News Analysis India

Tag: Sharjeel Imam

  • Delhi Riots 2020: HC to hear on Monday Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea in UAPA case

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court will on Monday hear a bail plea by JNU student and activist Sharjeel Imam in a UAPA case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 riots here.

    Imam, who was arrested in February 2020, was on Saturday discharged along with 10 others in the 2019 Jamia Nagar violence case, with the court saying they were made “scapegoats” by police.

    The plea, which was filed in April 2022 against a trial court order refusing to grant bail to Imam in the matter, is listed before a bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar.

    In this case, Sharjeel Imam and several others, including Umar Khalid, have been booked under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots in the North-East Delhi, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

    The violence had erupted during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

    On April 11, 2022, Special Judge Amitabh Rawat denied relief to Imam and rejected his bail plea.

    In his appeal, Imam has submitted before the high court that in the absence of any admissible material, the trial court wrongly found him to be a part of the conspiracy to cause riots and there is no prima facie case against him for the commission of any ‘terrorist act’ under the stringent UAPA.

    Imam has also said he is a final year Ph.D. student having no prior criminal antecedents and the trial court failed to appreciate that the entire investigation is faulty and that there is no connection between his speeches and the incidents of violence.

    The plea alleged that Imam was arrested by the Delhi police as part of a targeted campaign against him and he was already in custody in connection with other cases when the violence broke out in Northeast Delhi and had no communication with the other alleged co-conspirators.

    On October 18 last year, the high court refused to grant bail to co-accused Umar Khalid in the same case, saying he was in constant touch with other co-accused and allegations against him were prima facie true.

    It had also observed that Sharjeel Imam arguably was at the head of the conspiracy and there existed a string of commonality running amongst all the co-accused.

    On December 9 last year, the Supreme Court, however, clarified the observations made in respect of Imam in the high court verdict rejecting the bail plea of co-accused Umar Khalid would not prejudice his bail plea pending there.

    NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court will on Monday hear a bail plea by JNU student and activist Sharjeel Imam in a UAPA case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 riots here.

    Imam, who was arrested in February 2020, was on Saturday discharged along with 10 others in the 2019 Jamia Nagar violence case, with the court saying they were made “scapegoats” by police.

    The plea, which was filed in April 2022 against a trial court order refusing to grant bail to Imam in the matter, is listed before a bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar.

    In this case, Sharjeel Imam and several others, including Umar Khalid, have been booked under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots in the North-East Delhi, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

    The violence had erupted during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

    On April 11, 2022, Special Judge Amitabh Rawat denied relief to Imam and rejected his bail plea.

    In his appeal, Imam has submitted before the high court that in the absence of any admissible material, the trial court wrongly found him to be a part of the conspiracy to cause riots and there is no prima facie case against him for the commission of any ‘terrorist act’ under the stringent UAPA.

    Imam has also said he is a final year Ph.D. student having no prior criminal antecedents and the trial court failed to appreciate that the entire investigation is faulty and that there is no connection between his speeches and the incidents of violence.

    The plea alleged that Imam was arrested by the Delhi police as part of a targeted campaign against him and he was already in custody in connection with other cases when the violence broke out in Northeast Delhi and had no communication with the other alleged co-conspirators.

    On October 18 last year, the high court refused to grant bail to co-accused Umar Khalid in the same case, saying he was in constant touch with other co-accused and allegations against him were prima facie true.

    It had also observed that Sharjeel Imam arguably was at the head of the conspiracy and there existed a string of commonality running amongst all the co-accused.

    On December 9 last year, the Supreme Court, however, clarified the observations made in respect of Imam in the high court verdict rejecting the bail plea of co-accused Umar Khalid would not prejudice his bail plea pending there.

  • SC clarifies verdict on Umar Khalid will not prejudice HC’s observations on Sharjeel Imam 

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday clarified the observations made in respect of JNU student Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi High Court verdict, which rejected the bail plea of co-accused Umar Khalid in a case of alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi, will not prejudice his case pending before the court.

    A bench of Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka, which was hearing Imam’s plea concerning the remarks made against him in the October 18 judgement of the high court, said one of the paragraphs in the verdict clarified “nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case”.

    “This happens when people argue bail applications like it is an appeal on merits,” Justice Kaul observed, adding that bail applications should not be argued for over 10 minutes.

    In its verdict rejecting former JNU student Khalid’s plea seeking bail, the high court had said he was in constant touch with other co-accused and allegations against him were prima facie true having carefully gone through the charge-sheet and taking into consideration the fact that the appellant (Khalid) was in constant touch with other co-accused persons, including Sharjeel Imam, who arguably is at the head of the conspiracy; at this stage, it is difficult to form an opinion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie not proved,” the high court had said in its verdict.

    During the hearing before the top court, the counsel appearing for Imam told the bench they are constrained to move the apex court as serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner due to the observations made by the high court in the order denying bail to one of the co-accused in the case.

    “We have noticed that in paragraph 68 of the judgement, the division bench of the high court has clarified that the observations shall not tantamount to an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case,” the bench said.

    “We clarify that any observations made in respect to the petitioner (Imam) will not prejudice the petitioner,” the top court said.

    Justice Kaul observed he finds it a complete wastage of time when the hearing on bail applications goes on and on.

    Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and several others have been booked under the anti-terror law the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

    The violence erupted during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday clarified the observations made in respect of JNU student Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi High Court verdict, which rejected the bail plea of co-accused Umar Khalid in a case of alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi, will not prejudice his case pending before the court.

    A bench of Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka, which was hearing Imam’s plea concerning the remarks made against him in the October 18 judgement of the high court, said one of the paragraphs in the verdict clarified “nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case”.

    “This happens when people argue bail applications like it is an appeal on merits,” Justice Kaul observed, adding that bail applications should not be argued for over 10 minutes.

    In its verdict rejecting former JNU student Khalid’s plea seeking bail, the high court had said he was in constant touch with other co-accused and allegations against him were prima facie true having carefully gone through the charge-sheet and taking into consideration the fact that the appellant (Khalid) was in constant touch with other co-accused persons, including Sharjeel Imam, who arguably is at the head of the conspiracy; at this stage, it is difficult to form an opinion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie not proved,” the high court had said in its verdict.

    During the hearing before the top court, the counsel appearing for Imam told the bench they are constrained to move the apex court as serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner due to the observations made by the high court in the order denying bail to one of the co-accused in the case.

    “We have noticed that in paragraph 68 of the judgement, the division bench of the high court has clarified that the observations shall not tantamount to an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case,” the bench said.

    “We clarify that any observations made in respect to the petitioner (Imam) will not prejudice the petitioner,” the top court said.

    Justice Kaul observed he finds it a complete wastage of time when the hearing on bail applications goes on and on.

    Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and several others have been booked under the anti-terror law the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

    The violence erupted during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

  • Umar Khalid completes 2 years in jail; mother says she is ‘optimistic’ of him walking free soon

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: “I am optimistic, that he will walk out of prison soon,” says the mother of former JNU student leader Umar Khalid who has been in jail from two years in connection with Northeast Delhi riots in 2020.

    Khalid was arrested by Delhi Police on September 13, 2020. He has been booked under provisions of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

    The Delhi Police charged Khalid for disrupting religious sentiments and argued that he was a part of a larger conspiracy in the riots that jolted the national capital.

    “I am highly optimistic that my son will walk out of the jail very soon. I spoke to Umar last week, he always speaks cheerfully. I keep on trying to motivate him and ask him to keep his hopes high. Not just bail, but all cases against him should be closed off or withdrawn,” Khalid’s mother Sabiha Khanum told PTI.

    The Delhi High Court had last week reserved its order on Khalid’s bail plea.

    Khalid had contended that he neither had any “criminal role” in the violence nor any “conspiratorial connect” with any other accused in the matter.

    Speaking at an event ‘In pursuit of Justice’ here, Supreme Court advocate Shah Rukh Alam claimed that the FIR against Khalid is “nothing but a political document” and that, there is no “substantial evidence” against the accused.

    “When the court tells us to keep politics away’, it is mostly when someone questions the policies of the government. FIR number 59 of 2020 doesn’t mention any offence and there’s no substantial evidence in the FIR. It is purely a political document and so was the state’s counter during Khalid’s bail hearing,” Alam.

    JNUSU President Aishe Ghosh said that the government “tends to take action” against those “who question their policies”.

    “Umar always discussed the injustice that happened, not just within the campus, but also outside it. That is what made his voice distinct and hence, the people in power are scared of students like him. The fight of all political prisoners will continue even though this government tends to take action against all those who question their policies,” she said.

    During his bail plea hearing, Khalid said that there was no material to support the case of the prosecution against him and that he raised issues that several others were discussing in the country, including those concerning the Citizenship Amendment Act.

    Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and several others were booked under the anti-terror law UAPA, and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which had left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

    The violence erupted during the protests against CAA and NRC. In a letter to his friend written from the prison premises, Khalid said that he feels lonely and pessimistic at times.

    “How do we fight against this monstrous machine of lies and falsehood? The purveyors of hate and falsehood have so many resources ” money, pliant 24×7 news channels, lots of them, troll armies, and the police too.

    To be honest, it makes me feel pessimistic at times. At times I also feel lonely. Lots of people far more privileged than me who were together in this fight against fascism, in the movement against CAA-NRC/NPR, today choose to remain silent when I am singled out for these lies.

    “It makes you feel unwanted. It makes you feel like a stranger in your own land. The only thing I find succour in such moments is the realisation that none of this is personal. That my persecution and isolation is symbolic of something larger — the persecution and isolation of Muslims in India right now,” Khalid said in the letter shared with the online portal The Wire.

    NEW DELHI: “I am optimistic, that he will walk out of prison soon,” says the mother of former JNU student leader Umar Khalid who has been in jail from two years in connection with Northeast Delhi riots in 2020.

    Khalid was arrested by Delhi Police on September 13, 2020. He has been booked under provisions of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

    The Delhi Police charged Khalid for disrupting religious sentiments and argued that he was a part of a larger conspiracy in the riots that jolted the national capital.

    “I am highly optimistic that my son will walk out of the jail very soon. I spoke to Umar last week, he always speaks cheerfully. I keep on trying to motivate him and ask him to keep his hopes high. Not just bail, but all cases against him should be closed off or withdrawn,” Khalid’s mother Sabiha Khanum told PTI.

    The Delhi High Court had last week reserved its order on Khalid’s bail plea.

    Khalid had contended that he neither had any “criminal role” in the violence nor any “conspiratorial connect” with any other accused in the matter.

    Speaking at an event ‘In pursuit of Justice’ here, Supreme Court advocate Shah Rukh Alam claimed that the FIR against Khalid is “nothing but a political document” and that, there is no “substantial evidence” against the accused.

    “When the court tells us to keep politics away’, it is mostly when someone questions the policies of the government. FIR number 59 of 2020 doesn’t mention any offence and there’s no substantial evidence in the FIR. It is purely a political document and so was the state’s counter during Khalid’s bail hearing,” Alam.

    JNUSU President Aishe Ghosh said that the government “tends to take action” against those “who question their policies”.

    “Umar always discussed the injustice that happened, not just within the campus, but also outside it. That is what made his voice distinct and hence, the people in power are scared of students like him. The fight of all political prisoners will continue even though this government tends to take action against all those who question their policies,” she said.

    During his bail plea hearing, Khalid said that there was no material to support the case of the prosecution against him and that he raised issues that several others were discussing in the country, including those concerning the Citizenship Amendment Act.

    Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and several others were booked under the anti-terror law UAPA, and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which had left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

    The violence erupted during the protests against CAA and NRC. In a letter to his friend written from the prison premises, Khalid said that he feels lonely and pessimistic at times.

    “How do we fight against this monstrous machine of lies and falsehood? The purveyors of hate and falsehood have so many resources ” money, pliant 24×7 news channels, lots of them, troll armies, and the police too.

    To be honest, it makes me feel pessimistic at times. At times I also feel lonely. Lots of people far more privileged than me who were together in this fight against fascism, in the movement against CAA-NRC/NPR, today choose to remain silent when I am singled out for these lies.

    “It makes you feel unwanted. It makes you feel like a stranger in your own land. The only thing I find succour in such moments is the realisation that none of this is personal. That my persecution and isolation is symbolic of something larger — the persecution and isolation of Muslims in India right now,” Khalid said in the letter shared with the online portal The Wire.

  • Anti-CAA protests: Delhi court rejects interim bail for Sharjeel Imam 

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Saturday denied interim bail to former JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a case related to an alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.

    Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat rejected the bail plea noting there was not sufficient ground to grant the relief.

    During the hearing, Imam’s counsel Ahmad Ibrahim told the court that the accused met the conditions for bail and he was not a flight risk, nor at the risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with the evidence.

    Also, Imam did not make a conscious call for inciting violent activities, the counsel said.

    Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad opposed the bail plea and said the court could consider the gravity of the offence before granting bail.

    Imam is accused of making inflammatory speeches against the government on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), particularly at the Jamia Milia Islamia University in December 2019, which allegedly led to violence in the area outside the university.

    Imam, also facing sedition charges for his alleged inflammatory speeches, is in judicial custody since January 2020.

    The Delhi Police had filed a charge sheet against Imam in the case, in which it alleged that he gave speeches inciting hatred, contempt, and disaffection towards the Central government and instigated people which led to the violence in December 2019.

    NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Saturday denied interim bail to former JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a case related to an alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.

    Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat rejected the bail plea noting there was not sufficient ground to grant the relief.

    During the hearing, Imam’s counsel Ahmad Ibrahim told the court that the accused met the conditions for bail and he was not a flight risk, nor at the risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with the evidence.

    Also, Imam did not make a conscious call for inciting violent activities, the counsel said.

    Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad opposed the bail plea and said the court could consider the gravity of the offence before granting bail.

    Imam is accused of making inflammatory speeches against the government on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), particularly at the Jamia Milia Islamia University in December 2019, which allegedly led to violence in the area outside the university.

    Imam, also facing sedition charges for his alleged inflammatory speeches, is in judicial custody since January 2020.

    The Delhi Police had filed a charge sheet against Imam in the case, in which it alleged that he gave speeches inciting hatred, contempt, and disaffection towards the Central government and instigated people which led to the violence in December 2019.

  • ‘Not a terrorist’: Sharjeel Imam tells court, calls his prosecution ‘whip of monarch’

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: JNU student Sharjeel Imam, arrested for allegedly making inflammatory speeches during the protests against CAA and NRC, on Monday told a Delhi court that he is not a terrorist and his prosecution is a “whip of a monarch rather than a government established by law”.

    Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat was hearing a case filed against Imam for the alleged speeches given by him at two universities in 2019, where he allegedly threatened to “cut off” Assam and the rest of the Northeast from India.

    The alleged inflammatory speeches for which he was arrested were allegedly made at Jamia Millia Islamia on December 13, 2019, and at Aligarh Muslim University on December 16, 2019.

    He has been in judicial custody since January 2020.

    He was arrested under the provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

    A charge of sedition was also slapped against him.

    Seeking bail as well as discharge in the case, advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, representing Imam, told the court that being critical of the government cannot be the cause of sedition.

    “The essence of the entire prosecution is that you talk against us and sedition is on your way,” Mir said, adding that Imam cannot be allowed to be persecuted just because he was critical of CAA or NRC.

    “This prosecution of Sharjeel Imam is more of a whip of a monarch rather than a government established by law. This is not how the government or executive has to respond. At the end of the day, a dispensation will change. Nothing is permanent,” the advocate further said.

    Referring to the recent ‘Bharat Bandh’ called by the protesting farmers, Imam’s counsel asked, “Will we call for sedition in all those cases? Asking for rail roko, blocking of roads, etc, is that a constitutional means of protest or not?” He asked will the sedition charges be attracted if farmers say that they want fair prices for the crops or people demand women’s rights.

    Mir said it is the duty of every citizen to be critical of the government.

    Since when does the government need the affection of people, he asked.

    “It is only the monarchs, kings who need the affection of people. We are not here to bow down before the government,” the lawyer submitted.

    “Unless and until we do not have critical elements in the society, the society will die,” he submitted.

    The lawyer said that there were many prosecutions against Imam just because he had criticized the government’s policies.

    “He is not a terrorist or associated with some terrorist outfit. He has no criminal antecedents, he does not have any political agenda,” he told the court.

    Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad said that the fundamental right to protest cannot go beyond an extent that causes problems to the public at large.

    He told the court that violent riots took place pursuant to Imam’s speech.

    “He tried to create anarchy by saying that there is no hope left for the Muslim community and that there is no other way left,” Prasad said, opposing his bail and discharge in the case.

    Imam is accused of offenses relating to sedition, promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, imputations prejudicial to national integration, and public mischief under the Indian Penal Code, and indulging in unlawful activities under the UAPA.

    Delhi Police had filed a charge sheet against Imam in the case, in which it alleged that he allegedly gave speeches inciting hatred, contempt, and disaffection towards the Central Government and instigated the people which led to the violence in December 2019.

  • Court allows pre-arrest bail of two TISS students booked for sedition over pro-Sharjeel slogans

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: A court here has granted pre-arrest bail to two students of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) here in a sedition case registered against them for allegedly shouting slogans in support of former JNU student Sharjeel Imam at an LGBTQ event here in February last year.

    The anticipatory bail of Ambadi B and Amir Ali was allowed by additional sessions judge M G Deshpande.

    But a detailed order of Ambadi was available on Wednesday.

    The court noted that there was nothing before it to show that he was part of the gathering and raised anti-national slogans.

    Careful perusal of the FIR indicates that there is a clear mention that only one woman Urvashi Chudawala was giving slogans and the group was responding to the same by clapping in chorus, the court said.

    “Main accused Urvashi Chudawala is already enjoying the interim protection granted by the (Bombay) High Court.

    Basically there is nothing before the court to even hold that the present applicant was part of the said assembly and gave anti-nation slogans attributing sedition,” it added.

    “The accused is a 22-year-old and his education is in progress.

    Arrest has far-reaching consequences as the same may spoil the career of the student forever.

    If the application is rejected, the same will cause irreparable loss to the applicant,” the court said.

    According to the police, around 300 people had gathered at a rally organised by Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer (LGBTQ) community at Azad Maidan in February last year.

    There were multiple small groups and many of them were giving slogans, it said.

    According to police, one woman (later identified as Chudawala) allegedly shouted the slogan “Sharjeel Tere Sapno Ko Hum Manzil Tak Pahuchaenge” (Sharjeel, we will realise your dreams), while around 50-60 students responded in chorus was responded in chorus.

    All of them were clapping and supporting those slogans, police have alleged.

    Imam, a PhD student at the Delhi-based Jawaharlal Nehru University’s Centre for Historical Studies, was arrested on January 28, 2020 after he was booked in sedition cases lodged across several states for alleged “inflammatory” speeches made during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

  • Anti-CAA protests: Sharjeel Imam denies inciting violence, says cannot be hammered with sedition

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: JNU student Sharjeel Imam, arrested for allegedly making inflammatory speeches during the protests against CAA and NRC, told a Delhi court on Monday that he cannot be hammered with sedition as his speeches did not call for violence.

    Imam has moved the court seeking bail in a case related to speeches made by him at two universities in 2019, where he allegedly threatened to “cut off” Assam and the rest of the Northeast from India.

    He has been arrested under UAPA and sedition.

    During the hearing, advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, representing the accused, apprised Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat that no part of his speech called for any kind of violence to be initiated.

    “When Sharjeel Imam says that this piece of legislation (CAA/NRC) is unconstitutional, and seeks to persuade the government to rethink and says if you don’t do it, we will be on the streets, he cannot be hammered by sedition,” the counsel asserted.

    He further said that the right to protest, the right to blockade, and the right to bring the country to a standstill is not equal to an act of sedition.

    “The speech did not call for violence. He just called for a road blockade. He did not say that the northeast should become a different state and declare independence. That would have been seditious,” advocate Mir added.

    He emphasised that Imam is not a member of any banned organisation or terrorist gang but is merely a student.

    The alleged inflammatory speeches were made at Jamia Millia Islamia on December 13, 2019, and at Aligarh Muslim University on December 16, 2019.

    He is in judicial custody since January 28, 2020.

    Imam is accused of offenses relating to sedition, promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, imputations prejudicial to national integration, and public mischief under the Indian Penal Code, and indulging in unlawful activities under the UAPA.

    Delhi Police had filed a charge sheet against Imam in the case, in which it alleged that he allegedly gave speeches inciting hatred, contempt, and disaffection towards the Central Government and instigated the people which led to the violence in December 2019.

    “In the garb of CAA, he (Imam) exhorted people of a particular community to block highways leading to major cities and resort to ‘chakka jaam’. Also, in the name of opposing CAA, he openly threatened to cut off Assam and other Northeastern states from the rest of the country,” the charge sheet had said.