Srinagar, Oct 19 (KNS) : The Supreme Court of India, while determining not to cancel the bail of Fahad Shah, however said the previous order of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court pertaining to the bail granted under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) as lacking in legally just merit.

Shah, a journalist by profession, was also released out of bail by the High Court which floated the idea that if the accused does not pose a clear and present danger to society, bail may be warranted.

Moreover, the High Court held that the deterioration of India’s image internationally did not constitute terrorism within the confines of Section 15 of the UAPA.

A Supreme Court bench including Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma nevertheless, regarded this decision as per incuriam rule, which is legal awkwardness.Click Here To Follow Our WhatsApp ChannelThey disallowed the Lower Court to make that determination but did not rescind Shah’s bail either.

When it came to free speech, the High Court quoted the 1919 Schenck v. United States decision of the US Supreme Court which held that denying free speech was permissible when it posed a ‘clear and present danger.’ The United States in its judgment concerned itself with danger and free speech arguing that freedom of speech is not unlimited if it is productive of whatever evil is substantially material.(KNS)