Delhi High Court Raps Police Over Delayed Hearing in 2020 Riots Bail Case of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam
The Delhi High Court on January 21 raps the police for prolonged delays in the bail hearing of prominent figures involved in the 2020 Delhi riots case. Among the accused, former JNU student Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam, along with others, are facing charges related to the violence that erupted in the capital, leading to the deaths of 53 individuals and injuries to many more. The court’s stern remarks came during a hearing in which the police had been asked to clarify the roles played by the accused in the alleged conspiracy behind the unrest.
Delhi High Court’s Frustration With Police Delay
The bench, consisting of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, made it clear that the delays in the hearing could not continue indefinitely. “This has to end. This can’t go on like this. This needs to end now. We can’t give you endless time,” the bench asserted, addressing the counsel for the Delhi Police. The urgency in the court’s tone reflected mounting concerns over the time spent in resolving the bail pleas, particularly when the accused have been incarcerated for an extended period.
The case involves multiple appeals challenging trial court orders that denied bail to the accused. Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others have contested their prolonged detention, arguing that they should be granted bail, especially considering the duration of their incarceration. Additionally, they have highlighted instances where other co-accused were granted bail under similar circumstances.
Police Counsel Seeks More Time for Submissions
The delay in the proceedings has been attributed to the complexity of the case, as noted by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad. He sought more time from the Delhi High Court to file a detailed note outlining the specific roles attributed to each accused individual in the alleged conspiracy behind the riots. Prasad explained that this case was not merely a straightforward bail plea but involved appeals contesting the denial of bail by lower courts. He emphasized the importance of a thorough examination of the evidence and submissions, given the high-profile nature of the case.
However, Justice Navin Chawla was adamant about ending the prolonged hearings. “You have to finish now. This can’t go on endlessly,” he said, urging the police counsel, Chetan Sharma, who was appearing for the Delhi Police, to expedite the proceedings.
The Charges Against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, along with other co-accused, are facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They are accused of orchestrating the violence during the 2020 Delhi riots, which began as protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) and later escalated into widespread clashes between the protesters and law enforcement.
The police allege that the accused played significant roles in planning and executing the violence. They have been accused of being the “masterminds” behind the unrest that ravaged parts of Delhi, particularly in areas like Shaheen Bagh, where protests had been organized by anti-CAA activists. In particular, Sharjeel Imam has been accused of making inflammatory speeches calling for disruptions, including the controversial call for a “chakka jam” (roadblock), which allegedly played a role in instigating the violence.
Allegations Against Sharjeel Imam
Special Public Prosecutor Prasad also reiterated claims that Sharjeel Imam was instrumental in masterminding the Shaheen Bagh protests, stating that the movement was “the brainchild of Sharjeel Imam,” despite resistance from some locals. He also cited Imam’s inflammatory rhetoric, including remarks that allegedly encouraged violence and acts of aggression. One such controversial statement, referred to in court, was Imam’s remark about “cutting the chicken neck,” which is claimed to have incited violence.
Additionally, the court was informed of witness testimonies claiming that the accused used platforms like WhatsApp to plan and coordinate acts of violence during the riots. These claims add to the gravity of the charges, as they indicate that the violence may have been premeditated and organized via digital communication.
Legal Implications of the Case
The case involving Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others under the UAPA is significant not only because of the serious charges but also due to the broader implications it has for civil liberties and freedom of speech in India. The application of the UAPA in cases of protest-related violence has sparked debates about the fine line between holding individuals accountable for orchestrating violence and stifling dissent.
As the bail hearing continues, the court is expected to consider several factors, including the severity of the charges, the evidence presented, and the long period the accused have spent in custody. The decision on their bail applications will likely have far-reaching consequences, influencing how similar cases are handled in the future.
What Lies Ahead
The Delhi High Court’s intervention in this case underscores the urgency for a resolution, especially given the prolonged detention of the accused and the complex nature of the charges. As the legal proceedings unfold, the public and legal community will be closely monitoring the outcome, which could shape the course of both the ongoing protests and future legal actions related to the 2020 Delhi riots.
The next steps in this high-profile case will likely be determined after further submissions and clarifications from both the prosecution and defense, with the Delhi High Court set to make its decision on the bail applications in due course.