Read Time: 04 minutes
Nadeem Khan approached the court requesting the quashing of an FIR that accused him of inciting communal enmity through a public exhibition. The court, citing a lack of sufficient evidence and recognizing Khan’s constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(a), granted interim protection from arrest. However, Khan was instructed to cooperate with the investigation and remain in Delhi.
The Delhi High Court, on December 11, extended the protection to human rights activist and National Secretary of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) Nadeem Khan for disseminating selective and misleading information to stir enmity among religious groups.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal representing Khan, argued that the FIR failed to disclose any cognizable offence. Upon reviewing the FIR, it was noted that the complainant had concluded that a public exhibition organized by Khan was allegedly inciting violence and enmity among the public, with the potential for violence to erupt at any moment.
Senior Advocate Sibal further informed the court that Khan will continue cooperating with the investigating agency. Senior Advocate Sibal sought assurance that the investigation would be conducted without misuse and completed expeditiously within a reasonable period.
The bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh, therefore, directed the police to expedite the investigation within a reasonable period. The bench further directed the Police to issue a notice 7 days in advance, if and when the agency wishes to take custody of Khan.
On December 3, Senior Advocate Sibal argued that the allegations in the FIR were based solely on conjectures and lacked any substantive foundational facts. He further asserted that Khan’s constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, needed protection.
Additional Standing Counsel Sanjeev Bhandari, for Delhi Police, had sought three days to file a reply and countered Khan’s claims by asserting that sufficient evidence existed to demonstrate that Khan was allegedly inciting communal violence.
The court, on December 3, observed that the FIR appeared to be based on the complainant's subjective opinion, with no substantive material provided to support the allegations. Furthermore, a preliminary reading of the FIR indicated that the essential elements of the alleged offences were not established.
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal with Advocates Tara Narula, Shivangi Sharma, Tamanna Pankaj, Anirudh Ramanathan, Rupali Samuel, Ahmed Ibrahim, and SumedhaFor Respondent: Additional Standing Counsel Sanjeev Bhandari with Advocates Charu Sharma, Arjit Sharma, Vaibhav Vats, and Nikunj BindalCase Title: Mohammad Wasiq Nadeem Khan v State (Nct Of Delhi)
Please Login or Register
