Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, representing the State, argued before the Karkardooma Court that the accused individuals had strategically used women and children in the forefront of protests to stop the police officers from easily dispersing the protestors. The assertions were made in the case concerning the 2020 Delhi riots. 

Previously, accused individuals including Athar Khan, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Meeran Haider, Natasha Narwal, and Devangana Kalita approached the court seeking ‘the prosecuting agency to disclose if the investigation is complete, so that the court can proceed with the arguments on charge’. 

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, in his previous order dated September 4, noted “The investigation qua the accused persons is complete, which must mean that the investigation is complete qua all the accused persons as charge-sheeted till date and not only against the applicants and as such the prosecution has disclosed that the investigation is complete and the matter is ripe for hearing arguments on charge”. 

SPP Prasad further presented various witnesses who testified to the involvement of the accused in inciting violence. According to protected witnesses, Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid encouraged protesters at the university to initiate a “chakka jam” at its gates. The State argued that the purpose of these protests was to mobilize against what was described as a “Hindu government” with the intent of triggering governmental change.

During the hearings, it was revealed that secret meetings were held by members, during which plans were made to exert control over the protests. SPP Prasad alleged that women and children were deliberately sent to protest sites, especially in Muslim-majority areas, to avoid clashes with the police and influence the situation.

The prosecution emphasized that the protests were not spontaneous but premeditated acts of violence. It was alleged that, in January 2020, when the visit of U.S. President Donald Trump to India was scheduled, the accused individuals conspired to escalate the protests by throwing stones and glass to draw international attention to their cause. 

SPP Prasad asserted that protected witnesses confirmed that on January 15, 2020, a meeting was held where it was decided to stockpile stones and glass for the escalation of protests. Additionally, the State informed the court that the accused had plans to conduct widespread mobilization in both Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, with the intention of creating a visible impact.

As the arguments progressed, the State further highlighted the interconnected nature of the conspiracy. It was argued that each act of violence and protest by the accused was linked and should not be considered in isolation. The prosecution presented various bail orders, illustrating how the accused's actions were part of a larger plot.

Accordingly, the court listed the matter for September 6, 2024.

Background: 

Violence unfolded in Northeast Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which led to widespread clashes between supporters and opponents of the Act. Numerous incidents of stone pelting, arson, and violent protests were reported, causing substantial loss of life and property.

The Delhi Police filed the FIRs in connection with the riots. Several individuals, including activists, students, and political figures, were named in various chargesheets, facing allegations under stringent laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). 

Among the most prominent accused were Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, student activists who approached the court . The Delhi High Court, after careful consideration of the chargesheet and related materials, granted them bail, in 2021. The court presided over by Justices Siddhartha Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani, observed that the evidence presented did not substantiate the serious allegations made under the UAPA.

Subsequently, the Karkardooma Court, ordered the release of Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, citing similar concerns about the lack of specific evidence to uphold the grave charges levied against them. 

The case of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Ex-councillor Tahir Hussain also attracted widespread attention. Hussain was arrested in May 2020 and was accused of being a key figure in orchestrating the riots in Northeast Delhi. The Karkardooma Court, in its order dated May 15, 2021, denied his bail, highlighting that he was in a position of power at the time of the violence and had used his political influence to instigate communal unrest.

Hussain’s legal battles continued into 2022, the Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of the Karkardooma Court noted in December that Hussain and several others had an "objective to harm Hindus in their body and property."

Meanwhile, Umar Khalid, a former JNU scholar, was granted interim bail by Karkardooma Court in December 2022 to attend his sister’s wedding. 

In January 2023, Karkardooma Court framed charges under money laundering against Hussain, alleging that the proceeds were used to fund the riots. In February 2023, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea by Tahir Hussain seeking relief in a money laundering case connected to the riots, observing that the case was still at the stage of framing charges. 

As recently as in May 2024, the Karkardooma District Court denied bail to Umar Khalid. Khalid had filed an application under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) alongside Section 43D (5) of the UAPA at Karkardooma Court, after withdrawing his plea for relief from the Supreme Court.

Case Title: State v Tahir Hussain (SC No 163 of 2020)