The Delhi High Court rejected the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, accused in the 2020 Delhi riots. Both former JNU students have been incarcerated for five years. Sharjeel was arrested on August 25, 2020, and Umar Khalid on September 13, 2020. While Umar and Sharjeel remain in custody, Shahrukh Pathan, who brandished a gun at a Delhi Police officer during the same riots, has been released from jail.
Shahrukh was granted 15 days of bail by the court in March this year due to his father’s declining health. His lawyer argued that he had been in judicial custody since March 3, 2020, and had never received interim bail. Shahrukh Pathan is accused in two cases related to the riots, including pointing a gun at Head Constable Deepak Dahiya and conspiring to murder a person named Rohit Shukla.
Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly being the main conspirators of the February 2020 riots. The riots resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries. The violence erupted during protests against the CAA-NRC.
Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid have spent five years in custody. They appealed to the High Court for release, but the petitions were denied. They had previously been denied bail in a lower court. In challenging the lower court’s order, Imam and Khalid cited their prolonged detention and the fact that other co-accused had been granted bail.
In rejecting the petitions on Tuesday, the High Court stated that the right to peaceful protests and public speeches is protected under Article 19(1)(a), but it cannot be misused. The court emphasized that this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under the Constitution. Allowing unrestricted protests would harm the constitutional framework and affect law and order.
The court stated that any conspiratorial violence under the guise of protests or demonstrations by citizens is not permissible. Such activities do not fall within the ambit of freedom of expression. The court added that the Constitution gives citizens the right to protest or demonstrate, provided such protests are organized, peaceful, and without weapons.
The judgment noted that citizens have a fundamental right to express concerns against legislative actions, which strengthens the democratic system by indicating the participation of citizens in governance. This right is extremely important as it allows citizens to express dissent, highlight shortcomings in governance, and demand accountability from state officials. However, such actions must be within the bounds of the law.
