Sharjeel Imam is not a terrorist or related to any terrorist organisation, Imam’s counsel argued before a Delhi court on Monday in his plea for discharge and bail in a sedition case connected to the Delhi riots of February 2020 [Sharjeel Imam v State].
“Sharjeel Imam is not a terrorist. He doesn’t belong to any terrorism gang. He is there on a social agenda. He is not on a political agenda. He is seeking social, economic equality for everybody,” Mir submitted.
The Delhi police’s chargesheet in the conspiracy case has alleged that Imam was the “mastermind” of the Shaheen Bagh blockade. It also alleged that in the late afternoon of December 15, 2019, Imam, with the help of Jamia student Arshad Warsi and his accomplices, started a 24×7 permanent road block (chakka jam) of road number 13, Kalindi Kunj Road at Shaheen Bagh.
On Monday, Mir responded to the submissions of Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad.
Mir, while concluding his rebuttal, recited an Urdu couplet from revolutionary poet Habib Jalib and said: “Aapse pehle jo yahan takhte-nahin tha, usse bhi khud khuda hone ka yakeen tha.”
The lawyer also argued that Imam’s speech that is being labeled as seditious by the prosecution, called for the society to unite and respond to the government’s policy on Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC).
“Criticism of government policies is obviously protest. Criticism comes in the form of songs, movies, protests. He said block roads, etc., but there will be no people. This is what he advocates,” Mir added.
The counsel claimed that there were 20 separate instances in Imam’s speech, wherein he had called for not resorting to violence.
“Today, this prosecution is of a whip of a monarch than govt established by law. At the end of the day, dispensations will change and nothing is permanent,” he said.
“By the way, the poetry was good,” the judge responded on a lighter note.
Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad referred to his earlier arguments of Imam having addressed only the Muslim community.
“When I say you are addressing a particular community, it is rhetoric when you say it, it is not. Your address is clearly to a particular community,” he said relying on portions from Imam’s speech.
“Immediately after speech on December 13, 2019, various violent incidents have taken place. Rioting took place in Jamia. Then incidents are of December 16, 17 at AMU,” added Prasad.
Mir also referred to Imam’s speeches about coming out on the streets against CAA and NRC as an act of protest.
The lawyer, however, remarked, “Sadak pe aane ka huzoor kisi ko shauk nahi hai. Humara mulk gareebon ka mulk hai. Saara din log roti kamane me nikaal dete hain (No one likes getting out on the streets. Ours is a country of the poor. People spend the entire day earning a living for themselves).”
The argument was in reference to the submission that people were out on the streets as a last resort.
The Court, thereafter, inquired with Mir on what detention centre Imam had referred to in his speech.
Mir responded, “Detention centres in Assam. At the end of the day NRC is a problem in Assam.”
The Court then also posed a query to Prasad.
“Assuming what he said was in your view, bad or an extreme view point. Would you not say, something advocating fanciful idea. Or if we call it obnoxious.. Would that be sufficient enough to say that is sedition?” the Court asked.
Prasad said that Imam’s speeches were not a “fanciful idea” alone.
“He goes from point to point advocating this. He asks for blocking highways. There are chats to show, ‘Jo Sharjeel bhai ne kaha tha wo humne kar diye’,” Prasad contended.
He then referred to the case of head constable Rattan Lal to state that his murder happened when one side of the road was blocked on the day of the incident at northeast Delhi.
“We are talking about a person who has knowledge on riots. His knowledge has to be kept it mind when he is asking for chakka jam…Road block he does with special knowledge. There are large number of people who got together and then there is a violence. The Delhi High Court in one of the bail orders observed that these riots did not happen in the spur of the moment but were part of a conspiracy,” he submitted.
The Court subsequently posted the matter on October 23 for clarifications.
This story first appeared on barandbench.com