Earlier this month, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, two prominent student leaders accused of orchestrating the Delhi Riots of 2020. In a detailed judgment, the Court also addressed the bail applications of several other student leaders who were co-accused in the case.
The Court’s decision was largely based on the view that the chargesheet indicated the accused had played a role in inciting communal tensions, which ultimately led to violent riots. However, this article argues that the actions of Khalid and Imam, specifically their efforts to raise awareness about the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), should not automatically be interpreted as an attempt to provoke communal violence.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling referenced Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), which stipulates that bail can be denied if the chargesheet presents a prima facie case against the accused. In simpler terms, if the prosecution provides evidence that reasonably suggests the accused committed an offence, the Court may deny bail.
The prosecution against Khalid and Imam revolves around allegations that they created “communal groups” on WhatsApp and mobilised Muslims across the country to protest the CAA. According to the charges, the accused reached out to student bodies at Muslim-majority universities, such as Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University, to gain support for their cause.
They also allegedly distributed pamphlets and gave speeches in Muslim-majority areas in Delhi and other cities, thereby attempting to rally Muslims for their protests. Additionally, they are accused of forming online groups like “Muslim Students of Jamia” and “Muslim Students of JNU_1” to organise these protests.
The prosecution’s primary argument is that these actions were part of a broader strategy to incite communal unrest, which they claim culminated in the riots. However, even if all the evidence presented by the prosecution were accepted at face value, the case against Khalid and Imam suffers from significant flaws.
First, the Delhi Riots cannot be solely attributed to the actions of a few individuals. They were a complex event that resulted from a combination of factors, including political polarisation, inflammatory rhetoric, and clashes between protesters and counter-protesters. While it is true that Muslims largely organised the protests against the CAA, the violence that ensued was the result of many contributing factors, not just the actions of the accused.
The protests against the CAA were not merely about opposing a law; they were a response to a law that many saw as discriminatory. The CAA grants expedited citizenship to non-Muslim religious minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, but excludes Muslims. This provision raised concerns that Muslims would be treated as second-class citizens in India, a fear that catalysed widespread protests. It is in this context that Khalid and Imam’s actions must be understood.
Their efforts to mobilise Muslim students or to create groups focused on raising awareness about the CAA should not be seen as an attempt to incite communal violence, but rather as an effort to inform and unite a marginalised community about a law that directly impacted them. The accused were not seeking to divide the country along religious lines but were instead advocating for justice and equality for Muslims who felt disproportionately affected by the legislation.
While the prosecution argues that the accused played a pivotal role in organising groups that fueled the riots, it is important to note that the violence itself was not solely a result of these protests. The Delhi Riots were a deeply complex event, and it is misleading to attribute them entirely to the actions of Khalid and Imam.
The violence involved numerous actors, including individuals who were not part of the protest groups organised by the accused. External factors such as political rhetoric, the involvement of outside groups, and failures in law enforcement contributed to the escalation of violence. In such a context, holding only Khalid and Imam responsible for the riots risks oversimplifying the issue and overlooking the broader, multifaceted nature of the situation.
The accused have been in detention for nearly five years, awaiting trial, and while the case against them has yet to be fully tested in court, it is essential that their right to a fair trial be respected. It is important to remember that these are still allegations, and the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The public anger and trauma following the Delhi Riots are undeniable, but it is crucial that this does not influence the legal process or result in scapegoating. Khalid and Imam’s intent, as presented by the defence, was to organise peaceful protests against a law they viewed as unjust. To hold them responsible for the violence that followed would require clear evidence linking their actions directly to the violent outcomes, which has yet to be established.
-30-
Copyright©Madras Courier, All Rights Reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from madrascourier.com and redistribute by email, post to the web, mobile phone or social media.Please send in your feed back and comments to [email protected]
