UAPA Charges Dropped: Relief For SKUAST Students Arrested For Celebrating India's Cricket World Cup Defeat

In a recent development, the Jammu and Kashmir Police have decided to withdraw the charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) against seven students from the Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST). These students were previously arrested for allegedly raising anti-India slogans and celebrating the Indian cricket team's defeat in the ICC Cricket World Cup 2023 final on November 19.

The students, situated in central Kashmir’s Ganderbal district, were not only released on bail by the court, but the police also dropped the severe terror-related charges. This decision reportedly followed the acceptance of responsibility by the students' parents, acknowledging their children's mistake in celebrating the Indian team's defeat. The parents provided a written assurance that such behavior would not be repeated in the future and issued a formal apology on behalf of their children.

Sources suggest that it was these gestures of remorse that led the police to retract the UAPA charges. Nevertheless, the investigation into the actions of the seven students remains ongoing. If any connections with Pakistani handlers are established, there is a possibility of reinstating the UAPA charges, as indicated by sources.

While the UAPA charges were dropped, the students still face a case under Sections 505 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with public mischief and criminal intimidation. This aspect of the legal proceedings will continue despite the relaxation of the more severe charges.

The initial imposition of UAPA charges had sparked significant criticism from political parties, leading to demands for their withdrawal. PDP president Mehbooba Mufti expressed relief over the decision, stating on the microblogging site X (formerly Twitter), "Glad to know that UAPA charges against SKUAST students have been dropped. Finally, good sense has prevailed & their future saved from jeopardy." The case highlights the delicate balance between freedom of expression and national security concerns, bringing attention to the nuanced nature of such legal actions.