2020 Delhi Riots Case: Sharjeel Imam’s Lawyer Says Speeches Were Against CAA, Not to Incite Violence

Appearing for Sharjeel Imam, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave submitted before the Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria that while Imam’s speeches in December 2019 and January 2020 called for “chakka jam” protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), none of them contained any call to violence.

“I called for ‘chakka jam’, protest against the CAA Bill that was being introduced. My speeches were of two months prior to the riots,” Dave said, clarifying that Imam’s speeches were limited to civil protest. He argued that Imam had merely exercised his right to dissent under the Constitution.

When Justice Aravind Kumar asked about the “nature of the speech,” Dave reiterated that Imam’s intention was to call for peaceful protest, not violence. “I do not advocate for violence. I do say protest in a peaceful manner, which is recognised by the Constitution itself,” he said.

The Bench further asked Imam’s counsel about his background, to which Dave replied that Imam, a JNU student, hailed from Jehanabad in Bihar.

Dave pointed out that Imam has been in continuous custody since January 25, 2020. “I was already in custody in another FIR (No. 22/2020). I have been in custody for 5 years and 9 months, and in this FIR registered in March 2020, for 5 years and 2 months,” he submitted, emphasizing that his client is on bail in all other cases and remains incarcerated only in this one.

“The prosecution took three years entirely to investigate. I was arrested on August 25, 2020, and named in the first supplementary chargesheet on November 22, 2020,” Dave said, questioning how many prosecutions Imam would have to face for the same set of speeches.

Earlier, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi advanced arguments on behalf of Umar Khalid and Gulfisha Fatima respectively.

Singhvi argued that she had been in jail for over five years and that the prosecution continued to file “supplementary charge sheets every year,” extending an investigation indefinitely. “The larger issue your lordships should decide sometime is whether the State can keep filing supplementary charge sheets endlessly, it cannot become an indefinite, ongoing investigation,” Singhvi said.

He contended that Fatima’s alleged role was limited to creating a WhatsApp group for lobbying and denied being a member of the Pinjra Tod collective, adding that co-accused Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal; who were granted bail, were in fact its leaders.

“There is no evidence linking me to Tahir Hussain or any allegation of carrying acid or chilli powder. I’m a 32-year-old student, not a hardened criminal,” Singhvi said, adding that justice must be balanced against the prolonged pre-trial detention.

The Court heard all three counsel and directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on Monday, November 3, at 10:30 AM.

All the five UAPA Accused have filed a Special Leave petition (SLP) before the Apex Court challenging the Delhi High Court's September 2, order denying bail to them. The High Court had held “violence in the name of protest is not free speech” as it dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven others.

The case stems from the violence that erupted in Northeast Delhi in 2020 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The clashes between supporters and opponents of the Act led to large-scale incidents of stone-pelting, arson, and violence, leaving 53 people dead and injuring thousands.