They are anti-nationals, not intellectuals: Delhi Police to Supreme Court in Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid bail pleas

The Delhi Police told the Supreme Court on Thursday that the six accused persons in the larger conspiracy case connected to Delhi riots of 2020 are anti-nationals who tried to overthrow the regime through violence.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju told a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria that even foreign newspapers carry sympathetic stories about the accused persons without understanding that they are anti-national and not intellectuals.

The Court was hearing the bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan.

"New York Times carried a story. Because Trump was coming to India. Whenever the bail matter comes, New York Times carries something. Social media does something. Without understanding that they are anti-nationals under the facade of being intellectuals," the ASG said.

He claimed that the entire protest by the accused persons against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was aimed at bringing about a change in regime and the riots that followed led to the death of 53 persons including an officer of Intelligence Bureau (IB).

"A narrative is built that he is an intellectual he is being hounded etc. That’s not the case. Intellectuals are many times more dangerous. See between the lines. The real purpose of the protest was regime change, strangulated the economic welfare, on a pan India basis. CAA protest was just a red herring. this has resulted in death of 53 persons including a police man who was lynched. An IB officer was also killed. More than 530 people injured. Something on the scheme of what was happening in Bangladesh and Nepal was being done it didn’t work. There is a larger conspiracy which engulfs everything. They say in other cases I have been enlarged on bail. But that’s not the point. Before the conspiracy also they were involved in other cases," he said.

Raju also claimed that it was done in a manner that it coincided with the visit of US President Donald Trump. When intellectuals become terrorists, they are far more dangerous than ground level terrorists, the ASG argued.

"It was planned in a way that it will synchronise with the visit of Donald Trump so that it gets attention from international media. Intellectuals, when they become terrorists, are more dangerous than ground level terrorists. These intellectuals are the real brains. This has been demonstrated in what happened in Lal Qila. (Referring to recent blast near Red Fort in Delhi)," Raju alleged.

Background

Khalid and others moved the top court against the Delhi High Court's September 2 order denying them bail. The top court had issued notice to the police on September 22.

The riots occurred in February 2020 following clashes over the then-proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). As per the Delhi Police, the riots caused the death of 53 persons and injured hundreds.

The present case pertains to allegations that the accused had hatched a larger conspiracy to cause multiple riots. The FIR in this case was registered by a Special Cell of the Delhi Police under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA. Most have been in custody since 2020.

In response to present petitions seeking bail, the Delhi Police has filed a 389-page affidavit detailing why the accused should not be granted bail.

The Police claimed irrefutable documentary as well as technical evidence that pointed to a conspiracy for a "regime-change operation" and plans to incite nationwide riots on communal lines and kill non-Muslims

During the hearing of the matter on October 31, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Gulfisha Fatima told the Court that they did not make any calls for violence and were only exercising their right to peaceful protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 

While Khalid told the Court that he was not even in Delhi when the riots took place, Imam said that he never made any calls for violence but only called for peaceful blockades.

"Petitioner was not even in Delhi when the riots took place. If I am not there, how can the riots be connected to it," Khalid's counsel said.

"I abhor violence. No calling out for violence at all. Only peaceful protests," Imam's lawyer submitted.

Fatima too said that there was no evidence of any violence at the protests sites where she was present.

"The allegations against me is that I set up protest site. No act of violence at any of those sites. No documentary or oral evidence of anyone carrying chilli powder, acid etc at any of the sites where I was present," counsel for Fatima contended.

When the matter was heard on November 3, accused Meeran Haider told the Court that he had specifically objected to having Sharjeel Imam at the protests sites during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act movement in 2020.

In response, Delhi Police has argued that the six accused cannot seek parity with the three other accused who were granted bail earlier by the Delhi High Court. On November 18, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta that the riots were pre-planned and not spontaneous. He added that speeches made by accused were with the intent to divide society on communal lines.

Arguments today

During the hearing on Thursday, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, maintained that the delay in trial was attributable to the accused.

"I was on the aspect of delay. There was delay even after the high court judgement. Delay in trial proceedings are attributable to the accused," the ASG contended.

He proceeded to highlight the orders passed by the trial court which said adjournments were sought by the accused.

"The trial court may be directed to expedite to proceedings. It’s not a ground to grant bail," the ASG said.

"On what proposition are you relying on the Salim Khan judgement?" the Bench asked.

"On delay. In para 13, it has been held that even if someone is in jail for 5 and a half years it’s not a ground to grant bail," Raju replied.

"But in that case there was direct evidence," Justice Kumar remarked.

"I also have evidence. I shall show to the Court. There’s so much of evidence. They have not argued on merits. They said they will only confine their arguments to delay. I want to show a video of the speeches made by them," the ASG responded.

He then proceeded to show a video of Imam's speech.

"He’s an engineering graduate. They are not conducting their profession but indulging in anti-national activities. Sharjeel Imam can be heard saying 'court ko uski naani yaad aajayegi, court aapka hamdard nahi hai'," Raju pointed out.

"This is just a snippet. The entire videos are 3 hour long. This is all for prejudice," Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave said on behalf of Imam.

"Their entire arguments have collapsed because of the truth. It’s not a simple protest. these are violent protests. They are talking about blockade," Raju contended.

Raju claimed that Imam expressly said that it would be a violent protest.

"I am not shying away from the fact that I did not show the entire tape because it’s very long. Sharjeel Imam says it’s not an innocuous dharna or protest. He says it is a violent protest and you should separate Assam from India," Raju contended.

"I don’t think he has used the word 'violent'," the Bench remarked.

"He says you should take laathis etc. he says it’s an issue of 4 countries. Bangladesh, Nepal, etc. he mentions about chicken neck near Arunachal Pradesh. If that 16km land link goes we will be separated from Assam. He says we only require so much force to cover this 16km so Assam is separated. He talks about 370 in Kashmir, trying to provoke Muslims. He maligns the court. He talks about the Babri masjid, triple talaq. The ultimate aim is regime change. They did not gave sufficient strength/protest during 370, Babri Masjid, triple talaq. They saw an opportunity during CAA bill. To garner support of the Muslims and mislead them. He talks of 500 cities in India. He says we will choke Delhi of the essential supplies. Economic security is also part of the UAPA act. Economically strangle Delhi, Assam. This is the nature of the protest," the ASG argued.

He also said that the accused made various WhatsApp groups to further their conspiracy.

"They had various WhatsApp groups for the purpose of this conspiracy. MSJ (Muslim students of JNU) was one of the groups. JCC (Jamia Coordination Committee). They started instigating students of Jamia at Shaheen Bagh," the ASG submitted.

On Umar Khalid, the ASG claimed that no permission was given to Khalid to deliver a speech. Yet he flouted that condition to deliver speech.

"Umar Khalid was not supposed to give a speech. Permission was not given. He was prohibited. In Amravati. He flouted that condition. Separate FIR has been filed for that. The permission was taken at the misrepresentation that Umar Khalid will not speak on the stage. It (speech) was along the same lines, Babri, triple talaq, Article 370 and NRC," the ASG said.

[Read Live Coverage]