Read Time: 09 minutes
The Delhi High Court today, while hearing the plea challenging refusal of bail to accused Umar Khalid, orally remarked that his speech prima facie appeared to be "hateful, inciteful, offensive & obnoxious".
Siddharth Mridul J., who was part of a division bench hearing the matter, upon hearing the speech given by Umar Khalid in Amravati, which was read out in court, remarked,
"All this is offensive and obnoxious. Don't you think these expressions used are offensive to people? These are offensive per se. It's almost as if we get an impression that only one community fought for India's independence."
He added, "Did Gandhi ji ever use such language? Would it not attract S.153A and 153B of the IPC?"
Senior Adv. Trideep Pais, appearing for Umar Khalid, responded by pointing out that the charges against Umar Khalid were a lot more serious than the provisions of the IPC. "We are here for conspiracy to commit terror on the basis of this speech. It is one thing for your lordships to find the speech obnoxious and ridiculous, but quite another for UAPA to be levied on this basis."
Siddharth Mridul J., then orally remarked, "We find it hateful and inciteful"
Senior Adv. Trideep Pais argued that he would show the court foreign jurisprudence on the subject, namely, the Brandenburg free speech test.
The court rebutted saying that over-dependence on foreign jurisprudence must be frowned upon and that along with foreign jurisprudence, one should consider jurisprudence in India as well.
"We have enough jurisprudence of our own. It is offensive to the jurisprudence of India"
Senior Adv. Trideep Pais remarked that the Brandenburg free speech test had been followed by the courts in Shreya Singhal v Union of India and that during the course of arguments, he would also rely upon other Indian judgements.
The court further directed the Additional Public Prosecutor, Amit Prasad, to file the digital copy of the chargesheet. The Matter has been listed on April 27th.
Umar Khalid was denied bail by city's Karkardooma Court on March 24. He was arrested on 13 September, 2020 and has been under custody since.
The Delhi Court had found that "reasonable grounds" for believing that the accusations against Umar Khalid, an accused in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy cases are prima facie true.
Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat of Karkardooma Court found that Khalid's name is a "recurring mention" from the beginning of the conspiracy till the riots & that there are numerous statements of witnesses (recorded before magistrate and before the police) highlighting "incriminating material" against the accused Umar Khalid.
"From a broad reading of all the statements, the role of the accused Umar Khalid in the context of conspiracy and riots is apparent," said the court, while rejecting the argument of Khalid's counsel that the statements are either false being delayed or contradictory or could be concocted or coerced and should not be relied upon.
On September 13,2020 Khalid was arrested in connection with communal clashes that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020, after violence between Citizenship (Amendment) Act supporters and its protesters became out of control leaving many people dead and several injured.
During the course of trial, the SPP Amit Prasad had argued that, under the garb of secularism and upholding tenets of democracy, Umar Khalid led a larger conspiracy which was communal and eventually led to the Delhi Riots in 2020.
"He tried to create “Aatank ka Mahaul” in his speeches and said “hum musalmano ko”. Note that Umar Khalid claims to be atheist. What is his identity really? At least Sharjeel Imam has strength to say I am what I am! His (Umar Khalid) speeches do not refer to lynchings met out to Kamlesh Tiwari and others but his concern is only for one community but.... he claims himself to be atheist!" Prasad had stated.
Case Title: Umar Khalid Vs. State of NCT Delhi
Read More: [Delhi Riots 2020] "Umar Khalid's role in context of conspiracy & riots apparent": Delhi Court
Please Login or Register
