that the appeal should not be kept hanging as two years had elapsed. Another co-accused also approached the top court, claiming that his bail was not being considered in light of the June 18 order. The bench clarified that "if the co-accused is entitled to the plea of parity, then it is for him to make such a plea and for the court to consider."

The three student activists were in custody since May 2020, and their bail pleas were rejected by the special trial judge following which they approached the high court. The high court order held that the right to protest will not amount to a 'terrorist act' and said that the right to protest was a constitutionally guaranteed right under Article 19(1)(a) and was not outlawed and cannot be termed as a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 15 of the UAPA.

The HC examined the charge sheet and concluded that the accused took part in a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) that was lawful and were monitored by law enforcement agencies. The Delhi Police termed the HC judgement perverse as it was of the view that the judges went overboard by giving an interpretation of the law that could impact other cases.

Passage 2:

Title: Student Eats $120,000 Italian Artwork of Banana Duct Taped to Wall

A student from Seoul National University has eaten a $120,000 artwork that consisted of a banana duct-taped to a wall at Leeum Museum of Art in Seoul. The artwork, called "Comedian," was created by Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan and was part of an exhibition. Noh Huyn-soo took the banana off the wall, ate it, and then reattached the peel to the wall using the same tape.

When museum authorities questioned him about his actions, he said he had skipped breakfast and was hungry. In a later interview with local broadcaster KBS, the student said that damaging a work of modern art could also be interpreted as a kind of art. The banana was replaced every two to three days on the direction of Mr Cattelan, who reportedly said that there was "no problem at all" over the incident.

This is not the first time that the artwork has been eaten. In 2019, performance artist David Datuna ate the banana after "Comedian" sold for $120,000 at Art Basel in Miami. He later used Instagram to talk about the incident, saying "I really love this installation. It’s very delicious." Mr. Datuna also defended his decision to eat the installation, calling it an art performance and not an act of vandalism.