Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A Delhi Court on Saturday last week refused bail to Sharjeel Imam, stating that his speeches and activities against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) were instrumental in mobilizing the public, ultimately resulting in the outbreak of the Delhi riots in February 2020.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court, in his order, emphasized that while Imam's speeches did not explicitly incite violence, they galvanized a particular community and ignited disruptive activities that culminated in the riots.

The court highlighted Imam's influential rhetoric, which captivated the imagination of individuals and propelled them to engage in disruptive actions. His inflammatory speeches, coupled with social media manipulation, exacerbated tensions and fueled chaos in the city.

The judge noted that following Imam's speeches and activities, protests escalated in Delhi, leading to road blockages and citywide disruptions. Subsequently, the riots ensued, resulting in widespread violence, extensive damage to public property, and the loss of life.

“…the applicant did not ask anybody to pick the weapons and kill the people but his speeches and activities mobilised the public which disrupted the city and might be the main reason in outbreak of the riots. Further, through inflammatory speeches and social media, the applicant skillfully manipulated the real facts and incited the public in order to create a havoc in the city. Further, the words as used by the applicant in his different speeches were so powerful that they captured the mind of the people of a particular community and incited them to take part in the disruptive activities which finally resulted into the riots,” the judge noted.

The court directed to continue Imam's custody, saying the present case was "different" from other cases because of the nature of allegations against Imam and his "disruptive activities." 

“The court is of the view that the facts in the case in hand are not normal and different than the facts which in any other case could be. Considering the allegations against the applicant and his disruptive activities, the court deem it appropriate not to consider the relief as prayed for and to continue his custody,” it said.

Imam, arrested on January 28, 2020, is facing charges under the Sedition and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for allegedly delivering provocative speeches at Delhi's Jamia area and Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) in December 2019.

The denial of bail comes after Imam's earlier plea was rejected by the trial court in July 2022. Despite Imam's argument that he is eligible for statutory bail due to already spending four years in jail and the absence of severe penalties under UAPA provisions, the court ruled that his actions could be construed as sedition based on their ordinary meaning.

While the court acknowledged the Supreme Court's suspension of sedition charges under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it maintained that Imam's conduct aligns with seditious acts, as per conventional definitions.

“Although the court cannot take into consideration Section 124A IPC but if the acts and actions of the applicant are considered, in a normal dictionary meaning they can be termed as seditious,” the court said in its order dated February 17.

Case Title: Sharjeel Imam v. State