Activist Sharjeel Imam told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that he was not a terrorist or an anti-national, rejecting the allegations made by the Delhi Police that he was part of a criminal conspiracy for a so called “regime change operation” in India carried out under the guise of peaceful protests.
Senior counsel Siddhartha Dave, representing Imam, told a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria that his client was being unfairly branded without a single conviction. “I would like to say that I am not a terrorist, as I have been called by the respondent. I am not an anti-national as called by the state. I am a citizen of this country, a citizen by birth, and I have not been convicted of any offence till now,” Dave said.
He added that Imam had been labelled a “dangerous intellectual terrorist” even before a full trial. “Not even one conviction against me. The words were used against a citizen of this country. I can understand after a full-fledged trial because I lose the presumption of innocence. But this label has caused anguish to me,” Dave argued.
Dave pointed out that Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, before the Delhi riots, and that his speeches alone could not amount to criminal conspiracy. “I am being prosecuted for speeches I gave, snippets of which were played in court. This FIR was registered in March 2020. For over a month I had already been in custody. This FIR is registered for conspiracy, for riots that were committed in February 2020. It rules out my physical presence in the riots because I was in custody,” he submitted.
He argued that if the police believed his speeches caused the riots, they could have claimed so when they arrested him in January. “My speeches by themselves did not lead to riots. I was already being prosecuted for those speeches,” he said. The police claim that Imam’s speeches helped create the platform for the riots to occur.
Justice Kumar asked whether the speeches could be considered a terrorist act. Dave replied that they could not and that the police needed to show additional actions by Imam to prove conspiracy.
Senior counsel AM Singhvi, representing co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, questioned the police claim of a coordinated regime change operation, saying the charge sheet made no mention of such an allegation. “Where have you alleged regime change as the heart of your charge sheet?” he asked.
On behalf of Umar Khalid, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the court that Khalid was not even in Delhi when the riots took place in February 2020. He said Khalid was being kept in jail as if the state intended to punish him for protesting. “You cannot attribute someone else’s speech to me and say I am responsible for the riots,” Sibal submitted.
The Delhi Police opposed the bail pleas of Imam, Khalid, Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman and Md Saleem Khan. The police argued that the accused conspired to attack the sovereignty and integrity of the country through a regime change plan executed under the cover of peaceful protest.
The accused have challenged the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order denying them bail. The High Court had said that conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests cannot be allowed.
They are facing charges of criminal conspiracy, sedition, promoting enmity between groups and making statements that can cause public mischief under the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 13 of the UAPA for allegedly questioning India’s sovereignty and causing disaffection. They were also charged under other IPC provisions for allegedly being the masterminds of the larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 Delhi riots that took place during the visit of the then US President Donald Trump and claimed 53 lives while injuring more than 700 people. The violence unfolded during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens.
