Read Time: 07 minutes

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad today opposing bail application of Sharjeel Imam in relation to the alleged inflammatory speeches made during the protests against CAA and NRC at two Universities said that Imam’s speech has challenged the Sovereignty of Indian Government and that he has tried to imbibe that there is no hope left for Muslims in the Indian government.

Reading the speech delivered by Imam on January 22 in Asansol, Prasad argued that Imam had made it abundantly clear that “CAA or NRC is not the issue. Issues were Triple Talaq, Kashmir for which the mobilization was happening. Also in past speeches, Prasad said, Imam he has given a clear indication that 'everything is over' and that 'as Muslims you have no hope'.

Prasad further said that by saying that the "issue involved 5-6 countries" and "he would not listen to the Indian Government" makes it clear that he is challenging India's sovereignty.

It was further submitted that Imam had called people to burn down detention camps. "What could be more to say that he is inciting violence?," Prasad submitted.

Referring to another speech of Imam delivered on January 23, 2020 in Jharkhand where Imam had said “aawaam me jo gussa hai, use istemaal kiya jaaye”, Prasad argued that such speech amounted to inciting people against the government.

ASJ Amitabh Rawat has posted the matetr for nect hearing on September 4.

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