5 months ago
1
Giving an “unpalatable” code cannot by itself pull the rigours of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the accused successful the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy lawsuit told the Supreme Court connected Tuesday (December 9, 2025), arsenic they concluded arguments connected their bail pleas.
Senior advocator Siddharth Dave, appearing for Sharjeel Imam, apprised a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria that the prosecution’s lawsuit rests astir wholly connected speeches delivered by Mr. Imam, which, helium contended, cannot ipso facto beryllium construed arsenic a “terrorist act” nether Section 15 of the UAPA.
“The complaint is not whether my code individually falls foul of Section 15. The question is whether the speeches were conspiratorial successful nature. If they were not, past Section 15 cannot beryllium invoked,” helium said.
Mr. Dave further pointed retired that the Delhi Police had registered astir 750 FIRs relating to the riots, yet Mr. Imam was not named successful immoderate of them. “This is simply a peculiar FIR wherever an alleged conspiracy is prosecuted separately from the existent acts said to person been committed pursuant to that conspiracy....I bash not look successful immoderate of the 750 FIRs. Is a speech, by itself, conspiratorial successful nature?” helium asked.
Along with Mr. Imam’s plea, the Bench was besides proceeding the bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, each accused of conspiring to orchestrate the unrest and charged nether the UAPA. They person assailed the Delhi High Court’s September 2 bid denying them bail, which had characterised their alleged roles arsenic “grave” and indicative of a coordinated conspiracy down the riots that near 53 radical dormant and hundreds injured successful the nationalist capital.
‘Meeting of minds’
Disputing Mr. Imam’s alleged role, Mr. Dave argued that his lawsuit had been arrested connected January 28, 2020, astir a period earlier the unit erupted. A complaint of transgression conspiracy, helium contended, presupposes a “meeting of minds”, whereas Mr. Imam had already been taken into custody weeks earlier the riots unfolded.
“Today, helium stands earlier Your Lordships seeking bail. After astir six years successful custody, Your Lordships whitethorn kindly see releasing him, peculiarly erstwhile helium was not physically contiguous and is not an accused successful immoderate of the cases concerning the existent incidents of rioting. The code is successful Aligarh, yet I americium prosecuted successful Delhi,” helium said.
However, Justice Kumar asked the elder counsel to respond to the prosecution’s halfway allegation that the speeches were not isolated governmental expressions but portion of a coordinated program to incite violence. “They [Delhi Police] accidental that the Aligarh code was circulated successful Delhi, which instigated the Delhi riots”, helium said.
Mr. Dave past apprised the Bench that the Allahabad High Court had, successful November 2021, already granted bail to Mr. Imam successful narration to the code delivered astatine Aligarh Muslim University successful January 2019 during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). The High Court had recorded, helium said, that it was “undisputed” that Mr. Imam had neither exhorted anyone to carnivore arms nor incited violence.
He past proceeded to play a compilation of Mr. Imam’s speeches, emphasising that respective of them expressly called for non-violence and urged radical not to “pick up stones”. The Bench, however, drew his attraction to video clips earlier relied upon by the Delhi Police, successful which Mr. Imam is purportedly heard speaking astir “cutting disconnected Assam” from the remainder of the state and urging demonstrators to “choke supplies”.
The elder counsel conceded that immoderate of his client’s speeches were “unpalatable”, but stressed that they could not pull the stringent provisions of the UAPA successful the lack of immoderate demonstrable consequences. He argued that the prosecution had failed to found a causal nexus betwixt the speeches and the consequent violence.
“Some of his speeches are unpalatable. It could person been amended worded. It could person remained wrong the 4 corners of law... but if the speeches had led to the riots, I would person been prosecuted for the riots. There has to beryllium immoderate overt act, immoderate code that says that wrong so-and-so days perpetrate this act”, helium submitted.
Earlier, elder advocator Kapil Sibal, representing Mr. Khalid, had cautioned that treating protestation speeches arsenic transgression acts would render mean dissent prosecutable nether the stringent anti-terror law. He work retired portions of Mr. Khalid’s speeches successful which helium invoked Gandhian principles and explicitly urged non-violence. “These are young students who agitated. We besides agitated erstwhile we were young. If you protest, is determination a constituent successful keeping maine successful jail? This can’t beryllium the instrumentality of the country,” helium said.
No ‘overt act’
Senior advocator Salman Khurshid, appearing for Mr. Rehman, argued that a transgression conspiracy requires an statement to perpetrate an unlawful enactment and an accompanying “overt act”, neither of which, helium contended, the prosecution had established. “Privacy and secrecy are much the attributes of a conspiracy than a large treatment successful an elevated spot unfastened to nationalist view,” helium submitted.
He added that information successful a nationwide protestation could not, by itself, warrant imputing transgression intent to each idiosyncratic involved. “When determination is simply a protestation movement, radical from antithetic parts of the state articulation in. To presume that everyone who responds to the protestation is simply a conspirator is precise unfortunate. Mahatma Gandhi engaged successful civilian disobedience. It was defiance of law, but defiance does not mean violence,” helium said.
The Bench took enactment of the submissions and posted the substance for further proceeding connected December 10. Additional Solicitor-General S.V. Raju, representing the Delhi Police, is expected to contiguous his closing submissions connected Wednesday. He had earlier indicated that respective arguments precocious connected behalf of the accused were factually erroneous and that helium would marque the indispensable clarifications earlier the court.
The Delhi Police had antecedently argued that the unit successful the superior was not the effect of a peaceful protestation against the CAA turning volatile, but “a wide violent act”. Mr. Raju had argued that the standard of the unit and the intent down it near “no doubt” that the conspiracy extended acold beyond civilian demonstrations against the CAA. He had further submitted that the broader nonsubjective of the protests was “regime change,” drafting parallels with convulsive governmental uprisings successful Bangladesh and Nepal.
