Prolonged incarceration makes ‘caricature’ of justice system, 2020 Delhi riots accused tells SC

Activist Gulfisha Fatima, accused of being part of a “larger conspiracy” behind the 2020 Delhi riots, told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the prolonged incarceration of undertrials in the case makes “a caricature of our criminal justice system”, Bar and Bench reported.

Fatima and four others – Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider and Shadab Ahmad – have challenged a September 2 Delhi High Court order that dismissed their bail applications.

The five persons had been arrested between January and September 2020 in connection with the communal violence that broke out in North East Delhi in February 2020 between supporters of the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act and those opposing it. The violence had left 53 dead and hundreds injured. Most of those killed were Muslims.

Appearing for Fatima on Tuesday, advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi told a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria that such extended incarceration amounts to “pre-trial conviction”, Bar and Bench reported.

Singhvi added: “Nobody needs to be punished like this unless they are convicted.”

Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, told the court that he cannot be held responsible for delays in the trial, Bar and Bench.

Sibal argued that if bail were denied, Khalid would remain in jail for “another three years” as an undertail despite no “single act of violence” being attributed to him.

“That will be eight years without trial,” Bar and Bench quoted Sibal telling the court. “I am an academic. I am an individual. I have not been attributed for any overt act.”

Khalid, Imam, Fatima, Haider and Rehman were charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the Arms Act and sections of the Indian Penal Code.

On October 30, in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the Delhi Police opposed their petitions, arguing that their alleged actions were part of a coordinated “regime change operation” carried out under the guise of civil dissent.

The Delhi police had also submitted that the petitioners were playing the “victim card” on the grounds of long incarceration, and claimed that they were themselves responsible for delaying the trial for “mala fide and mischievous reasons”.

On October 31, Khalid, Imam and Fatima told the court that they had not called for violence and were only exercising their right to peaceful protest against the CAA.

The Delhi Police had argued on November 18 that the five of them cannot seek parity with co-accused Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, saying the High Court's 2021 bail order in their favour was passed on an incorrect interpretation of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

During the hearing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court also examined whether some parts of Imam's speeches during the protests against the Citizenship Act could amount to incitement or a “terrorist act” under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, Live Law reported.

During earlier hearings, the Delhi Police had played video clips of Imam calling for blockades, nationwide chakka jams and for protesters in the North East to “cut off” the chicken-neck corridor to isolate Assam. These speeches were flagged as provocative and inflammatory.

Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Imam, said that the activist was being unfairly labelled an “intellectual terrorist” despite never having been convicted of any offence, Live Law reported.

He argued that Imam had already been prosecuted in separate first information reports for the same speeches being used to project a “conspiracy”, including one registered on January 25, 2020. Dave argued that Imam was in custody even before the February 2020 riots took place.

The lawyer submitted that a speech by itself cannot amount to a terrorist act and said that the prosecution must show further action beyond the speeches to sustain a charge under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

Dave also said that none of the 750 FIRs relating to the 2020 riots named Imam as an accused person. He also highlighted an order of the Allahabad High Court which granted Imam bail, holding that his speeches did not call for violence.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju sought time to respond.

The hearing will continue on Wednesday.

Also read: How the Delhi Police's riots conspiracy case is built on sand

Source: Scroll
Related Posts: Activist Gulfisha Fatima moves Supreme Court after Delhi HC rejects bail petition in 2020 riots case Delhi Riots 'Larger Conspiracy' Case Ladakh protest part of Cong's 'conspiracy' to create Nepal Bihar polls to see larger Heavy drinking may trigger larger These Lenders May Be Combined With Larger Banks To Create Mega Entities OPEC+ may consider larger oil output boost Larger problem created by not allowing Darkness looms larger for ISL as Champions suspend football operations Uttarakhand High Court stays scientist’s conviction in abetment of suicide case in ‘larger public interest’