"Misguided One Community With Resentment, Hatred Towards Others:": Delhi Court On Framing Sedition Charges Against Sharjeel Imam

"Prima facie, the religious groups are sought to be divided on emotive issues and one community is sought to be (mis)guided in a particular way of resentment, illwill and hatred towards others which can then be remedied by a plan of action which will result in violence," said a Delhi Court while framing sedition charges against Sharjeel Imam. Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat made the observation while framing charges under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc.), 153B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC along with Section 13 (Punishment for unlawful activities) of the UAPA.Charges were framed in a case relating to the alleged inflammatory speeches made by him in Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia area in Delhi against the Citizenship Amendment Act."The accused by referring to the blockage/cutoff of 'chickenneck' which joins mainland India to the NorthEast by seems to remind everyone that the said land belongs to Muslims and the call to do it, by certain means is indicative of his intention," the Court said. Perusing the speeches and other material provided by the prosecution, the Court said that prima facie, there appeared to be a tendency to create public disorder and incitement to violence."Speech also appears to challenge the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India. It also appears to create hatred/contempt for the lawful institutions of the State and to challenge them by unlawful means," the Judge added. Importantly, the Court made the following observations while going through the legislative provisions and offences invoked:- Any comment by itself marking disapproval of any measures of the government is not within the purview of this Section. - Criticism of any government, government policies or even institutions is fundamentally within the reach of freedom of speech and expression. In fact, criticism and rallying people against what one perceives to be incorrect policy or even law is what makes a country democratic. - Dissent is the hallmark of a progressive and democratic nation. Even advocacy of a point of view regardless of its force or reasoning or even palpable reprehensibility is not touched by this provision.- What the Court has to discern is whether the activities of an accused brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excites disaffection towards government established by law. - What is objectionable and punishable is the activities intending or having a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. - The cherished Fundamental Rights of Speech and Expression under Article 19 of the Constitution is one of the pillars of a modern democratic nation which seeks to enhance its progress by constant exchange of ideas and meaningful discourse. This will take, within its ambit, the right to offend as naturally curbing any idea or expression which tends to be away from the mainstream and causes affront or offence to some people, would remove the efficacy of the right itself. - It is equally true, however, that such right is subject to reasonable restrictions. But whenever, one talks of said rights of an individual, it must also be cognizant of the Fundamental Rights of other citizens. While maintaining this balance, the Directive Principles of State policy and Fundamental Duties cannot be just given a go by or consigned to ignominious side existence.The Court was of the view that since speeches are reflection of one's thoughts, all the speeches made by Sharjeel Imam will have to be read in completion to decipher what he was thinking and trying to convince all those who had gathered around him and to whom the speech would get disseminated to. "What we have to see is whether the 'laxmanrekha' is crossed or not i.e. the point where stand point crosses the boundaries laid down by the Statutes and judicial pronouncements, the law steps in. It is about respecting other people views and finding out legitimate ways of pushing your thinking. To expound an argument to say that a speech howsoever incorrect or incendiary or provocative and threatening must be accepted in complete deference to the right of free speech, is beyond the pale," the Court said. It added "Speech can raise disparate issues which provides a fertile ground on which receiver of a speech understands what he is being asked to understand. As they say, intention has to be gathered from the words spoken, written or other expressions, therefore, a speaker will be taken to have intent of the consequences that followed. The speeches are made in public and not in a conference or a court."Perusing the speeches in question, the Court said that a reading of entire speeches of Sharjeel Imam, "at least on a prima facie level, brings to the core the fundamental thinking, ideas and intent of the accused.""The speeches are ...

"Misguided One Community With Resentment, Hatred Towards Others:": Delhi Court On Framing Sedition Charges Against Sharjeel Imam

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

"Misguided One Community With Resentment, Hatred Towards Others:": Delhi Court On Framing Sedition Charges Against Sharjeel Imam

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers