NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday probed the validity of invoking the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) by the Delhi Police in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, questioning whether the mere setup of protest sites against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) suffices for such severe charges.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, raised critical queries during the hearing of bail pleas from the accused, including activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Khalid Saifi. They are under custody for several years.
"Is it your contention that just establishing a protest site justifies UAPA charges, or must there be resultant violence linked to the site? Intent under UAPA is a key factor," the Bench queried the prosecution.
The Court reflected on the nature of protests. It suggested that participants might have viewed road blockades (chakka jams) as legitimate forms of demonstration. It questioned if such actions alone warranted UAPA's stringent provisions.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad defended the police's approach. He noted that not all members of associated WhatsApp groups were charged, implying selective prosecution based on the evidence of instigating violence.
The Court pressed for concrete evidence showing that the accused were directly inciting violence, rather than merely participating in protests.
The trial court's delay in framing charges became a focal point, with the defence arguing for bail due to prolonged detention and procedural delays.
However, the prosecution countered by citing legal precedents in which delays in trials were deemed insufficient grounds for bail, attributing part of the trial delays to the accused.
During the hearing, Justice Chawla criticised the selective inclusion of individuals as accused based on WhatsApp chats, questioning the rationale behind omitting certain members from the conspiracy charges.
SPP Prasad disclosed the vast volume of messages, claiming over 2,000 were reviewed.
The police presented evidence, including chat transcripts and meeting records, portraying the protests as orchestrated rather than spontaneous.
Also, during the hearing, key conversations between Sharjeel Imam and others were cited, revealing alleged efforts to mobilise people and sustain sit-ins despite local opposition.
In a note submitted to the court, a chat between Sharjeel Imam and Afreen Fatima shows that local colony people were opposing the sit-ins and he was bringing people in for the site.
“Unka ek agenda tha … uthwate hain … Maine kaha nahi, main 200 log leke baitha hoon… Agar aap colony wale humse ladna chahte hain to lad lein … 200 local ladke… Aur main jnu se 200 bulwa loonga… Aur 15-20 wakeel honge,” read the chat between Imam and Afreen Fatima on December 19, 2019.
The prosecution alleged that artists were enlisted to lend an appearance of a secular, organic protest.
A group named JACT, allegedly formed by Umar Khalid and others, was accused of spearheading awareness campaigns that culminated in round-the-clock protests.
Video evidence of public gatherings was presented, prompting the Court to question its relevance to the conspiracy narrative.
The hearing is set to continue on Thursday.