Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

Abdul Khalid Saifi, on Tuesday, argued before the Delhi High Court that the three speeches included in the investigation were neither provocative nor inciteful but rather innocuous messages. The court was hearing a bail application filed by Khalid Saifi, an accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots case. The proceedings, which were part of a batch of petitions filed by several accused individuals, were represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca John.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate John relied on legal precedents to argue that the presence of statutory provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) did not preclude the constitutional courts from granting bail. Citing certain judgments, she contended that judicial discretion remained intact despite the stringent provisions of the UAPA.

Further, she questioned whether the mere invocation of UAPA could be used as a ground to deny bail, particularly in cases where the evidence did not substantiate the gravity of the allegations. Referring to the principle established in previous judgments, she emphasized that constitutional courts had the authority to consider delays and uphold the fundamental right to a speedy trial.

Senior Advocate John also argued that the Supreme Court had watered down the principles laid down in the Watali case through subsequent judgments in the Union Of India vs K.A. Najeeb [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 98 of 2021] and Sheikh Javed Iqbal v State Of UP [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2790 OF 2024]. She asserted that any deprivation of liberty had to be rationally justified and could not be arbitrary in nature.

Addressing the plea of parity, she maintained that if the petitioner had a case based on parity, it was the duty of the court to consider it. She argued that such a plea could not be dismissed outright without due deliberation. Highlighting the lack of recoveries made from her client, she stated that no weapons, money, or incriminating protest materials were found in Saifi’s possession. Additionally, she contended that the three speeches included in the investigation were neither provocative nor inciteful.

Emphasizing the sacrosanct nature of the right to a speedy trial, Senior Advocate John urged the court to factor in the prolonged detention of the accused while deciding on the bail application.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court inquired about the time required to complete arguments. In response, Senior Advocate John stated that she would take 15 minutes to address the plea of parity and another 15 minutes to argue on merits. 

Following this exchange, the bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur scheduled the next hearing for March 25, 2025.

Background in connected cases:

Sharjeel Imam was taken into custody in January 2020 after he allegedly delivered several provocative speeches that were accused of inciting violence during anti-CAA demonstrations in Delhi and other states.

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 an Article 32 petition before the top court while his bail plea was pending before the Delhi High Court.

Case Title: Abdul Khalid Saifi v State (CRL.A.-210/2022)