The Delhi High Court Today (Jan 8) questioned whether organizing anti-CAA protest sites alone justified invoking UAPA against accused individuals in the Delhi riots case. While police cited WhatsApp chats and alleged organized conspiracy, the Court emphasized the need to establish intent under UAPA and sought specific evidence of instigating violence. It also criticized selective naming of accused based on chats and noted delays in the trial, which the accused argued as grounds for bail. The hearing will resume tomorrow.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, on Monday, questioned whether simply organizing protest sites against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) was enough for the Delhi Police to invoke the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against individuals accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur raised this point while the police opposed the bail pleas of the accused by citing evidence from WhatsApp group chats related to anti-CAA protests.
“Is it your case that only setting up of a protest site is good enough for UAPA or is it your case that protest site which resulted in a violence is good enough for a case under UAPA. But most importantly, for us, it is the intent, under UAPA, which has to be established,”
-the Court said.
The Court was hearing bail petitions filed by the accused, including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Khalid Saifi, and others, who have been in jail for several years. Observing the nature of protests, the Court noted that people may have felt that even acts like “chakka jam” (road blockades) were valid forms of protest.
The Court further inquired if organizing a chakka jam was enough to apply UAPA provisions.
“You culled down the conspiracy that there are WhatsApp groups. In the WhatsApp groups, (if) there are instigation and a hint of violence and violence actually happens, till then if they are involved, you may say UAPA is attracted. But when you draw attention… your argument is well they were organizing protest sites, is that good enough?”
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad clarified that not everyone in the WhatsApp groups was charged under UAPA.
The Court pressed the SPP to present concrete evidence showing that the accused instigated violence rather than merely participated in protests. As the trial court has not yet framed charges, the accused are seeking bail due to delays in the trial process.
The prosecution countered by citing legal precedents where mere delays in trials were not considered valid grounds for bail and accused the defendants of causing the delays.
During the hearing, the Court questioned the Delhi Police’s approach of selectively naming individuals in the conspiracy based on WhatsApp chats.
“In the conspiracy, how can you leave these two… conspiracy is actually evidenced, according to you, by their messages,”
-Justice Chawla remarked, referring to certain members of the WhatsApp groups.
SPP Prasad acknowledged the existence of many messages, saying,
“It is about 2000 or more.”
When the prosecution presented videos of public gatherings and protests, the Court asked how they were linked to the cited WhatsApp chats.
“All this [violence] happened, we know … this is neither here nor there. This whole thing happened, we know,”
-the Court remarked.
Later, SPP Prasad displayed a chart that purportedly showed the involvement of the accused in organizing protests through WhatsApp groups. He argued that the protests were not spontaneous but deliberately planned.
The hearing is set to continue tomorrow.
YESTERDAY IN DELHI HC
The Delhi Police on Tuesday (Jan 7) argued against granting bail to the accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case by invoking the strict provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in Delhi High Court.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma emphasized the seriousness of the case, urging the Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur to adopt a “very strict view” considering the case’s gravity.
“[Article] 21 is also available to those injured and those who are no more. 21 can’t be seen in isolation. This conspiracy is clinical, pathological and planned to execute by forces inimical to India. The same forces which have let themselves out on the leash in our neighboring country,”
-Sharma stated.
The Court was hearing bail pleas from several accused, including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Khalid Saifi, and others, who have been imprisoned for several years. The accused sought bail citing delays in the trial proceedings, as charges have yet to be framed by the trial court. Khalid and Imam also presented detailed arguments regarding their merits.
ASG Sharma specifically addressed Umar Khalid’s case, noting that he had already been denied bail earlier and that there had been no significant change in circumstances to justify another bail plea.
Referring to the UAPA’s stringent bail conditions, Sharma remarked:
“In a prima facie examination, your lordships will only see probative value that if there is an accusation and that accusation is reasonable, that is just about it.”
Sharma also referenced notable Supreme Court judgments, such as the 2019 ruling in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and the recent Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another.
These cases highlight that mere delays in trial cannot serve as a ground for bail. Additionally, Sharma argued that the accused themselves were responsible for the trial delays, citing three orders issued by the trial judge.
“I need not say more. The record is speaking for itself,”
-Sharma added.
The Delhi Police will continue presenting their arguments in court on Wednesday (Jan 8).
On 20th Dec the bench, consisting of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, deferred the hearing due to the unavailability of additional solicitor general S V Raju, who was absent on Friday. The court expressed concern about adjourning bail matters, noting that similar cases had been heard previously, resulting in releases.
Khalid Saifi’s counsel argued against further delays, emphasizing that Saifi has been in custody for nearly five years. Khalid, Imam, and several others face charges under UAPA and the IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” behind the riots, which led to 53 deaths and over 700 injuries during protests against the CAA and NRC.
They are seeking bail based on their long period of imprisonment and the fact that other co-accused have been granted bail. Most bail petitions were filed in 2022 and heard by various benches. Umar Khalid is now seeking bail for the second time after his previous plea was rejected in October 2022.
In February 2020, the Delhi Police charged activist and former Jawaharlal Nehru University student Umar Khalid with inciting the 2020 Delhi Riots during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. Khalid faced charges under Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for vandalism, as well as Sections 435 (arson), 147 and 148 (rioting), 302 (murder), 124A (sedition), and 149 (unlawful assembly). He was also charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Arms Act, 1959.
For his speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia University (Delhi) and Aligarh Muslim University (Uttar Pradesh) in January 2020, Sharjeel Imam faced charges under various sections of the IPC, including Section 124A (sedition), Section 121 (waging war against the Government), and Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups based on religion). He was also charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
In March and April 2022, the Sessions Court in Delhi denied bail to Khalid and Imam. They appealed these decisions at the Delhi High Court, which agreed to hear both appeals together on April 29th.
On May 6th, Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, representing Sharjeel Imam, stated that FIRs had been lodged in Delhi regarding Imam’s two speeches at Aligarh and Jamia. Separate FIRs were filed against him in Uttar Pradesh for his speech at Aligarh Muslim University. The Allahabad High Court granted him bail in the Uttar Pradesh case, ruling that his speech did not incite violence.
Justice Siddharth Mridul asked Mr. Mir to present the FIR related to Imam’s speech in Aligarh. However, Mr. Mir admitted that the FIR was not on record.
The Bench granted Mr. Mir time to submit the FIR and chargesheet filed against Imam in Aligarh. It was decided that Imam’s bail application for the Delhi cases would be heard on May 26th, while Khalid’s bail application for the Delhi Riots conspiracy case was scheduled for May 19th and 20th, and Imam’s application for the same case on May 23rd.
CASE TITLE:
Title: Umar Khalid v. State and other connected matters
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
