Read Time: 07 minutes
Imam argued that visual media exerts a greater impact than books, thereby amplifying its influence on public perception. It was argued that since the film had not made any attempt to obscure Sharjeel Imam’s identity, it could potentially influence the witnesses, thereby, violating Imam’s fundamental right to a fair trial.
Sharjeel Imam, accused in the larger conspiracy case concerning the 2020 riots case, approached the Delhi High Court seeking a stay on the release of the movie ‘2020 Delhi’.
In the initial seconds of the trailer, a speech is being played in the background ‘The chicken's neck belongs to Muslim brothers and to cut Assam is our responsibility… our wish and desire is only this much that there is chakka jam in Delhi… Mean, put so much filth on rails and roads that it will take a month to clean’.
Advocate Warisha Farasat, representing Imam, asserted that the trailer portrayed Imam in a manner that suggested that the film was based on true events, which could potentially impact his right to a fair trial by influencing witnesses. Advocate Warisha Farasat further contended that since the trailer is a part of the movie, it should not be allowed to be released without proper certification from the Central Board of Film Certification.
Additionally, it was argued that, per the Contempt of Courts Act, any content that discredits the authority of the court or ‘interferes with judicial proceedings’ should not be permitted. Therefore, it was asserted that the movie should not be allowed to receive certification from the board.
Advocate Warisha Farasat additionally contended that Sharjeel Imam was explicitly shown in the trailer, which could prejudice his legal case. The argument was made that specific excerpts from speeches attributed to Imam were included in the film.
Additionally, the counsel representing Umang, an independent candidate from Rajinder Nagar, urged the court to defer the film’s release until 5 February 2025, citing concerns that the movie or its trailer could interfere with the ongoing electoral process.
Notably, the alleged speeches that are used in the trailer were analyzed by the trial court on multiple occasions. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai while dismissing bail to Imam in February 2024, noted that "The contents of the speeches clearly show that the applicant incited the public to do chakka jams and block the cities. Particularly, in the speech dated 16.01.2020 as delivered at AMU, the applicant said that if a particular number of people are organised, the North-East part of the country can be permanently or temporarily cut".
Additional Session Judge Amitabh Rawat had also observed the aforementioned speech noting that, "Sharjeel... talks that if 05 lakh people were to get organized, then North-East and India can be permanently cut off and if not, then at least for a few months. He exhorts people to block the roads to cut-off Assam and India and again raises the issue of detention camp. He says that ‘chicken neck’ belongs to Muslims and all the supplies to Army in the North-East should be cutoff".
Background:
Imam, on December 12, in his bail petition before Delhi High Court claimed that “There is absolutely nothing in any chats showing that I incited violence of any kind”. Advocate Talib Mustafa, for Imam, further claimed that Imam has been in judicial custody for over 5 years with no prospect of the case initiating soon.
In October 2024, A division bench of the Supreme Court refused to entertain an Article 32 petition filed by Sharjeel Imam 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.
For Petitioners: Advocates Warisha Farasat, Ahmad Ibrahim, Ayesha Zaidi, Mriganka Kukreja, Aman Naqvi, Mehmood Pracha, Sanawar, Kshitij Singh and Nujhat NaseemFor Respondents: Standing Counsel Nidhi Raman with Advocates Zubin Singh, Akash Mishra and Arnav MittalCase Title: Sharjeel Imam v Union Of India (W.P.(C)-1211/2025)
Please Login or Register
