At Delhi High Court, the city police firmly opposed the bail plea of student activist Sharjeel Imam in connection with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case.
At Delhi High Court, the city police on Tuesday firmly opposed the bail plea of student activist Sharjeel Imam in connection with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case. This case pertains to the alleged overarching conspiracy that led to the communal riots in 2020, which tragically resulted in 53 fatalities and left over 700 individuals injured.
The contentious riots, which unfolded in North-East Delhi, coincided with nationwide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The prosecution, led by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, argued that the protests were strategically orchestrated to incite violence during the visit of then US President Donald Trump.
Central to the police’s argument against granting bail were the speeches delivered by Imam, which, according to them, played a pivotal role in mobilizing individuals from the minority community. The prosecution highlighted Imam’s advocacy for ‘chakka jam’—a form of road blockade—as a primary method of protest, alleging that it left “no window for peaceful protest” and was intended to provoke confrontational violence.
Also Read- Delhi Court Summons Karti Chidambaram In Chinese Visa Case Following ED Charge Sheet (lawchakra.in)
Amit Prasad elaborated on the nature of Imam’s public addresses, stating,
“His speeches are completely for the purpose of mobilisation. It is targeting on ‘you will be finished if you don’t come on roads, you will have nothing left’. All speeches are identical. All are about chakka jam, Babri, triple talaq, CAA, and Article 370.”
He further argued that the sequence of mobilization, road blockades, and confrontations set the stage for the subsequent riots.
One of the more controversial claims made by Imam, as highlighted by the prosecution, was his suggestion of “cutting off” the Northeast from the rest of India by obstructing the “chicken neck” corridor, a critical narrow stretch connecting the region to the rest of the country.
In defense, Sharjeel Imam, represented by Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, maintained that his speeches were misconstrued, asserting that they did not incite violence but rather promoted an “entirely Gandhian” method of protest. Imam contended that his actions did not constitute any “terrorist act” under the UAPA or imply any conspiracy with the co-accused individuals.
Previously, on April 11, 2022, the trial court had rejected Imam’s bail plea. Arrested on August 25, 2020, in connection with this case, he has been in custody since January 2020, facing multiple FIRs related to the violence.
The Delhi High Court is set to continue hearing the case on Wednesday, as the legal battle over Imam’s bail plea and the broader implications of the 2020 Delhi riots unfold. This case remains a focal point of discussion regarding the limits of free speech, the right to protest, and the application of anti-terror laws in India.
Also Read- Court Sentences Priest For Assault On Foreign Tourists (lawchakra.in)
