Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

Abdul Khalid Saifi, before the Delhi High Court, argued that WhatsApp chats should be read in their entirety or disregarded altogether while disputing allegations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). It was stated, “Either we should read the entire whatsapp chat together or discard it altogether”. These submissions were made in the bail plea filed by Saifi, an accused in the larger conspiracy related to the 2020 Delhi riots. 

The bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur scheduled the matter for further adjudication on April 16 at 3:30 PM.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Rebecca John, representing Saifi, argued that only three accused had completed their arguments on charge, emphasizing that the trial court cannot pass a final order on charge until the ongoing proceedings before the High Court were concluded. She contended that the primary issue in the case was the delay in proceedings and refrained from discussing the merits of the allegations.

Senior Advocate John further disputed the allegations made by the State, asserting that there was no evidence on record to suggest that Saifi had called for a protest at Jantar Mantar. She maintained that the location was a public space and that such an allegation could not justify the invocation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) or support the claim of a larger conspiracy.

Addressing the accusations against her client, Senior Advocate John stated that even if it were assumed that Saifi had received money or possessed weapons, the police, having arrested him first among the accused, would have conducted searches. However, she highlighted that no incriminating material was recovered from his premises. Furthermore, she noted that charges under the Arms Act were dropped against Saifi by the prosecution.

Senior Advocate John also countered allegations that Saifi had organized a 'chakka jam' and argued that the entire WhatsApp chat should either be read in full context or disregarded entirely. She stressed that for the UAPA to be invoked, there must be evidence of terrorist activity committed by the accused. According to her, no such covert or terrorist activity had been attributed to Saifi, who had already suffered five years of incarceration.

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)