No Place For Violent Action To Resist Govt Policy In Democracy: Delhi High Court Frames Charges Against Sharjeel Imam, Others In Jamia Violence Case

While framing charges of rioting and unlawful assembly against Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others in 2019 Jamia violence case, the Delhi High Court has observed that protest by violent means can never be part of democracy.“Though, in a democracy, there can be no question of dissent being suppressed or fundamental right of freedom of expression by peaceful means being infringed, however, at the same time, there is no place of violent collective action to register one’s anguish against ideological differences or resistance to a Government policy,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed. Perusing the video of the protest on record, the court said that the acts of resistance being presented as normal by the accused persons were not peaceful resistance but violent protest which had turned into riots.The court set aside, in entirety, the trial court order discharging the accused and disposed of the revision petition moved by Delhi police. Justice Sharma framed charges against Mohd Qasim, Mahmood Anwar, Shahzar Raza Khan, Umar Ahmad, Mohd. Bilal Nadeem, Sharjeel Imam and Chanda Yadav under sections 143, 147, 149, 186, 353 and 427 of IPC as well as section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. They have been discharged of rest of the offences as per FIR since there was not enough material against them to implicate them under the said provisions. The court however framed charges against Asif Iqbal Tanha, Mohd. Abuzar and Mohd. Shoaib under section 143 of IPC and discharged them of the other offences. The court added that in case any evidence comes on record against any of the accused persons during trial regarding the offences they have been discharged of, the trial court may proceed as per law against them.“It is, however, clarified that this Court has not returned any finding on the merits of the case and the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding present petition,” it said. Observing that there is a prima facie case of unlawful assembly and rioting, the court said that the video clips of the incident reveal that an “uncontrollable mob of students who had turned violent with dandas” were pelting stones continuously, pushing and pulling barricades and forcibly trying to go beyond the barricades which had been put up by the police to enforce rule of law. The court added that the mob pulled out and damaged the road divider and sign board of Jamia Nagar police station and that the conscious presence and participation of the accused persons point out towards their being part of unlawful assembly and rioting.“It was State’s duty to prevent rioting and violent action. If no timely action was taken and the police force would have allowed the public property being put on fire and rioters being allowed to flout orders of Section 144 Cr.P.C. and reach the place where curfew had been imposed, the State would have been accused of dysfunctional and ineffective Government machinery who could not control eruption of violent collective action. The videos will prima facie reveal that the level of opposition which was encountered by the law and enforcing agency was probably not expected by them,” it said. Furthermore, the court said that even if the purpose of the assembly was to lawfully protest against the Government policy of NRC and CAA, the case would have been different had it been confined to protest by peaceful means without use of force and violence in order to march to a curfew bound area. “In the present era of independent social media, in case the violent mob would have been allowed to march to the streets of Delhi to the Parliament which was a curfew bound area, there was apprehension that more persons could have gathered, endangering the law and order situation in Delhi,” it said. Justice Sharma further acknowledged that the student community, being citizens of India, have equal right to freedom of speech and expression and protest as all other citizens. However, the court said that while the law protects the right to express one’s views and protest peacefully, it does not protect or guarantee the right to protest and demonstrate violently, threaten the safety of others and damage the public property or threaten and damage their own campus and personal safety of others including the law enforcing agency.“The protesters turned violent and started pelting stones, breaking barricades, standing on the barricades, pushed the barricades against the police officers due to their enormous power of presence and large number, they succeeded in crossing first barricade which in itself prima facie shows the crisis or emerging of situation which could have affected the population and constituted a threat to the organized life of the citizens which the State is bound to protect,” the court said. The court also emphasised that the assemblies cannot be aimed at destroying the rights of others to achieve their own and therefore, the right to freedom of peaceful...

No Place For Violent Action To Resist Govt Policy In Democracy: Delhi High Court Frames Charges Against Sharjeel Imam, Others In Jamia Violence Case

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags