'Ideological Drivers Of Alleged Conspiracy' : Why Supreme Court Denied Bail To Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam

The Supreme Court, while denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case on Monday (January 5), held that their roles were not episodic but “architectural”, placing them at the top of the chain of command of the alleged conspiracy.A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria made a distinction between the roles attributed to them and the other co-accused. It stated that while the allegations against Khalid and Imam indicate a "central and directive role" in "conceptualising, planning and coordinating" the alleged larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots of February 2020, the roles of co-accused Gulfisha, Haider and others are merely subsidiary or facilitative in nature. As per the judgment authored by Justice Kumar, the Imam and Khalid are the alleged masterminds of the larger conspiracy and the materials by the prosecution in this regard are "direct, corroborative and contemporaneous". The Court stated that for the purpose of bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, it has only to see if the prosecution has presented a prima facie believable case. At the stage of bail, the Court cannot evaluate the defence arguments, and has confined its scrutiny to the prosecution's case.Role attributable to Khalid and Imam in general 1. Possessed command authority: Stated to have exercised command and authority to mobilise or influence individuals within or outside their immediate circle. It is stated that the chargesheet reveals that there is a vertical chain of command wherein conspiratorial-level decisions and strategic directions were allegedly emanated from them."At the outset, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are prima facie attributed a central role and alleged to be ideological drivers of the alleged conspiracy. The material relied upon against them is predominantly in the nature of speeches, meetings, digital communications, and alleged strategic deliberations, commencing immediately after the passage of the CAB/CAA. The charge-sheets attribute to them the role of formulating the protest strategy, including the alleged transition from sit-in demonstrations to chakka jams, selection of locations, and articulation of the broader political objective sought to be advanced. Their alleged acts are thus situated at the planning and preparatory stage, extending over a prolonged period."As against this, the Court said that co-accused Gulfisha, Meeran, Shifa Ur Rehmand and others have no "independent capacity" to mobilise resources or exert organisational leverage. Therefore, they don't present the same systematic risk. "In contradistinction, the remaining accused, namely Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shadab Ahmad, Athar Khan, and others are consistently described as local-level facilitators. Their alleged involvement is site-specific and operational, confined to particular localities such as Seelampur, Jafrabad, Chand Bagh, Jamia, and Shaheen Bagh. The allegations against them relate primarily to on-ground mobilisation, logistical coordination, funding at the local level, stockpiling of materials, and execution of directions allegedly received from above, rather than formulation of the overarching strategy."Conclusion: "Such allegations[ as against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam], when supported by preliminary material, compel heightened caution regarding the possibility of interference with witnesses or reactivation of dormant networks."2. Court can't determine at bail stage whether allegations satisfy ingredients of "terrorist act": Although the Court did not go into the ultimate determination, it holds that the scrutiny has to be whether the alleged acts are capable, at least prima facie, of engaging the statutory conception of threats to security and public order at the national level.The Court also held that the use of the phrase "by any other means of whatever nature" in Section 15 of the UAPA to conclude that terrorist act is not confined to conventional forms of violence only. "Apart from death or destruction of property, the provision expressly encompasses acts which disrupt supplies or services essential to the life of the community, as well as acts which threaten the economic security of the nation. This reflects Parliament's recognition that threats to sovereignty and security may arise through conduct that destabilises civic life or societal functioning, even in the absence of immediate physical violence."The Court held that the speeches attributed to Sharjeel Imam, and Umar Khalid's speech explaining the distinction between a chakka jam and a dharna, prima facie attracted the statutory conception of threat to the security of the State under Section 15.3. Continued detention of alleged masterminds required to protect larger security interests: The Court reasoned that the continued detention of the "architects" of conspiracy may be required to safeguard broader security interests and deter ...

'Ideological Drivers Of Alleged Conspiracy' : Why Supreme Court Denied Bail To Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

The Court said that Khalid and Imam had a "central and formative" role

Tags