Is It Proper To Use Word 'Jumla' Against PM? There Has To Be 'Lakshman Rekha' For Criticism : Delhi HC On Umar Khalid's Speech

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday continued hearing the appeal filed by student activist Umar Khalid challenging the Trial Court's order refusing him bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.During the hearing, the video of a speech made by Khalid in Amravati in February 2020 was played in the court. On the last occassion, the bench, after reading the transcript of the speech, had observed that the speech was prima facie "obnoxious" and "offensive".Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for Khalid, had then submitted that the speech was made in the context of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and that the harsh words used against the Government cannot amount to an offence under the UAPA.Today, Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, who was sharing a bench headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul, asked Senior Advocate Trideep Pais if it was proper to use the word 'jumla' against the Prime Minister of India."This word jumla is used against the Prime Minister of India. Is it proper?", Justice Bhatnagar orally asked. Pais responded that it is not illegal to be critical of the government or polices of the government. "Criticism of the Government cannot be a crime", said Pais. Justice Bhatnagar also questioned the use of the word 'changa' in the speech. "What he says about the Prime Minister in the speech? Some 'Changa' word was used and after that..." "It is satire. Sab changa si was probably used by PM in a speech given", Paid responded."Criticism of the government cannot become a crime. 583 days in prison with UAPA charges was no envisaged for a person who speaks against the government. We cannot become so intolerant. At this rate, people will not be able to speak", Pais submitted.Justice Bhatnagar orally remarked thus:"There has to be a line for criticism also. There has to be a lakshman rekha."While the speech was played before the Bench during the course of hearing today, Justice Bhatnagar asked Pais as to who was Umar Khalid referring to as 'Oonth (Camel)' in the speech while saying 'Oonth pahaad ke niche aa gaya'(camel has come down the mountain). "Who is referred to as oonth jo pahaad ke niche aa gaya? Who is that oonth? Who is that camel?" asked Justice Bhatnagar. To this, Pais said "He refers to the Government who was unwilling to speak to persons opposing CAA. In that context he says oonth pahad ke niche aagaya."While Pais argued that the speech in question certainly was anti-CAA, against the Government and its policies, however he added that there was no call for violence or incitement. "He says we are willing to go arrested, won't resort to violence. The Camera pans to crowd, the crowd is seated, it's not incited," Pais submitted. Justice Mridul also asked Pais thus:"There are two expressions he used. One is inquilab and other is krantikari. What is the takeaway from the use of expression krantikari?""It means revolutionary", Pais responded.The bench said that it does not dispute the arguments of Pais regarding free speech, but the issue in this case was whether the speech incited people in Delhi to indulge in riots. Justice Mridul observed: "He is invited to Amravati to deliver which he himself calls a krantikari and inquilabi speech.Your argument regarding free speech, nobody can have a question. Question is did his speech and subsequent actions lead to the riots that happened? The live link with speech and other material gathered whether it led to incitement of violence?Nobody has qualms about free speech but what is the consequence of your employing these expressions, offensive as they evidently are. Did they incite the populous in Delhi to come out to streets?If they did even prima facie, are you guilty of UAPA sec. 13? That is the question before us""The speech in itself didn't call to violence. No witness to violence of Delhi have said that i was incited by this. Only two witnesses cited to have heard this speech, they say they weren't incited by the speech", Pais submitted. He pointed out that the speech was made in Amaravati few weeks before the riots and Khalid was not present in the site during the riots.Umar Khalid was denied bail by city's Karkardooma Court on March 24. He was arrested on 13 September, 2020 and has been under custody since.Invocation of UAPA mala fide : Khalid's lawyerDuring the course of hearing, Pais began by calling the FIR in question a "calculated FIR", highlighting the fact that it was registered on March 6, 2020 whereas 751 FIRs already stood registered within a few days (end of February) by the Police after the violence erupted amid the riots.He argued that while initially only bailable offences were added by the Police, later non bailable offences including UAPA was added just to ensure that the accused persons remain in jail in the matter. "This is a mala fide invocation (of UAPA) in order to just ensure that people don't get bail. FIR isn't worth the paper it's written on," Pais argued. Furthermore, Pais also highlighted the loopholes in the statements...

Is It Proper To Use Word 'Jumla' Against PM? There Has To Be 'Lakshman Rekha' For Criticism : Delhi HC On Umar Khalid's Speech

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

Is It Proper To Use Word 'Jumla' Against PM? There Has To Be 'Lakshman Rekha' For Criticism : Delhi HC On Umar Khalid's Speech

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