Umar Khalid's speech obnoxious and distasteful but cannot be termed terrorist act: Delhi High Court remarks

The Delhi High Court on Monday remarked that the speech delivered by former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid at Amravati in February 2020 against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was ‘offensive’ and ‘distasteful’ but merely because a speech was in bad taste does not mean it will amount to a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. .“Just because the speech is in bad taste does not mean it is a terrorist act. Offensive and distasteful it was… We understand that extremely well. If the case of the prosecution is premised on how offensive the speech was, that by itself won't constitute an offence… It may tantamount to defamation but it does not tantamount to a terrorist act,” Justice Siddharth Mridul said..A division bench of Justice Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar has been hearing the bail plea filed by Khalid challenging the lower court’s order denying him bail in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case..The remark came from the bench as Senior Advocate Trideep Pais referred to the allegations against Khalid with regard to the speech delivered Amravati.The bench pointed out that it has heard the speech many times and seen it in detail.Interestingly, the same bench had earlier remarked that the speech was ‘inciteful’ and ‘obnoxious’. Judges had also taken exception to the use of phrases like ‘Jumla’ and ‘Bharat me Modi nanga si’ for the Prime Minister.Judges had also asked Pais to explain what Khalid had meant when he used words like 'inquilab' and 'revolution' in context of his speech. .On Monday, Pais and his instructing counsel Sanya Kumar took the court through a range of allegations against him.They argued that many of the meetings held at Seelampur in January were stated to be ‘secret meetings’ by the prosecution yet none of the witnesses said so in their statements.The counsel argued that one of the participants in these meetings had even posted a picture of the same on his Facebook profile and therefore there was nothing secretive about it. The call detail records show that one of the persons alleged to have participated in the meeting wasn’t even there, Pais told the court.Referring to the lower court’s order, Pais said that the very premise of the order is wrong.“The court has jumped to the conclusion that it was a conspiratorial meeting because the prosecution said so and ignored the statements of the witnesses which did not say it was a secret meeting. Nothing has been discussed in the order. The order just reproduced the statements of the witnesses and there is nothing else. It did not even discuss how it constitutes an offence under Section 15 of UAPA,” he submitted..However, the Court asked Pais whether it is possible to attach any weightage to material on record while deciding bail.Justice Mridul said that the court is not required to look at epithets like ‘secret meeting’ but can only examine whether this meeting took place as stated in the statements.“We are to look at whether this meeting took place or not. Just because you put the picture of the meeting on Facebook does not mean there was no meeting. Some things hide in plain sight. There is no law that says there can't be a conspiratorial meeting in a park,” he said.He added that the only question that needs to be answered at present is whether all the statements and evidence taken together constitute a prima facie commission of an offence..Pais responded that he is not asking the court to disregard the statements or pronounce a judgment on their veracity but the whole picture needs to be seen..The court also said that since Khalid has been charged with conspiracy, he cannot say that other materials in the chargesheet does not concern him.All these things might not have been at your behest. It may not be at your behest but the law is that you are liable to what other co-accused have done as well, the bench said..The Court will now hear the matter on July 4 as the judges said that this was a special bench and the case cannot be completed before vacation..[Umar Khalid bail hearing] Can't hold a mini-trial to question veracity of statements: Delhi High Court