Can We Accept Your Speeches Won't Constitute 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA? Supreme Court Asks Sharjeel Imam

During the hearing of the bail pleas in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, the Supreme Court questioned some of the speeches made by Sharjeel Imam, one of the accused in the case.

The bench asked whether it can be said that those speeches will not constitute incitement and terrorist acts as per the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the petitions filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd.Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed challenging the September 2 judgment of the Delhi High Court which denied them bail.

During the earlier hearings, the Delhi police had played the video clips from some of the speeches of Imam, made during the anti-CAA protests, which were flagged as provocative and inflammatory. In those clips, Imam was heard as saying that Muslims in North-East should unite to cut-off the 'chicken neck' area and isolate Assam from the mainland, that chakka-jams should be organised in all cities across the country, and that supplies to Delhi must be cut-off.

Today,  Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, making rejoinder arguments for Imam,  submitted, “First thing I would like to say. 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, citizen by birth. I have not been convicted for any offence uptil now but I am being labelled an intellectual terrorist.” He added that such a label causes “deep anguish” and erodes the presumption of innocence.

Dave argued that Imam has already been prosecuted for the very speeches now being projected as part of the conspiracy. He referred to FIR 22/2020, registered on January 25, 2020, in which Imam was arrested three days later and booked for offences such as sedition, promoting enmity and Section 13 of the UAPA. “Yes, I have given those speeches and I have been prosecuted for those. If I am arrested for giving those speeches, how do I figure in this FIR for the same speeches?” he asked. He underscored that the Delhi riots of February 2020 could not be attributed to Imam as he was already in custody since January 2020 in cases related to speeches.

Justice Kumar, however, noted the prosecution's case that Imam's remarks, including “hamare paas sirf 4 hafte hain” ,were part of an alleged plan that “created a platform for riots to take place so that the conspiracy gets fructified.”

Dave responded that a speech by itself cannot amount to a terrorist act under Section 15 UAPA: “They have to show that apart from the speech, there is something more that I did. I must have met people, done something. By standing and giving a speech, I cannot disrupt supply or infrastructure as contemplated under Section 15(1)(a).”

"A speech would also cause... any act of yours which causes disruption of supply[ attracts UAPA]," Justice Kumar said, asking Dave to read Imam's Uttar Pradesh speech (on cutting off Assam).

Dave noted that FIRs were already registered in places like Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh for those speeches and that he had either obtained bail or default bail due to non-filing of chargesheets. “Everything I have done, I have been prosecuted,” he said, asserting that none of the 750 FIRs relating to the February 2020 riots names him as an accused.

"Can we take your argument that these speeches won't constitute a terrorist act?" Justice Kumar asked.

Dave submitted that these the speeches will not constitute the "criminal conspiracy" element in the present FIR 59/2020. He argued that relying solely on the speeches without any further action cannot sustain a conspiracy charge for UAPA offences. Dave relied on an order of the Allahabad High Court which granted him bail holding that Imam's speeches did not call for violence.

Dave asserted that Imam was part of the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG) WhatsApp group, which the prosecution has described as a coordination platform of alleged conspirators. “At one place they say I am an expert because I wrote a thesis on riots, and at another place they say I failed to orchestrate large-scale violence,” he remarked.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the prosecution, said that some of the submissions were “misleading” and sought time to respond.

The hearing will continue tomorrow.

The Court also heard the rejoinder arguments of co-accused Gulfisha Fatima and Umar Khalid today.

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi(for Gulfisha) told the Court that Gulfisha has been in custody for over five years now and is the only lady who has not been granted bail for allegations similar to and much lesser than those attributed to co-accused Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, who were granted bail as early as 2021. He also submitted that the "great argument" of regime change nowhere appears in the main chargesheet and the four supplementary chargesheet, the latest of which was filed in 2023. The allegation that the petitiioners were trying to create a "regime change" through the riots has only been made in the counter-affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, and it was an argument made to prejudice the Court's mind.