Umar speech in bad taste, but no act of terror: Delhi High Court
NEW DELHI: The High Court on Monday observed the speech delivered by former JNU student Umar Khalid, arrested in a UAPA case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the riots here in February 2020, in Amravati, Maharashtra was in bad taste but it does not make it a terrorist act.
Interestingly, the court had called Khalid’s Amravati speech as ‘offensive’, ‘obnoxious’, and ‘hateful’ last month on April 22. A Division Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar said that the speech was “offensive” and “distasteful” and “may tantamount to defamation but it will not tantamount to a terrorist activity.”
“That the speech is in bad taste, does not make it a terrorist act. We understand that extremely well. If the case of the prosecution is premised on how offensive the speech was, that by itself would not constitute an offence. We will give them (prosecution) the opportunity,’ the court said.
The court’s observation came while hearing the bail plea of Khalid who has challenged a trial court’s March 24 order dismissing his bail application in the case. The court was hearing submissions advanced by Khalid’s counsel who was referring to the speech made by him on February 17, 2020, in Amravati. He also read out the statements given by various protected witnesses in the case. The court listed the matter for July 4 for a hearing concluding arguments by Khalid’s counsel.
More time to netas to reply to riots case pleas
The High Court on Monday granted time to several political leaders and others to file their responses to pleas to make them parties to proceedings seeking FIR and investigation against them for allegedly delivering hate speeches leading to the 2020 riots. A bench headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul noted that while lawyers were present in court on behalf of some of the political leaders and public figures, others remained unrepresented.
‘Wife’s consent not needed to donate organ’
The High Court on Monday said that there is no requirement in law to get a no-objection certificate from the spouse if the wife wished to donate an organ in accordance with the law. Justice Yashwant Varma, while dealing with a petition by a woman who wanted to donate her kidney to her father, stated that the rules did not mandate any ‘spousal consent’ and directed that the authorities proceed with the petitioner’s application for donation according to law.