Read Time: 05 minutes

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad while 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 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.”

The matter was being heard before ASJ Amitabh Rawat.

In the previous 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: Sharjeel Imam vs State