A Delhi court discharged student activists Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha, and eight others in a case connected to the incidents of violence at Jamia Millia Islamia university in December 2019.
The court order, on February 4, said the Delhi Police had made them a “scapegoat”, and that there was no prima facie evidence that the accused were part of the mob violence, had any weapon, or were throwing stones. An FIR had been lodged against them alleging offences of rioting and unlawful assembly during the protests against the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) that year.
The court maintained that the police could not apprehend the “actual perpetrators”, and that the chargesheets filed by the police were “ill-conceived”. Alluding to Article 19 of the Constitution of India, it said, “Dissent is an extension of right to freedom of speech and expression. It is therefore a right which we are sworn to uphold.”
Additional Sessions Judge (Saket Court) Arul Varma was hearing the case, in which 12 persons were booked by the Delhi Police under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 332, 333, 308, 427, 435, 323, 341, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“There were admittedly scores of protestors at the site. It cannot be gainsaid that among the multitude, some anti-social elements within the crowd created an environment of disruption and did create havoc. However, the moot question remains whether the accused persons herein were even prima facie complicit in taking part in that mayhem. The answer is an unequivocal ‘no’,” the court said.
Also read: Comments in Delhi High Court order will not prejudice Sharjeel Imam’s case: Supreme Court
The court maintained that the prosecution has ex-facie been launched in a “perfunctory and cavalier fashion” against the accused persons, except Mohd. Ilyas alias Allen.
“To allow the persons charge-sheeted to undergo the rigmarole of a long-drawn trial, does not augur well for the criminal justice system of our country. Furthermore, such a police action is detrimental to the liberty of citizens who choose to exercise their fundamental right to peacefully assemble and protest,” the court further asserted, adding that the liberty of protesting citizens should not have been lightly interfered with.
The court also said that there is a need for investigative agencies to discern the difference between dissent and insurrection. “The latter has to be quelled indisputably. However, the former has to be given space, a forum, for dissent is perhaps reflective of something which pricks a citizen’s conscience,” it added.
The court said that the investigative agencies, in the present case, should have incorporated the use of technology, or have gathered credible intelligence, and only then should have embarked on galvanizing the judicial system. Or else, it should have abstained from filing such chargesheets against those whose roles were confined only to being a part of a protest.
The court discharged Mohammad Qasim, Mahmood Anwar, Shahzar Raza Khan, Mohd. Abuzar, Mohd Shoaib, Umair Ahmad, Bilal Nadeem, Sharjeel Imam, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Chanda Yadav and Safoora Zargar.
However, it framed charges against Mohd. Ilyas as photographs of him hurling a burning tyre have been clearly shown in a newspaper.
