Though the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian refused to stay Delhi High Court's landmark UAPA bail orders, it has largely limited the ambit of the High Court's order. This has left the larger and more important questions unanswered. The Delhi High Court on Tuesday while granting bail to three activists – Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha – had addressed a few long-stuck and long-demanded concerns. In the first place, it sought to remove the ambiguity under section 15 of the UAPA which defines a terrorist. This had been a lingering issue with social and legal activists raising their concerns over the misuse of the strict law by police officials to charge innocent groups or people — including tribal settlements, student's community, activists etc.— leading them to prolonged and strict custody meant for terrorists. The law is famous, or rather infamous, for its "jail without bail" provisions. The real essence of the High Court suggesting that the equation of students with terrorists was indeed a threat to democracy, laid in the generalization of the order. The Supreme Court's ruling on Friday put the caveat that HC's judgement cannot be used as a precedent in other cases. This caveat indicates that the issues surrounding the misuse of UAPA remain unsolved. The Supreme Court will further hear the matter on July 19. It will be significant to see what significant move will be made in this regard. The Supreme Court made these observations after hearing the arguments of solicitor general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor general Aman Lekhi representing the Delhi Police and Kapil Sibal representing the respondents. Mehta tried to highlight the gravity of the issue by pointing out that 53 persons have died in the Northeast Delhi riots and 700 suffered injuries. The issue indeed is very serious and even goes beyond fatalities and injuries — covering the communal provocations, infringement of basic rights among other things. But, weighing all this on accused students and activists — particularly when the matter is sub judice and charges are not proved — might be a misplaced argument. Aman Lekhi had argued that the Delhi High Court had misinterpreted section 15 of UAPA. This is the crux of the issue; the section awaits due interpretation. The caveat that the Delhi HC order cannot be used as a precedent is also said to reflect a lack of confidence in the judgement. Justice DY Chandrachud had in his April 14 remark said that such a caveat "shows a lack of moral conviction in one's own viewpoint" and that the decision of using a case as a precedent should be left to the Judges taking the particular matter. The SC's decision can however be justified on the ground that if an influx of similar bail applications is allowed suddenly there may arise a chaotic situation. It is also possible that the need for more consideration was felt before such a sweeping change. The Supreme Court has been very correct in observing that the Delhi High Court order could have pan-India ramifications. The Supreme Court is expected to come out with its own interpretation that will have a pan-India positive impact — addressing the lingering issues where, in the name of the UAPA law, justice is being snatched away. For the time being though there seems to be no respite to those who may be wrongly charged under UAPA. The HC's judgement nevertheless remains symbolic and has relieved the three accused. But, the joy of seeing more of such instances has been put on hold for the time being. Meanwhile, what is also worrying is the undiluted conflict between the government and the accused student and activists in the country. The government being on its heels to make sure that accused students and activists don't come out on bail in any circumstance even as the riots have seen the completion of more than one year and a quarter is an indication of the mistrust. The greatest apprehension of the government that following the Delhi HC judgement there would be more of such demands is put to rest. The application of stringent laws like UAPA has no doubt serious implications on society. The Supreme Court through its observations has addressed many socio-legal issues in the past. A far-reaching judgement is expected from it in the present case also as it hears the matter further.