Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

Sharjeel Imam, on Wednesday, before the Delhi High Court held that his inclusion in the investigation stemmed from his representative position in various associations, and the authorities sought to make an example out of him.

These submissions were made in a batch of petitions filed by the accused individuals in connection with the 2020 North Delhi riots. The bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur presided over the proceedings. After hearing the arguments, the court directed that the matter be listed again on May 8, 2025, at 3:30 PM. 

Senior Advocate Hariharan, appearing via video conferencing for Shadab Ahmed, requested a future date for the hearing. The Court accordingly listed the matter for further hearing on May 2, 2025.

The court also heard submissions made on behalf of the accused, Meeran Haider. His counsel contended that while several group chats had been examined by the prosecution, Haider was not a member of the main WhatsApp group, and no message from him encouraging violence had been produced. The counsel further argued that although videos showed certain co-accused holding weapons, Haider was not present in any such footage, photograph, or video recording.

Regarding the financial allegations, Haider’s advocate stated that a sum of ₹2.33 lakhs was recovered from him out of an alleged total of ₹5 crores, but the prosecution failed to establish that this amount was used unlawfully. He added that his client merely ensured the availability of food and water facilities at the protest sites, and that this formed the core of the case against him. Charts were also presented to the court illustrating the role of each accused in relation to the allegations.

The counsel emphasized that the prosecution relied on similar allegations to include his client in the investigation and referred to the trial court's order while making submissions. He described the case against Haider as "co-peripheral" in nature.

Appearing for Sharjeel Imam, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid submitted that a parity chart had already been placed on record. He pointed out that although Imam served as president of several associations, no other member from those associations had been implicated. He maintained that Imam supported the protests in his representative capacity, without engaging in any unlawful activity.

Regarding financial allegations, Khurshid informed the court about ₹1 lakh received by the association, but noted that no trail or account showed that the money was used to finance riots. He also argued that Imam did not participate in blocking traffic and, on the contrary, helped ensure traffic remained undisturbed at the protest sites.

He further submitted that while two phone numbers linked to Imam were cited by the prosecution, there were no transcripts of calls allegedly made to the co-accused. He concluded by asserting that there was no case against Imam, but he was targeted due to his position and made an example of.

Advocate for Mohammad Saleem Khan also addressed the court, arguing that his client was not a part of any WhatsApp group and that no messages were attributed to him. He asserted that there was no evidence of interaction between Khan and the protestors, nor any indication that he possessed weapons. The counsel cited relevant judgments in support of the defence.

He further submitted that Khan was accused of attending four meetings, yet statements regarding these meetings were recorded between three months to one year after his arrest.

Background: 

These cases against Imam were filed under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against Imam for allegedly making inflammatory speeches in the Jamia area in Delhi and Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizenship (NRC) in 2020.

Notably, two speeches delivered by Sharjeel Imam in December 2019 were included in the charge sheet. The first address was delivered in Delhi on December 13, 2019, and the second one was delivered in Aligarh on December 16. His remarks allegedly incited violence on December 15, 2019, during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) in Jamia Nagar, Delhi, according to the police.

In September 2024, the Delhi High Court rejected the early hearing petition filed by Sharjeel Imam for his pending bail petition maintaining that the bail plea would be heard on the already scheduled date. 

Imam's bail plea has challenged the order, dated 11 February 2022, wherein the Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma court had previously denied any relief to the JNU student stating that Imam's speeches intended to create 'public disorder' and 'incitement to violence' and also appeared to challenge the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India.

The Supreme Court, recently, refused to entertain an Article 32 petition, noting that Imam could not have moved such a petition before the top court while his bail plea was pending before the Delhi High Court.

Recently, Sharjeel filed a petition challenging an order issued by the trial court framing charges against him. The trial court opined that the speech delivered near Jamia Millia Islamia, ‘pitted one religion against another'. However, the bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula refused to stay the order.

Case Title: Sharjeel Imam v State (CRL.A.-184/2022)