[Delhi Riots 2020] Umar Khalid speech may be innocuous in isolation but could have been bugle call for something: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday observed that though Umar Khalid's speech preceding Delhi riots of 2020, might sound innocuous, it leaves enough room for people to interpret it as sounding a bugle for something to follow..During the course arguments in the appeal filed against the trial court order denying Khalid bail in the case, the Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar questioned what Umar Khalid meant when he used the words "inquilab" and "krantikari" in the speech that he delivered at Amravati.The bench asked Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, who was appearing for Khalid, to explain the meaning of the words and the context in which they were used because understanding this was necessary to understand whether he was part of the conspiracy that resulted in the Delhi riots of 2020."We have to look at what he means by the words "inquilabi" and "krantikari". You say this does not incite anyone. The question is it is not a knee-jerk reaction... The point is why should he refer to it as "inquilabi" and krantikari"," it said.Justice Bhatnagar pointed out that the person who had introduced Khalid on stage had also introduced him saying he will present his “inquilaabi khayal”.“You are saying you are galvanising the troops? We will ask the prosecution whether galvanising the troops is an offence. But galvanising people to violence is an offence,” Justice Mridul said.The bench also questioned the phrases Khalid used in his speech to refer to Prime Minister and whether they were appropriate.“What does he say about the Prime Minister in the speech? He used the word changa, what is that? Is it fair? There has to be some line for criticism, some Lakshman Rekha,” Justice Bhatnagar said.Pais however responded that the phrase “sab changa si” is meant as a satire and no person can be put behind bars for over 500 days because he used the phrase or because he used the word Jumla.Pais also told the court that the fact that Khalid introduced Imam to Yadav was mentioned in the chargesheet.Justice Mridul then said, "Oh! I don't think introducing Sharjeel Imam to Yogendra Yadav is an offence." Pais then responded, "I am glad it fell from your Lords. It has been presented as crime in the chargesheet.".The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Khalid challenging a lower court order denying him bail in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case..At the start of today's hearing, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad told the Court that the Delhi Police has filed a short affidavit and submitted the same in a sealed cover..Pais then took the Court through the contents of the first information report (FIR) registered against his client. He said that the basis of the FIR was that a JNU student gave a speech exhorting people to come on the roads during the visit of former US President Donald Trump..Prasad told the Court that four chargesheets have been filed in the case, in which 18 persons are accused. Of these, 6 are out on bail, the Court was informed. When the Court asked whether Khalid was seeking parity with these 6, Pais responded,"No, I have a better case than them."Pais further mentioned that in the other cases, the courts that granted bail made it clear that their orders were not to be treated as precedent. These included the order granting bail to Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita. He went on to argue,"What I am pointing out from the FIR is that the so-called violence in Delhi stood recognized in more than 750 FIRs which were registered one or two days after the violence. Then came this FIR."The FIR lodged on March 6 was for bailable offences and the magistrate before whom the accused, including Khalid, were produced had asked the investigating officer why they were not offered bail, Pais pointed out.Shedding light on a "trajectory change" by the Delhi Police after the magistrate's order, Pais said,"...but I want to show how the FIR is calculated to keep people behind bars. Immediately after the order, the offences of Section 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 124A (Sedition) [of Indian Penal Code] etc are added. These are all non-bailable.".Pais then informed the Court as to how the FIR against Khalid came to be lodged, after the police saw footage of his speech on Republic TV and News18."Please now see the responses of these TV channels. Republic responds on 20th June. So late. It says that the said footage was not recorded by its cameraperson but tweeted by Amit Malviya...The speech is tweeted by a prominent politician and this has formed the basis of the FIR. No one has seen the speech when the FIR was registered."Justice Bhatnagar, however, said that the police had informed the Court that they had received other "secret information" to give credence to the FIR.Justice Mridul then asked Pais,"So in sum and substance, your argument is that all of it is mala fide. You are saying because the court was enlarging people on bail, therefore they added UAPA."Pais replied in the affirmative. Offering context to the speech for which Khalid was hauled up, he said,"The speech says that people of this organisation (RSS) did not participate in freedom struggle but students of Jamia did. It says today, there is a narrative against Jamia but Jamia has always stood up for the Constitution.""When was Jamia set up? It was set up after Independence no? Therefore the backdrop that students from Jamia or JNU participate in freedom struggle may not have legs to stand on," Justice Mridul replied.Pais, however, said that both Jamia and Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) were registered as societies pre-independence. At this point, the entire speech of Khalid was played in court..After the Court heard the speech, Pais said,"It says we swear by the Constitution and that we will not come to violence even when we are beaten. There is a reference to pointing out the government's policies as oppressive. This doesn't even speak of Delhi. He says Trump will visit Gujarat."Justice Bhatnagar then asked,"What does he say about the Prime Minister in the speech?""He says a lot against the PM, against the CAA/NRC and government policies but that cannot be a crime," was Pais' reply."He used the word changa, what is that?" the Court asked."The phrase 'sab changa si' was used by the Prime Minister," Pais said."Is it okay?" the Court queried. Pais replied,"It is not illegal.".More than 500 days in jail under UAPA has been the punishment. By this logic, people will not even be able to speak. This is intolerance. The FIR is a result of intolerance.Senior Advocate Trideep Pais.During the post-lunch session, Pais pointed out contradictions in the prosecution witness statements. One of the statements, he said,"As your Lordships would have noticed, even this witness misquotes the speech and even he says he was told by someone else. On November 18 and 19, he says my (Khalid's) being out of station was part of a conspiracy. Till then, no one said that, but it comes up very conveniently now."Pais further said that Khalid was not part of the Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC) and that the trial court order denying him bail was full of references unrelated to him. However, the Court said at this point,"Those cannot be removed because you have also been charged with conspiracy. Everything that your co-conspirator does is attributable to you as part of the conspiracy."When Pais argued that such acts have to be connected with a common intention, the Court said that the manner in which the anti-CAA and NRC protests are to be organised, and their objective, assumes relevance.The Court also observed that Pais' argument that the common intention, at best, was to protest, was an "oversimplification". It asked,"So your argument is that they were all acting independently?" "No, the intention to protest peacefully is being interpreted as common intention to cause violence," Pais replied..The Court went on to see whether there was a common intention to cause violence. To this end, it sought to know what was meant by the words 'inquilabi' (revolutionary) and krantikari (freedom fighter), used to describe Khalid. On the speech, the Court said,"The speech may be completely innocuous when we look at it in isolation, but some can say it was sounding a bugle for something to follow.".The Court proceeded to adjourn the hearing to Thursday, April 28..Khalid was denied bail by the Karkardooma Court on March 24. Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat found he was part of the WhatsApp groups created for specific objects. His acts or presence throughout the period beginning from the passing of the Citizenship Amendment Bill in December 2019 till the riots of February 2020 riots had to read in a piecemeal manner, the Court had held..The Delhi Police had arrested Khalid in the case on September 13, 2020 and chargesheeted him on November 22 the same year under various sections of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code. Khalid moved a bail plea in July 2021, and several hearings later, the Karkardooma Court reserved its order in March..In the last hearing, the Court had expressed a view that the Khalid's speech, based on which the case against him was filed, was obnoxious and inciteful. The Court had said that though Khalid had invoked Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh in his speech, the expressions used were offensive. "These expressions being used, don't you think they incite people? You don't think "jab aapke purvaj angrezo ki dalali kar rahe the" (when your ancestors were slaves of the British) is offensive?" the judges asked. They further said, "It gives the impression that only one community was fighting against the British. Did Gandhiji ever employ such language? Did Bhagat Singh ever employ this? Is this what Gandhiji told us?".[BREAKING] "We find the speech obnoxious and inciteful:" Delhi High Court while issuing notice in Umar Khalid bail appeal

[Delhi Riots 2020] Umar Khalid speech may be innocuous in isolation but could have been bugle call for something: Delhi High Court

Prashant Jha

Related Stories