Activists Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid Challenge Terrorism Labels in Supreme Court Bail Hearing for Delhi Riots Case

Khalid, Imam, Fatima, Haider, and Rehman were charged under the UAPA in connection with the Delhi riots case.

New Delhi:

During his bail hearing at the Supreme Court for the February 2020 Delhi riots case, activist Sharjeel Imam expressed distress over being labeled a "dangerous intellectual terrorist" without having undergone a complete trial or receiving any conviction.

"I would like to emphasize that I am not a terrorist, contrary to what the respondent (police) has claimed. I am not anti-national as alleged by the State. I am a citizen of this country by birth and have not been convicted of any offense to date," said senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, representing Imam.

He argued before Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria that Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, before the riots occurred, for speeches that alone cannot constitute "criminal conspiracy" in the riots case.

"I am being prosecuted for speeches I delivered, parts of which were played in court. This FIR was filed in March 2020, after I had already spent over a month in custody. The FIR charges conspiracy for riots that took place in February 2020. Clearly, my physical presence during the riots was impossible as I was already in custody.

"If they had detained me in January, they might have claimed these speeches led to the riots. But I'm not named as an accused. My speeches themselves did not cause riots. I was already facing prosecution for those speeches," Dave explained.

The bench inquired about the police's allegation that Imam's speeches were part of a plan that "created a platform for riots to occur so that the conspiracy could be fulfilled."

Justice Kumar asked, "Can we accept your argument that these speeches don't constitute a terrorist act?"

Dave maintained that the speeches do not constitute "criminal conspiracy" and that police must demonstrate additional actions by Imam to establish conspiracy.

"I want to emphasize that I am not a terrorist, as the respondent (police) has labeled me. I am not anti-national as claimed by the State. I am a citizen of this country by birth and have not been convicted of any offense thus far.

"Being labeled a dangerous intellectual terrorist has caused me great anguish. The Additional Solicitor General stated that intellectual terrorists are more dangerous. Yet there isn't a single conviction against me. Such words were used against a citizen of this country. I could understand this after a complete trial where I lose the presumption of innocence, but these labels have been deeply distressing," Dave submitted.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Umar Khalid, argued that Khalid was not in Delhi during the February 2020 riots and cannot be kept imprisoned "as if to say I will punish you for your protests."

"You cannot attribute someone else's speech to me and claim I'm responsible for the riots," Sibal contended.

"I ask myself, as an academic in an institution, what can I possibly do to overthrow the State?" he questioned.

Sibal presented Khalid's February 17, 2020, speech from Amravati, highlighting that Khalid spoke about responding to violence with peace and hatred with love. "How does this violate the UAPA?" Sibal asked.

He asserted that nothing in the Amravati speech had communal elements. "No one could reasonably consider his speech inflammatory in any sense," the senior lawyer added.

"These are students who protested, rightly or wrongly, on certain issues. In our younger days, we also protested. Some of my colleagues from St. Stephen's College even joined the Naxal movement, though we did not.

"There's no purpose in keeping me imprisoned, and for what reason? If you have a case against me, prosecute me, convict me, and then send me to jail. You cannot keep me incarcerated as if to punish me for my protests," Sibal argued.

Emphasizing that she cannot be subjected to "endless custody," activist Gulfisha Fatima told the Supreme Court that Delhi Police's claim of a coordinated "regime change operation" is absent from their chargesheet.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Fatima, informed Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria that the activist has spent nearly six years in detention and described the trial delay as "astonishing and unprecedented."

"Where in your chargesheet have you alleged regime change as central to your case?" he questioned, adding that the prosecution's claim of a pan-India conspiracy "to separate Assam from India" lacks foundation.

"What evidence supports this?" Singhvi asked.

Delhi Police strongly opposed the bail applications of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others in connection with the February 2020 riots, maintaining that these events were not spontaneous but rather an "orchestrated, pre-planned and well-designed" attack on national sovereignty.

Singhvi argued that charges against Fatima have yet to be framed, and she cannot endure "endless custody," especially when 939 witnesses have been cited.

Seeking parity with co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who received bail from the High Court in June 2021, Singhvi pointed out that Fatima is the only female defendant still imprisoned.

"They were granted bail in 2021. My case is significantly less severe," Singhvi maintained.

Singhvi challenged the allegation that Fatima attended a "secret meeting," noting similarities to charges against Narwal and Kalita.

"There's no evidence of chili powder, acid, or anything else. Nothing was recovered. They posted about it on social media. How could it be a secret meeting?" Singhvi questioned.

He contended that Delhi Police failed to substantiate their allegations against the accused.

Khalid, Imam, Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Rehman were charged under the UAPA, the stringent anti-terror law, and provisions of the former IPC for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the 2020 riots, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries.

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