Delhi Court Frames Sedition Charge Against Sharjeel Imam In Case Concerning Anti-CAA Speeches Made At AMU, Jamia

A Delhi Court on Monday framed charges against Sharjeel Imam 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.Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat framed 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.Imam was booked vide FIR 22/2020 registered by the Delhi Police. The alleged offence under UAPA was added later. Delete #BreakingDelhi Court has framed charges against #SharjeelImam in FIR 20/2020 relating to the alleged inflammatory speeches made by him in Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia area in Delhi against the CAA. pic.twitter.com/bqdM0Uwxqh— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) January 24, 2022 Arguments in the CaseAdvocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir appearing for Imam had submitted before the Court there was no call for violence in the speeches made by Imam and that the allegations made by the Prosecution were only rhetoric, having no basis.Cases Against Him A 'Whip Of Monarch', Not Govt Established By Law: Sharjeel Imam's Lawyer Tells Court In Riots CaseHe had also submitted that being critical of the government cannot be the cause of sedition and that a person cannot be charged on pure suspicion.Rebutting the prosecution's argument that Imam opened his speech with the words 'As-salamu alaykum' which is enough to show that it was addressed to a particular community and not to the public at large, Mir had submitted:"Would the Prosecution withdraw the Chargesheet had Sharjeel Imam started his speech with good morning, namaskar etc? At the end of the day, the statement is rhetoric and extremely hollow."On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad opposed the argument that the fundamental right to protest cannot go beyond an extent which causes problem to the public at large."Sharjeel Imam Challenged Sovereignty Of India, Tried To Imbibe Sense Of Hopelessness In Muslims": Prosecution Tells Delhi Court In Riots CaseArguing so, he relied on the judgment delivered by Supreme Court in Amit Sahani case wherein it was observed that "we have no hesitation in concluding that such kind of occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions."He also argued that by making the alleged seditious speeches, Imam also challenged the sovereignty of India and also tried to imbibe a 'sense of hopelessness and insecurity' in Muslims that they have no hope left in the Country.Recently, Imam was granted bail by a city Court in a case concerning the violence in Jamia Milia Islamia University on the 13th and 14th of December, 2019.Delhi Court Grants Bail To Sharjeel Imam In 2019 Jamia Violence CaseOn the other hand, he was denied bail in a 2019 case alleging that he delivered provocative speeches which led to Delhi Riots at various places observing that the tone and tenor of the incendiary speech tend to have a debilitating effect upon public tranquility, peace and harmony of the society.

Delhi Court Frames Sedition Charge Against Sharjeel Imam In Case Concerning Anti-CAA Speeches Made At AMU, Jamia

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags