Chakka jam is not a method of violent protest, Sharjeel Imam told the High Court
Defending his discharge in the 2019 Jamia Nagar violence case, JNU student Sharjeel Imam told the Delhi High Court on Thursday that he only campaigned in favor of peaceful protest and did not consider ‘chakka jam’ a “violent method of protest”. Can be said
Imam’s stand came in written submissions filed in response to Delhi Police’s plea challenging the trial court’s February 4 order that discharged student activists Asif Iqbal Tanha and Safoora Zargar, among others, in the case. it was done.
The case pertains to the violence that broke out in Jamia Nagar area in December 2019 following clashes between people protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the police.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma listed the matter for hearing on March 23 after the probe agency sought time due to ill health of one of its lawyers.
The court asked the respondents to file their written submissions in the meantime.
It also directed that electronic evidence including videos be placed on record.
The trial court, in its February 4 order, had acquitted 11 people in the case, saying they had been made “scapegoats” by the police and should encourage, not suppress, dissent.
The police, in its revision petition, has said that the order of the trial court runs counter to the established principles of law, suffers from serious infirmities and is perverse.
The police plea said the trial court was swayed by “emotional and sentimental feelings” and cast aspersions on the prosecuting agency. The revision petition states that it made “seriously prejudicial” and “prejudicial” remarks against the prosecuting agency and the investigation.
In his written submission, Imam said that raising slogans in favor of a particular method of peaceful protest does not in any way indicate his involvement in the subsequent violence.
Imam was accused of inciting riots on December 13, 2019, by delivering an inflammatory speech at Jamia Millia University. He is still in jail as he is an accused in the larger conspiracy case of the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
He said that the protesters had assembled in exercise of their fundamental right to assemble peacefully as guaranteed under the Constitution, and in the absence of any prohibitory order, no blame could be attributed to them.
“In his speech at AMU on 16.12.2019, the respondent respondent only stated that he campaigned in favor of chakka jam as a means of protest, which in no way can be said to be a violent method of protest Yes,” he submitted.
There is no admissible evidence against Imam to show that he shared the common objective of the unlawful assembly and that “he was a victim of violence and had no active role in its culmination”, he said in the written submission.
“The respondent-respondent cannot be seen in any of the videos produced by the prosecution nor has any statement been recorded by the investigating agency attributing any role to him in the commission of the alleged violence,” Said this.
The fact that violence took place during a peaceful protest in Jamia, as a result of which Sharjeel Imam broke his spectacles, is not indicative of the fact that he participated in the said violence, he has submitted.
Imam also claimed that his CDR has clearly established that he had left the place of occurrence before the assembly became unlawful and that the alleged inciting speech was delivered much after the alleged riot and that it was in another case. subject to.
“(The Imam only preached in favor of the means of peaceful protest, not violence. The act of raising slogans in favor of a particular method of peaceful protest does not in any way portray the respondent’s involvement in the violence that occurred during the protest) doesn’t,” he said.
The document states that the disclosure statement, alleged by Imam, was not recorded by the investigating agency in the present case and otherwise has no evidentiary value.
The high court had on February 13 issued notice to Imam and others on the police plea and clarified that the trial court’s observations would not affect the further investigation in the matter or the trial of any accused.
Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, representing the Delhi Police, urged the high court to set aside the observation made by the lower court, arguing that the case pertains to an unlawful assembly turning violent and not the “right to dissent”. ” From.
The police said that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the trial court has to proceed with the assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is correct and not delve into the matter such as the issue of conviction But have to decide.
Noting that the accused were present only at the protest site and there was no incriminating evidence against them, the trial court held that dissent is an extension of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions.
The trial court, while acquitting 11 accused, had ordered framing of charges against one of them, Mohammad Ilyas.
Jamia Nagar police station filed a charge sheet against Imam, Tanha, Zargar, Mohd Qasim, Mehmood Anwar, Shahzar Raza Khan, Mohd Abuzar, Mohd Shoaib, Umair Ahmed, Bilal Nadeem, Chanda Yadav and Mohd. Was. Ilyas.
,