Read Time: 08 minutes

A Delhi Court today continued hearing Sharjeel Imam, a sedition and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) accused in a Delhi riots' case and the State on the matter. 

Inter alia, it has been argued by the State that Imam's moves were planned as part of a larger conspiracy culminating in the Delhi riots.

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, representing the state has earlier highlighted that Imam's beginning the speech with the greeting Assalam Ul Laykum was indeed an indication that he is addressing a particular community in order to incite them. 

Responding to the same, Adv Tanveer Ahmed Mir for Imam submitted that, "As a student of Aligarh Muslim University one understands that being a minority institution, students of a particular community would dominate the institution, so what is wrong with beginning his speech with Assalam Ul Laykum?"

He went on to question if the prosecution would withdraw the chargesheet against Imam if he had started his speech with good morning, namaskar etc. 

Responding, Prasad pointed out that the issue was not just the greeting but the contents and intent of the various speeches. 

"He says in his speech that India is not a democratic country, and tries to create anarchy stating that there is no scope for Muslims in India. The modus operandi in various places has been to gather large crowds and create violence," Prasad said.

On the other hand, talking about India being a democratic country, Mir asked the court if Imam could be said to have committed sedition merely because he had varying views on the Citizenshil Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). 

Infact urging the court to accept the Kedarnarh judgment's interpretation of the sedition law, Mir said that a failure to do so, would amount to a carrying forward of the British legacy - where Britishers didn't want Indians to rise.

Developments till now

In the previous hearing Prasad had argued that Imam was not a person with ordinary background but had done thesis on “Rioting” and knew his plan of action.

Reading a portion from one of the Speech made at a University Prasad said “the accused here does not have an ordinary background. He is not a small pick pocket or small time drug peddler and has knowledge of 5 languages with strong oratory skills.”

Prasad further argued that the speech made by Imam was divisive and made for a specific community with an attempt to create a complete anarchy.

“The entire content of this speech focuses on 3 things. The speech was divisive, it was made for specific community and he is attempting to create a complete anarchy”, said Prasad.

Referring to another speech made by Imam at Aligarh Muslim University Prasad said “ The speech begins with “Assalam-o- Alaikum ” which means it is made for a particular community.”

In the earlier hearing  Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir appearing for Imam had argued that the speech against which the FIR was filed  conveyed only blockade of roads so that people would be unable to cross over.

“Fundamentally the right to protest and blockade cannot be equal to sedition”, argued Mir.

On the charges of sedition that Sharjeel had called people to separate Northeast from India, Mir submitted “The first allegation is that he has called for sedition by asking northeast to be taken away from India. The admitted speech of the petitioner is delineated to suit the prosecution and mislead this Court, I don’t need to time and again reiterate that the protests against CAA and NRC is not seditious… He cannot be hammered by the prosecution.”

Mir argued that Sharjeel had made speeches in which he had criticized the government  against the newly introduced law. Pointing that a society ought to be robust, Mir argued that in a society "if criticism dies, the society will also die”.

Case Title: State vs Sharjeel Imam