Sibal: I was showing the order which was not... ... Umar Khalid, Sharjeel, Gulfisha Fatima Bail : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing | Delhi Riots UAPA Case

Sibal: I was showing the order which was not treated as precedent

J Kumar: avoid repetition

Sibal: my friend argued on parity which doesn't apply to umar so that is why I was showing the impugned judgment. what does it say? these acts of accused in that case doesn't amount to offence under s. 15. The argument was that its not an offence under s.15 UAPA therefore, 43D(5) doesn't apply. What is the precedent here? Can I as an accused not show that nothing is attributed to me and that I am entitled to bail?

Am I not entitled to say that on my facs, i am entitled to bail? that we are not interpreting the legal position via S. 43D(5), my learned friend is saying I am not even entitled to argue on facts?

So, the allegation is I made the inflammatory speech, now allow me to play the other part of the speech.

J Kumar: i think its a part of the chargesheet

Sibal plays Umar Khalid's Amaratavi speech, where he advocates for civil disobedience movement just like the one led by Mahatma Gandhi. He says- We will not meet violence with violence, hatred with hatred, but we will meet their violence with peace, and we will meet their hatred with love- how is this violation of UAPA sibal asks

J Kumar: its the other part

Sibal: not ours, this is all I have said

J Kumar: allegation is that, the speeches led to the riots resulting in death of 53 persons and many injured- that was his argument

Sibal: which is that speech? I have shown you 17 Feb, Amaratavi- I am not even there, I am in Maharashtra. I have said, I am prepared to sacrifice myself if they sent me in jail. You can't show other's speech and say i am responsible for riots.