Delhi Court Takes Cognizance Of Offences Of Sedition, Promoting Enmity Between Groups Against 18 Accused In Riots Conspiracy Case

A sessions court in Delhi on Tuesday took cognizance of the offences of sedition(Section 124A) and promotion of enmity between groups(Section 153A IPC) against all 18 accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, who are already booked under the UAPA.

The Court took cognizance of these additional offences on the basis of sanction received under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court directed that the copy of the supplementary chargesheet be supplied to the accused in a pendrive.

The Court has also called for a medical report from Tihar jail regarding the allegations of ill-treatment made by accused Asif Iqbal Tanha.

Further, the Court has required the presence of the law officers and the concerned Jail Superintendents regarding the issues flagged by the accused regarding leakage of crucial documents to media.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat of Karkardooma Court passed the order. Student leaders and activists such as Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Safoora Zargar, Gulshima Fathima, Umar Khalid, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Khalid Saifi, Tasleem Ahmed, Sharjeel Imam, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Tahir Hussain etc are among the 18 accused in the riots conspiracy case. The Special Cell of Delhi Police Crime Branch has registered FIR No.59/2020 against them under UAPA alleging that the anti-CAA protests organized by them were a conspiracy to create communal riots.

During the hearing, ex-JNU student leader Umar Khalid appeared in person before the judge to complain that certain media houses were indulging in 'media trial' against him and the other accused.

Umar Khalid told the judge that certain media houses are repeatedly publishing damaging reports against the accused, despite a court order which asked them to refrain from carrying reports prejudicing the right to fair trial.

"It is happening again and again. When the media reports projects you as an accused well before the trial...this is against the rights of accused and violates constitutional mandates.

There were newspapers where the pictures of Asif iqbal, Natasha, me, Devangana etc were published with the headline "Dilli dango ke bade gunegaar, ye hain unke chehere". How can we be condemned without given a chance?", Umar Khalid submitted.

"Without a trial, they are projecting us as dangaayi and rioters", Khalid added.

"After the headlines quoting us as dangaayi was shown, we have been discriminated in jail. I have not been given proper medical treatment", Asif Iqbal, another accused, told the judge.

'Reputation A Facet of Article 21' : Delhi Court Slams Media For Publishing News Against Umar Khalid Without Verifying All Facts In Riots Case

Khalid Saifi, founder of the group "United Against Hate", told the judge:

"I am unable to understand what are the charges against me. They say I was part of the protest. They are making serious allegations against me as being a terrorist, because of my name. Before coming to court with anything, they go to media. Then things are published and thereafter they come to court. this entire process has to stop".

Tasleem Khan, another accused in the case, told the court that he was slapped in jail and was denied medical check-ups.

Advocate Adit S Pujari, appearing for 'Pinjra Tod' members Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, submitted that the accused are entitled to get the copies of the chargesheet and the supplementary chargesheet.

However, judge Amitabh Rawat asked if the court can order supply of the documents before the stage of taking cognizance.

Pujari submitted that TV channels and newspapers were carrying reports against the accused quoting from the charge-sheet.

The judge told the Prosecutor that the leakage to media should not have happened.

"I do feel that this leakage from media shouldn't have happened. Why the media is getting into this?", the judge said.

Pujari submitted that the leak is happening from the police end. Mentioning a Times Now report, Pujari submitted that the sections of the supplementary charge sheet were leaked in the media. He added that because of such leakages, the accused in the case have to undergo media trials that is against their rights.

"The supplementary chargesheet is with the police officer and then it comes to court. But it gets leaked with media. When the leak happens from police, it is very important here", he said.

The Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad denied that police was leaking information. The SPP told the judge that the Delhi High Court is hearing Asif Iqbal Tanha's petition against leakage to media.

The SPP further submitted that the accused were also running 'narratives' in some media outlets about the police investigation. In this context, he referred to an article published by 'Newslaundry'.

Pujari responded by saying that articles citing the police or accused versions are different from media reports based on selective quotes from prosecution documents which have not yet been shared with the accused.

Advocates Siddharth Satija and Rizwan, appearing for other accused, urged the Court to pass appropriate orders  taking cognizance of the media reports prejudicial to the accused.

The Delhi High Court in November last year had stayed the trial of FIR 59. A single judge bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait had ordered the stay after the Delhi Police's challenge to the order passed by the trial court directing it for providing physical copies of charge sheet to the accused persons.