Protest, conspiracy, and the mechanics of delay

In February 2020, as nationwide protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) intensified (see detailed ground report by Sabrang India), Delhi found itself engulfed not merely in political dissent, but in targeted violent communal conflagration. What began as vibrant rights’ based protests to assert constitutional rights and freedoms through parallel sit-ins and road blockades soon deteriorated –with the active election-driven hate campaigns of the right-wing – into three days of bloodshed across North-East Delhi, leaving 53 people dead, hundreds injured, and entire neighbourhoods reduced to ashes. The human toll was staggering—but what followed, in parallel, in the courts, was, in many ways, just as consequential. Two and a half years after the violence, a Citizens Inquiry Committee Consisting of Retired Judges severely indicted right-wing driven hate speeches and their amplification by an uncritical electronic media for the escalation.[1]

On March 6, 2020, (18 days before the NDA regime declared a nationwide lockdown on March 24) the Delhi Police’s Special Cell registered FIR 59/2020, alleging a “larger conspiracy” behind the riots. The charge sheet, filed on September 16, 2020, stretched over 17,000 pages, and wove together disparate acts of protest, civil disobedience, WhatsApp conversations, speeches, and financial transactions as the basis of an expansive narrative of terror conspiracy. Key provisions invoked included Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), and 153A (promoting enmity) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as several sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The UAPA designation was not incidental. It allowed the prosecution to sidestep conventional bail safeguards and extend pre-trial detention far beyond the thresholds permissible under the ordinary Criminal Law and Procedure. Over time, the 18 accused (mostly student leaders and activists), including Dr Umar Khalid, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Safoora Zargar, and Sharjeel Imam were arrested under the FIR. While some were already in custody in related cases, FIR 59/2020 became the prosecution’s keystone, binding together the politics of protest with the law’s harshest instruments. Khalid had been granted bail by ASJ Yadav on April 15, 2021, the order noting that he cannot be incarcerated on the basis of sketchy material. However, he remains in jail –after being arrested on September 14, 2020 under stringent UAPA charges for ‘being part of a larger conspiracy in the north east Delhi violence case of 2020.’

For rights activists, advocates and academics too, it is crucial to note that that the initial FIR (which speaks of the conspiracy by Umar Khalid and his ‘speeches’) did not even contain non-bailable offences let alone offences under the draconian UAPA. It is only after the initial set of arrested accused were released by the Magistrate on bail –were a set of non bailable offences were added.  At that point of time there already existed 750 FIRs for the different instances of violence and destruction of property and this FIR 59 was in addition to the same.  Safoora Zargar was arrested in one of the 751 FIRs and was granted bail within a day of two in the earlier offences. Before she could actually be even released from jail –the Delhi Police –in what a clear case of over reach and malice—arrested Safoora (who as mentioned above did not even find mention in FIR 59) by adding offences under the stringent UAPA.  This demonstrates that the purpose of the executive (prosecution) was to simply keep the student activists in jail, no matter what. Given that these were initial developments that had been called out by the defence in Court, the judiciary itself ought to have called this substantive and procedural injustice out.

As of mid-2025, not a single charge has been framed. The trial has remained frozen in its pre-charge phase for nearly five years. This extended inertia cannot be explained solely by the complexity of evidence. A significant part of the delay stems from what can only be described as judicial instability. The case has passed through multiple benches, with judges being reassigned, transferred, or rotated mid-way through critical proceedings. This institutional churn, as much as the statute books themselves, has shaped the case’s glacial pace and rendered a timely trial ever more elusive.

The calumny of calling out ‘delays’ by the defence

While at every bail hearing, virtually, accused rights defenders and their counsel have called out how the prosecution has (in a bid to bias the court and public opinion) sought to blame the defence for “delay”, even this tactic has been called out in court. Student activist, Khalid Safi has presented a detailed analysis of the delay in which he has demonstrated to the court that the delay is and has been only on account of a) the Prosecution; b)Judicial officers being unable to devote time and, c) the prosecution itself having sought and obtained a stay on the proceedings in order to contend that they would not make available the physical copy of the Final Reports / Charge sheets to the incarcerated accused, a contention which flies in the face of basic principles of natural justice.  How are incarcerated accused supposed to read 17000 pages in a charge sheet, without reasonable time to study these once they are provided, is the question asked?  Even if some time (and adjournments) by defence counsel are sought in the course of five long years, how can the plea for bail be ever resisted on that ground? Especially when the incarcerated accused have not in any manner gained from such delay. The delay has only prolonged their jail custody!

High cost of exercising fundamental freedoms

Of the total accused in the case, one, Tahir Hussain, is a politician and a former corporator. The rest, student activists and leaders protesting the anti-constitutional CAA 2019-NRC: Dr. Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan, and Natasha Narwal. Of the 18 named in the FIR, only six have been released on bail. Those are: Ishrat Jahan, Mohammad Faizan Khan, Safoora Zargar, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha. Even qua their (alleged) role in protests, a study of the charges reveals that there is no distinction that can be made between the roles of those human rights defenders (accused) who are in custody and those (already) granted bail.  What is more important is, that not a single act of violence, recovery of weapons, speech resulting in incitement, or call for violence can be attributed to them. This obvious lacunae is sought to be inserted or peppered in by belated third party statements which do not lead to recoveries (of such weapons) or connection to the rest of the 751 FIRS. Significantly, by the time the violence erupted in Delhi, Sharjeel Imam was in custody already (having been arrested on January 28, 2020 and Umar Khalid was not even present in Delhi when the violence took place.

Hence, ten Muslim student activists/human rights defenders—one woman and eight men, many of them bright youth leaders–are facing “charges of terrorism” in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case are enduring serious and questionable systemic failures in their judicial quest for bail. Judgements have been reserved while and after Judges have been transferred and hearings inexplicably delayed. Several of the petitions have been pending for several months in the Delhi high court.

One woman, Gulfisha Fatima and nine men– Dr Umar Khalid, Saleem, Sharjeel Imam, Abdul Khali Saifi, Meeran Haider, Salim Malik, Shifa Ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Athar Khan – are those so unjustly incarcerated. Although a special bench consisting of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar listed the nine bail petitions for hearing between 34 and 60 times since April 2022 and even concluded hearings and reserved judgements in six between January and March 2023 – petitions of Saifi, Fatima, Haider, Malik, Rehman, and Saleem – it failed to deliver a final judgement.

Gulfisha Fatima who was arrested in April 2020 – two months after the Delhi riots has had an excruciatingly gruelling challenge to get bail. The bench comprising Justices Mridul and Bhatnagar had reserved its order on her bail application on February 13, 2023—a good nine months after she filed an appeal against a Delhi court’s refusal to grant her bail in March 2022! As if this were not enough, then came the double whammy when, on July 5, 2023, the Supreme Court collegium recommended Justice Mridul’s transfer to the Manipur high court as its chief justice – which the Union government cleared three months later on October 16 – and a little more than a month later, Justice Bhatnagar’s transfer to the Rajasthan high court. A new bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur was then scheduled to hear the nine cases afresh, further prolonging incarceration. On November 1, 2023, Justices Kait and Kaur fixed dates for re-hearings thereafter in January and February the next year, 2024. Barely had this happened was the announcement of the judicial elevation of one of the judges, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait as Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh with effect from September 2024!! Now, the matters lie before the bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Shailender Kaur.

The Amitabh Rawat phase: bail, paperwork, but no charge hearings

In the initial years of the case, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat became closely associated with the 2020 riot-related UAPA matters. Sitting at the Karkardooma District Court, ASJ Rawat presided over several procedural applications and bail hearings, including the rejection of Umar Khalid’s bail under the Delhi Riots Conspiracy FIR in March 2022, in an order running over 40 pages that leaned heavily and only on the prosecution’s narrative. Khalid had put up a rigorous and detailed defence through advocate Trideep Pais arguing that  there were 750 FIRs registered before February 28, 2020 and the FIR 59/2020 (UAPA conspiracy case), that implicates Umar was registered on March 6, 2020. He argued that there was no occasion or event to register FIR 59/2020 and nobody should have been arrested under it. “The charge sheet filed before conclusively shows that there was no crime disclosed when the complaint was made”, he said. Secondly, Adv Pais had pointed out that the police relied on the speech from a YouTube clip used by news agencies (News 18 and Republic TV), and not the entire speech delivered by Khalid in Amravati, Maharashtra. He added that when the news channels were asked by the police to provide the source of the speech, they said that they relied on a tweet made by Amit Malaviya. More details of the previous hearings may be read in this SabrangIndia report. (Amit Malviya heads the Bharatiya Janata Party’s notorious IT cell and dubs himself National In-charge of BJP’s Information & technology division).

What is crucial to iterate –is how arguments on charge—i.e., whether there exists sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial in FIR 59/2020– had not even begun during the period that ASJ Rawat was hearing the case. Between 2020 and 2023, the case lingered in a kind of procedural purgatory. Defence counsel frequently complained of non-supply of documents, prosecution delays, and the overwhelming volume of evidence. In reality, much of the delay was structural.

In 2023, ASJ Rawat was transferred. That transfer, like many others in the Delhi judiciary, was part of an administrative reshuffle ordered by the Delhi High Court—routine, unremarkable, and yet, in this case, consequential.

The Bajpai phase: a brief flicker of momentum

Judge Rawat’s successor, ASJ Sameer Bajpai, took over and finally initiated arguments on charge in FIR 59/2020 in September 2023. It was the first real procedural movement in over three years. The prosecution, led by the Special Public Prosecutor, opened with oral arguments on the alleged chain of events, the documentary and electronic evidence, and the roles ascribed to each accused. These arguments spanned several months and were concluded by early 2024.

Between October 2023 and March 2024, five defence teams also completed their arguments on charge, contesting the admissibility, interpretation, and weight of the evidence. Some submissions focused on the unreliability of protected witness statements, while others attacked the temporal inconsistencies in the police narrative. At last, it seemed that the case was approaching the critical moment when the court would decide whether to frame charges and commit the accused to trial.In the period when the matter was before Bajpai, on May 28, 2024, he had declined bail to Dr Umar Khalid on the ground noting that “no ‘deep analysis’ of the facts of the case can be undertaken at this stage.[2] Then, just as the matter appeared to turn a procedural corner, it slipped back.

May 2025: Bajpai’s transfer

On May 30, 2025, the Delhi High Court issued a routine transfer order affecting 135 judicial officers, including ASJ Bajpai. He was posted out of Shahdara, where the UAPA-designated court was situated, and reassigned to a fast-track court in Saket. In his place came ASJ Lalit Kumar.

ASJ Kumar, upon assuming charge, directed on June 2 that arguments on charge must begin afresh. The logic, presumably, was that he had not heard the earlier submissions, and a judge cannot rely on oral arguments presented to another. That may be legally sound, but it placed defence lawyers, many of whose clients had already spent four to five years in pre-trial detention, back at square one. Their submissions, objections, and detailed rebuttals would now need to be repeated. While the prosecution, too, would have to reargue a 17,000-page brief.

This reset triggered public outrage. A few lawyers remarked, off the record, that the process resembled “litigating in a loop.” The wheel was being reinvented, they said, just as it had begun to move.

A rare act of introspection: The High Court reverses course

In an unusual gesture that revealed both institutional awareness and tacit acknowledgment of error, the Delhi High Court revoked Bajpai’s transfer on June 19, directing that he return to the UAPA-designated court from July 1. The order stated that in view of the advanced stage of arguments, and the complexity of the material involved, judicial continuity was paramount.

This reversal was not merely administrative, but a quiet admission that the justice system had come perilously close to collapsing under its own bureaucracy. While defence and prosecution lawyers alike welcomed ASJ Bajpai’s return, they also knew that the damage could not be entirely undone.

At any rate, the institutional volatility on display in FIR 59/2020 has not been unique to this case, but its consequences here are particularly acute. The accused are not free on bail, as many remain in custody under a preventive detention regime that forecloses easy release. The charges involve allegations of terrorism, which, under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, make bail nearly impossible unless the court can prima facie reject the prosecution’s theory—a standard that demands more than mere reasonable doubt. In such a context, delays are not procedural inconveniences, but become carceral sentences in and of themselves. However, despite these stringent legal hurdles, it needs recall, that the same Delhi high court that has refused bail in ten cases (11 including Tahir Hussain) did grant bail to three student activists, Asif Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita in June 2021, a year after their incarceration, looking at the same evidence under UAPA charges and making conclusive and creative interpretations on definitions of how legitimate protest cannot be interpreted, under a stringent anti-terror law as ‘act/acts of terrorism’.

Disruptions, duration, and separate interventions

Nearly 1,825 days have elapsed since FIR 59/2020 was lodged. The charge sheet was filed within six months (Sept 2020), but the trial court did not begin substantive charge‑arguments until September 2023, a gap of three years. Between then and the May 2024 transfer, roughly 40 sessions saw prosecution and defence arguments but those efforts were effectively nullified by judicial transfers and reshuffle.

Alongside trial delays, bail hearings have languished in similar fashion. A subset of eight accused — Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa‑ur‑Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Athar Khan, and Mohammad Saleem Khan have their bail pleas pending before the Delhi High Court since mid‑2022. Analysis and reporting by Scroll and CourtPractice shows:

These pleas have been listed, on average, 60–70 times each. Despite multiple benches finishing oral arguments, no orders have been delivered in most cases. Many listings were cancelled because:

• The special benches failed to assemble (44 occasions for Imam alone).
• Judges were unavailable due to workload or roster conflicts.
• Local administrative notes commonly record “bench did not assemble”.

Haider’s plea was listed 60 times, but heard only 9 times; similar lags affected others.

Justice Mridul & Bhatnagar bench’s involvement in several cases (Haider, Fatima, Saifi, Meeran, Ahmed, Athar) with orders reserved only to be derailed when Justice Mridul was transferred (Nov 2023); the pleas were withdrawn and re‑heard from scratch by a new bench.

The net effect: accused who had been in custody for over four years found themselves awaiting bail hearings under the same substantive arguments reargued all over again.

Several accused have sought higher‑court recourse. For instance:

• Sharjeel Imam filed a writ plea under Article 32 in the Supreme Court (Oct 2024), asking for expedited hearing of his Delhi High Court bail petition pending since April 2022. The SC directed the HC to act expeditiously. Clearly however, the matters have still stagnated.
• Gulfisha Fatima similarly approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 in Nov 2024 to expedite her HC bail plea; the SC politely declined interim relief but instructed the HC to decide swiftly. Here again, the matter languishes while Gulsfisha remains in jail.
• In May 2023, the SC dismissed the state’s appeal against bail granted to Kalita, Narwal, and Tanha, declaring that other accused could seek bail on parity grounds.

Several petitions request speedy trial direction or time-bound adherence to statutory limits. Yet to date, no constitutional court has set firm timelines, and the trial remains in procedural deep freeze.

Bail under UAPA: the framework

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, by design, constructs a space where bail is not the rule but the exception. This inversion of the ‘bail, not jail’ standard presumption in criminal law is orchestrated through Section 43D(5). The provision stipulates that:

“…no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall be released on bail if the Court, on perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the CrPC, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true.”

In practice, this replaces judicial discretion with a form of prosecutorial veto. It empowers the State to, effectively, keep an accused in jail until the court is prepared to rule (not on their innocence, but) on whether the State’s accusations might be believable on their face.

This presumption becomes crucial in cases such as FIR 59/2020, where the “offence” is not an overt act but a constructed chain of intent, coordination, and alleged incitement, which is, in essence, an interpretive and inferential exercise. UAPA thus raises the evidentiary burden at the bail stage and lowers the threshold for incarceration.

Key Supreme Court decisions: The shifting ground

1. NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019)

The Watali judgment remains the doctrinal cornerstone for bail under UAPA. The Court held that:

• At the bail stage, courts must not engage in a “detailed analysis of evidence.”
• If the materials prima facie support the allegations, bail should be refused.

This judgment placed extraordinary weight on the accusatory narrative of the police and practically barred trial courts from engaging in critical evaluation of the evidence. Bail became contingent not on the likelihood of conviction, but on the superficial cogency of the State’s documents.

In the years since Watali, multiple High Courts have invoked its ratio to deny bail in UAPA cases involving students, journalists, and civil society members. It became a script, prosecution affidavits were rarely interrogated; the court would peruse the material and affirm its prima facie acceptability.

2. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021)

This case marked a modest pushback. The Court granted bail despite the UAPA bar, on the grounds that the accused had spent five years in custody without trial commencing. The court held that the five and half years Najeeb spent as an undertrial prisoner became a crucial factor. The Court invoked Shaheen Welfare Association v Union of India to hold that ‘gross delay’ in trial violates the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. A fundamental right violation could be used as a ground for granting bail. Even if the case is under stringent criminal legislation including anti-terror laws, prolonged delay in a trial necessitates granting of bail. Citizens for Justice and Peace has undertaken a comparative analysis of both judgements that may be read here

However, the judgement remains sparse and highly case-specific. In FIR 59/2020, for example, most High Court benches have not invoked Najeeb, despite similar facts.

3. Anand Teltumbde v. National Investigation Agency: The Bombay High Court, on November 18, 2022, granted bail to Prof. Anand Teltumbde, accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, making it the first judgement, among 16 accused, to be granted on merits. The bench comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav held that no prima facie case was made out against Teltumbde to establish that he was involved in any terrorist acts. Charges had been invoked against him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court held that offences under section 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act) and 18 (conspiracy) of the UAPA are not made out against him. The 72-year-old scholar had been in custody since April 14, 2020 when he was arrested by the NIA. While the NIA challenged this in appeal, the Supreme Court of India upheld the bail given by the Bombay High Court.

4.Vernon Gonsalves & Arun Ferreira v. State of Maharashtra (2023)

In legal and academic circles, Vernon Gonsalves is seen as a vital course correction. The Supreme Court granted bail to two accused in the Bhima Koregaon case and subtly recalibrated the UAPA bail standard set in Watali. While not explicitly overruling Watali, the Court held that a “surface-level analysis of the probative value of evidence” is essential when assessing whether the case is prima facie true under Section 43D (5) of UAPA.

This marked a departure from the mechanical, deferential reading of Watali that discouraged scrutiny of prosecution material. By requiring courts to assess some believability in the evidence and not merely its existence, the Vernon ruling offered a doctrinal opening for more meaningful judicial engagement at the bail stage. Yet, because both rulings came from benches of equal strength, the ambiguity remains to persist, leaving lower courts and prosecutors free to selectively rely on either approach unless the Supreme Court resolves the interpretive conflict explicitly.

The Delhi High Court’s continued deferral of bail orders in FIR 59/2020, despite the arguments being complete and the accused having spent 4+ years in custody, suggests that the inertia from Watali remains dominant.

High Court jurisprudence: Delhi’s reluctance and reticence

The Delhi High Court has had multiple opportunities to apply Vernon Gonsalves and Najeeb, especially in the context of FIR 59/2020. But the pattern reveals caution verging on abstention.

In Devangana Kalita v. State (NCT of Delhi) and related cases involving Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, the court (bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani and Justice Mridul) in 2021 granted bail on the ground that protest cannot be conflated with terrorism. The judgment examined the contours of what amounts to a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of UAPA and found that the State had overstretched the charge.  They also in almost a prophetic manner stated that though at that point of time, the accused had spent a year in custody, the principle of a constitutional court taking into consideration the right to speedy trial as an aspect of the right to life should apply.  This was irrespective of the stringent and restrictive bail provisions following the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in K.A Najeeb.  The court held so because, there was no movement whatsoever (in the trial) for a year. Given the volumes of witnesses and documents, further delay was inevitable, making the accused’s right to life through speedy trial otiose (obsolete) if bail was not granted. This prophecy –and the principles enunciated in those judgements—have come true because five years later, the case has not moved forward at all!

These judgments were subsequently challenged by the State in the Supreme Court, which stayed their precedential value, though not the actual bail orders. As a result, other UAPA accused, despite similar charges and material, could not invoke those bail precedents as binding except for seeking to invite the Courts’ attention to factual parity. It is however quite clear after the Judgments in Ranjitsing Brahmajeet Sing Sharma, Vernon Gonsalves, Shoma Kanti Sen and Sudesh Kedia, that the prosecution’s ipse dixit in the chargesheet is just not sufficient to hold that there is a prima facie case be it simpliciter reading of statements, documents produced along with or the report itself for the courts are (i) required to go through all material and (ii) do a surface analysis of the material to see if the charge of terror is even made out.  The Judgment in Watali had been read and interpreted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Supreme Court of India to mean that the allegations in the Final Report and the statements had to be read as they are.  That interpretation is completely flawed for the reason that if that were so, where is the need for the Judiciary?  In fact Watali itself says, the material should ‘good and sufficient on the face of it’ such a finding would require some analysis of the material on record.    Despite these  Judgments in Ranjitsing, Shoma, Vernon and Kedia, Umar Khalid’s bail at every stage has simply been rejected only on the basis of the prosecution’s say so with absolutely no application of mind.  It is interesting that Justice Mridul has granted bail to Devangana, Natasha and Asif and in the same chargesheet with lesser allegations and lack of even presence has denied bail to Umar Khalid

In the case of Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider, the Delhi High Court has heard arguments multiple times since mid-2022 but has withheld orders. The reasoning is neither public nor transparent. At times, it has appeared that judicial reassignment, rather than doctrinal difficulty, is to blame.

Even when Justice Siddharth Mridul’s bench heard and reserved judgment on some of these bail applications, his transfer derailed the outcome. Despite re-hearings, no decisions have been delivered. Judges who completed hearings have either been reassigned or replaced, returning the pleas to procedural limbo.

UAPA, delay and the punishment of process

Perhaps the most profound tension between bail jurisprudence and the structure of UAPA is the conceptual separation between trial delay and the statutory bar on bail. The prosecution consistently argues that the material is complex, the conspiracy vast, and the trial long. Yet, they simultaneously resist bail even when the accused have been in custody for four to five years.

In Siddique Kappan v. State (2022 Supreme Court), the courts reiterated that prolonged incarceration without trial may violate Article 21, and bail cannot be refused merely on the ground that the UAPA bar exists. Still, the use of these cases remains sporadic.

In theory, Section 436A CrPC allows bail for undertrial prisoners who have undergone half of the maximum sentence (in non-capital offences). But UAPA offences often carry life imprisonment as the maximum penalty, making the threshold meaningless in practice.

The absence of time-bound charge framing, combined with the absence of mandatory periodic bail reviews, transforms UAPA into a tool of preventive detention without having to declare it as such.

Some other judgements in which the Supreme Court has, under UAPA, granted bail, may be read here. On April 6, 2024, the court reversed an order of the Bombay High Court refusing to grant academic Shoma Sen bail. Sen had argued that her prolonged detention since 2018 (six years) lacked prima facie evidence under UAPA and had also highlighted her advanced age and health issues. Though the bail conditions were stringent, the apex court, emphasised the necessity of prima facie evidence under Section 43D (5) of UAPA and underscored the importance of constitutional safeguards against prolonged pre-trial detention. Several judgements have been cited by the Supreme Court in support of its reasoning.

The path forward

What emerges from this study is a judiciary that is simultaneously constrained by precedent and unwilling to revise it. Despite Supreme Court signals in Vernon Gonsalves, Najeeb, and Kalita, many courts persist with the Watali-era conservatism.

To break the impasse:

1. Trial courts must critically evaluate “prima facie truth.” If the material is tenuous or contradictory, Watali must not apply. A “surface-level assessment” should become a routine part of bail hearings.
2. High Courts should expedite decisions in long-pending bail pleas. That some pleas are heard for 70 sessions without an order erodes public confidence in judicial efficacy.
3. Legislative reform may be necessary. A statutory amendment mandating bail review after two years in UAPA cases (much like TADA’s sunset clause) should be considered.
4. Judicial continuity should be prioritised. If a bench hears a bail application in full, it should be obligated to deliver an order, or the matter must be reassigned immediately with transcripts provided.

The evolution of UAPA bail jurisprudence is not merely a matter of law, it is a record of how fear, caution, and institutional deference have increasingly replaced scrutiny and principle. When a court does not rule for two years on a bail plea already argued in full, it is not the law that is failing, but the infrastructure around it.

In cases like FIR 59/2020, the punishment is the process. With trials yet to start, charges unframed, and pleas unheard, the UAPA becomes a penal sentence administered without conviction.

The law may say prima facie, but the effect is indefinite detention dressed in the robes of legality. A system that is so allergic to finality may well ask whether it is in the business of justice, or of deferral.

Image Courtesy: Burned shops in North East Delhi. Photo: Banswalhemant / Wikimedia Commons

Related:

UAPA: Delhi HC denies bail, Umar Khalid’s Incarceration to Continue

4 years onward, activist Gulfisha Fatima remains behind bars

[1] The Citizens Commission of Inquiry commented upon the unbalanced (read biased) non-application of provisions of the Indian penal Code (IPC) against powerful hate offenders on the one hand (these include the notorious Kapil Mishra, Ragini Tiwari and Yati Narsinghanand among others) and failure to prosecute was matched by the unfair and selective application of the dreaded UA(P)A against young protesters, concludes the report. The absence of setting up of an independent Commission of Inquiry has also been commented upon. The report that may be read here was authored by Justice Madan B. Lokur, former Judge of the Supreme Court (chairperson); Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of the Madras and Delhi High Courts and former Chairman, Law Commission; Justice R.S. Sodhi, former Judge of the Delhi High Court; Justice Anjana Prakash, former Judge of the Patna High Court; and G.K. Pillai, IAS (Retd.), former Home Secretary, Government of India.

[2] The judge had also observed that Khalid’s bail plea had been earlier rejected by the Sessions Court and his appeal against the order was further dismissed by the Delhi High Court as the latter found the case against the accused prima facie true. Notably, Umar Khalid had filed second bail plea with the Sessions Court after he withdrew his bail application from the Supreme Court citing “change in circumstances” to try  his “luck” in trial court. Pertinent, before Khalid withdrew his bail petition from the SC, the case had already witnessed 14 adjournments. Earlier, the Session Court had rejected his first bail application on March 24, 2022, following which he moved to the Delhi High Court, which again rejected his appeal on October 18, 2022. As the Sessions Court rejects his latest bail petition on 28 May, Khalid continues to remain in jail for more than three and half years (this period is now close to five years!) even as some of the co-accused in the case have secured bail, including Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal. Khalid’s counsel pointed out this fact and argued that his client should be granted bail on parity, but the court rejected his arguments.

The post How the Delhi riots case remains stagnant with close to a dozen student leaders incarcerated appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasia of the Rouse Avenue Courts orally remarked, “this means FIR,” indicating that the court’s directive for further investigation effectively necessitates the registration of a First Information Report against Mishra. The judge observed that a cognizable offence had been established concerning one of the incidents detailed in the complaint, warranting deeper scrutiny.

The court stated that the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly placed Mishra at the scene and that “all the things were corroborating.” It further noted that Mishra, during interrogation, admitted to being in the area and acknowledged that people had gathered around him, many of whom he knew. This admission, the court stated, “fortifies the allegations of the complainant.”

Significantly, the court pointed out that Mishra’s statement was not framed in terms of support for or opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) but rather in explicitly communal terms. The court noted that Mishra “had not framed his statement under ‘Pro-CAA or Anti-CAA’ but rather ‘DUSRI TARAF MUSLIM’ with the distinction of us and them, wherein them is ‘DUSRI TARAF MUSLIM.’” The judge remarked that such rhetoric “clearly establishes sides and requires investigation to unearth the truth.”

As per a report in LiveLaw, the court further observed that Mishra’s presence in North-East Delhi a day before the riots, which he himself admitted, could not be ignored. Additionally, it directed that senior police officer DCP Ved Prakash Surya be examined, following allegations by the complainant that Surya had threatened protesters, saying, “If you did not stop this protest, then consequence will happen here that you will be killed.” The judge stressed that “his personal interrogation is necessary,” adding, “The series of events reveals that perhaps, if allegations of complainant are found to be true, then DCP Ved Prakash Surya knows something which this Judiciary does not.”

At the same time, the court stated that if the complainant’s allegations were proven false, the Delhi Police would be at liberty to take action under Section 182 of the IPC for filing false information. It also directed the DCP of North-East Delhi to ensure that the order for further investigation was sent to the appropriate police station within its jurisdiction. Failure to comply, the court warned, would hold the DCP legally accountable.

The Delhi Police has been ordered to file a compliance report by April 16, 2025, the next date of hearing. Petitioner Mohammad Ilyas was represented by Advocate Mehmood Pracha, while Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad appeared for the Delhi Police.

This directive represents a major step towards accountability in the 2020 Delhi riots case, even if it is beginning 5 years down the lane. Despite the political climate and prior reluctance to act against influential figures, the court’s insistence on further investigation highlights the need for an impartial and thorough probe into the events leading to the communal violence.

Details of the complaint against Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra

A Delhi court was hearing a complaint filed by Mohammad Ilyas, seeking an investigation into the alleged role of BJP leader and Delhi Minister Kapil Mishra in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The plea, however, was met with strong opposition from the Delhi Police, who argued that Mishra was being falsely implicated as part of a “well-planned conspiracy.”

The complainant, Mohammad Ilyas, sought the registration of an FIR against Mishra, along with then SHO of Dayalpur police station and five other individuals, including BJP MLA Mohan Singh Bisht and former BJP MLAs Jagdish Pradhan and Satpal Sansad.

According to Ilyas, on February 23, 2020, he personally witnessed Mishra and his associates blocking a road and destroying the handcarts of street vendors. He also alleged that the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (North-East) and other officers were present alongside Mishra as he issued warnings to anti-CAA protesters, demanding they vacate the area or face dire consequences.

Ilyas had moved the court in December 2024, urging an inquiry into the roles of Mishra and six others in the riots, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries. In March 2025, the Delhi Police reiterated their stance, arguing that Mishra’s role had already been investigated and “nothing incarcerating” had been found.

In his petition, Ilyas specifically named Mishra, Mustafabad MLA and Deputy Speaker Mohan Singh Bisht, the then DCP (North-East), the then SHO of Dayalpur police station, and former BJP legislator Jagdish Pradhan, holding them responsible for inciting the riots. As reported by The Hindu, Ilyas stated that he saw Mishra and his associates obstructing a road in Kardampuri and damaging street vendors’ stalls. Additionally, he alleged that the former North-East DCP and several police officers stood by as Mishra issued threats to anti-CAA demonstrators.

Ilyas also accused the former Dayalpur SHO and others of vandalising mosques across North-East Delhi, further intensifying concerns over the role of law enforcement in the communal violence.

Delhi Police opposes plea seeking FIR

On March 6, 2025, the Delhi Police filed a written submission before a Delhi court, opposing a plea that sought the registration of an FIR against BJP leader and Delhi Minister Kapil Mishra for his alleged involvement in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

The police contended that the complaint, filed by Mohammad Ilyas, was part of a “well-planned conspiracy” to falsely implicate Mishra in the riots. They asserted that the BJP leader had no role in the violence and was being deliberately framed.

As part of their argument, the prosecution referred to conversations from various WhatsApp groups, including the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG), alleging that certain individuals had orchestrated a social media campaign against Mishra. The police claimed that the hashtag #ArrestKapilMishra was being used strategically to construct a misleading narrative around his involvement in the riots.

Additionally, the Delhi Police maintained that Mishra’s alleged role had already been investigated and that no incriminating evidence was found against him. In an earlier submission from October 2024, the police argued that the riots were the outcome of a “pre-planned conspiracy” designed to incite violence in Muslim-majority areas, particularly around mosques and religious sites. The goal, they claimed, was to escalate “protests” into “Chakkajaam” (road blockades) once a critical mass of demonstrators had gathered.

The police further stated that misleading WhatsApp messages were circulated at the time, falsely alleging that a mob led by Mishra had initiated the violence. They insisted that these claims were part of an attempt to create a false narrative and implicate him in the riots.

Opposition demands resignation of Kapil Mishra following court’s order

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Congress on April 1, 2025, demanded the resignation of Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra after a city court directed the registration of an FIR to investigate his alleged role in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

Addressing a press conference, Delhi AAP president Saurabh Bharadwaj stated that sufficient evidence of Mishra’s involvement was already in the public domain and called for his immediate arrest. “Mishra should resign and be arrested, as the court has ordered an FIR to probe his role in the riots. For the sake of morality, he should step down, just as others accused in the case have been arrested,” Bharadwaj asserted.

As per the report of Times of India, Bharadwaj further criticised the delay in legal proceedings, pointing out that it took over five years for the judicial system to act on the case. Bharadwaj also alleged that a judge who had previously directed the police to take action in the case was transferred to another state.

AAP’s chief spokesperson Priyanka Kakkar echoed the demand, questioning why Mishra was being treated differently from others accused in the riots. “Every other accused in the Delhi riots case has been arrested. Why is Kapil Mishra an exception?” she asked.

Delhi Congress president Devender Yadav also called for Mishra’s resignation, citing the court’s findings. “The Rouse Avenue court has established that there is a cognisable offence against him. This is a serious matter, and if there is any sense of morality left, he should resign immediately to allow for a fair and independent investigation,” Yadav said.

Delhi riots case and Mishra’s incendiary speech

The 2020 North-East Delhi riots: The 2020 Delhi riots, which took place between 24 and 26 February, led to significant violence in North-East Delhi, resulting in 53 deaths, over 500 injuries, and extensive property damage. Ironically, while a majority of those killed and harmed were Muslims, most of those who have been arrested for their role during the riots are also Muslims. Several student leaders and activists, including Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, and Sharjeel Imam, were accused by the police of conspiring to incite the riots. These remain in jail, with the trial yet to begin. However, a fact-finding team formed by the Delhi Minorities Commission concluded that the violence was “planned and targeted” and held BJP leader Kapil Mishra responsible for triggering it.

Mishra’s alleged role in inciting violence: Delhi Cabinet Minister and BJP leader Kapil Mishra is accused of provoking violence through a speech delivered at Maujpur Chowk on February 23, 2020. In his speech, he issued an ultimatum, demanding that the police clear anti-CAA protest sites within three days or risk intervention by his supporters.

The fact-finding report had noted that “violence started in different pockets almost immediately after the short speech of Shri Kapil Mishra on 23 February, 2020, at Maujpur, in which he openly called for forcefully removing the protestors at Jafrabad in North-East Delhi.” It further highlighted Mishra’s explicit warning: “After that, we will not listen to the police if roads are not cleared after three days…”

The committee criticised the Delhi Police for failing to act against Mishra, despite senior officer DCP Ved Prakash Surya standing beside him during the speech. The report stated that “the open admission of ‘not listening’ to the police and extra-legal tactics should have been seen by the authorities as inciting violence.” The committee concluded that by not apprehending Mishra, the police “failed to take the first and most immediate preventive step needed to avoid violence and protect life and property.”

Legal challenges against Mishra and other political leaders: Multiple legal petitions have been filed seeking an FIR against Kapil Mishra for inciting violence. Human rights defender Harsh Mander had petitioned for an FIR against Mishra under Section 153 of the IPC (provocation for riot) and Section 125 of the Representation of People’s Act (causing ill will between communities for electoral purposes). These sections do not require prior government sanction.

Similarly, CPI (M) leader Brinda Karat has been pursuing legal action against politicians whose speeches allegedly incited violence against anti-CAA-NRC-NPR protestors. She approached the Delhi High Court after her plea to register an FIR against Union Minister Anurag Thakur and BJP MP Pravesh Verma for their alleged hate speeches was dismissed by a trial court on technical grounds. The trial court had ruled that a prior sanction from the central government was required before proceeding. Karat challenged this ruling, arguing that such procedural objections should be addressed early to prevent unnecessary delays in cases involving hate speech. (Details may be read here.)

Related:

Kapil Mishra delivers anti-Muslim statements, targets activist Harsh Mander in his speech

Kajal Hindusthani, Kapil Mishra, amongst others, target Muslim religious minorities, calls for their “erasure” and “Ghar Wapasi” unchallenged

Did Kapil Mishra’s Ram Navami speech incite communal violence, demolition drive in Khargone?

I have no regrets, if need be, I’d do it again: Kapil Mishra

CJP moves MEITY against Kapil Mishra’s communal social media posts

The post “This Means FIR”: Delhi Court orders further investigation, FIR against BJP leader Kapil Mishra five years after Delhi riots appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Perhaps most disturbing is the court’s order directing the registration of an FIR against the former SHO of Jyoti Nagar police station for his alleged role in the custodial torture of riot victims. A widely circulated video had already shown police officers beating Muslim men and forcing them to chant nationalistic and religious slogans, yet no action was taken until judicial intervention. The complainant, Mohd. Wasim, recounted being brutally assaulted, thrown onto a pile of injured men, and later coerced into signing false statements. The court’s findings make it clear that the police did not just fail to protect riot victims; they actively targeted them. These three rulings, taken together, expose a grim reality—law enforcement in Delhi was not just ineffective during the riots, but in many cases, became complicit in deepening the communal divide. While the courts have intervened, these judgments also serve as a reminder of how easily institutions can be weaponised when accountability is absent.

1. The shielding of BJP MLA Kapil Mishra: Delhi Police’s selective investigation

One of the most critical observations made by the court came in the case involving BJP leader Kapil Mishra, whose incendiary speech on February 23, 2020, is widely believed to have instigated violence in North-East Delhi. The complainant, Mohd. Wasim, alleged that he saw Mishra leading an unlawful assembly and firing gunshots at protestors. However, despite these serious allegations, the police’s Action Taken Report (ATR) was completely silent on Mishra’s role. Through his order issued on January 18, 2025, Judicial Magistrate Udbhav Kumar Jain of the Karkardooma Court pointed out that the investigating officer (IO) had either deliberately avoided probing Mishra’s involvement or actively sought to cover it up. This observation reinforces the perception that Delhi Police has, at times, acted as a shield for politically connected individuals rather than as an impartial law enforcement body.

In the order, the Magistrate observed, “it seems that the IO was more concerned about the police officials and either he failed to make inquiry against the alleged accused no.3 (Kapil Mishra), or he tried to cover up the allegations against the said accused. The ATR is completely silent qua him (Mishra).”

“The principle behind Section 153A IPC is to preserve religious/communal harmony and it is the duty of every citizen that while he enjoys his right to express himself, he preserves religious harmony. This indeed is the positive aspect of Secularism,” the judge said in its order.

The court further stressed that public figures like Mishra bear a higher responsibility to act within the constitutional framework and not make statements that disrupt communal harmony. This order underscores how the police failed in their duty to investigate a politician accused of inciting violence while aggressively pursuing cases against others.

“The alleged accused no.3 (Kapil Mishra) is in public eyes and is prone to more scrutiny; such persons in the society direct the course/mood of the public at large and thus, responsible behaviour within the ambit of the Constitution of India is expected from such persons,” the Court said.

The order may be read here.

2. Dubious prosecutions: Acquittal of Six Accused Due to Flimsy Evidence

In another case, on February 3, 2025, the Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala acquitted six individuals accused of being part of a riotous mob that engaged in arson and destruction in Gokalpuri. The court found serious lapses in the prosecution’s case, particularly the unreliable testimonies of two police witnesses, Assistant Sub-Inspectors Vanvir and Jahangir. The officers claimed to have identified the accused in videos but were only examined in December 2020—almost ten months after the riots. The court noted that if the officers had already known the accused, as they claimed, there was no need for them to identify them in videos later. Additionally, one of them failed to even recognise three accused individuals in court.

“If they knew the names of the accused persons and if they had seen these persons in the mob of rioters, then there was no need and occasion for them to identify the accused persons in any video,” it said.

This case illustrates how the Delhi Police sought to frame individuals using questionable evidence while failing to investigate more pressing allegations against political figures and police personnel. The delay in examining key witnesses and the lack of credible identification further point to the possibility of wrongful arrests and politically motivated prosecutions.

“This delay in examining these two police officials, who were posted in the same police station, certainly casts doubt over the veracity of the prosecution’s case. The investigating officer did not tender any reason for such delay in recording the statement of these witnesses,” the Court said, as per a report in Bar&Bench.

3. Police complicity in custodial violence: FIR ordered against former SHO

Perhaps the most egregious case of police misconduct came in the case involving the custodial torture of riot victims, including Faizan, a young Muslim man who later died from his injuries. A widely circulated video from the riots showed Delhi Police personnel beating injured Muslim men and forcing them to sing the national anthem and chant slogans like “Jai Shri Ram” and “Vande Mataram.” The brutality captured in the footage was emblematic of the communal bias and impunity with which certain officers acted during the riots.

The complainant, Mohd. Wasim, provided a chilling account of how he was beaten, thrown onto a pile of other injured victims, and later taken to Jyoti Nagar police station, where the then-SHO and other officers continued to torture them. He was allegedly forced to sign false statements and give misleading accounts to the media under police pressure. Despite such grave allegations, the Delhi Police refused to act until a court intervened. In its order, Magistrate Udbhav Kumar Jain ordered the registration of an FIR against the former SHO under serious charges, including wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, and deliberate religious insult.

“Clearly, the SHO PS Jyoti Nagar, Mr. Tomar (complete name with post not provided) and other unknown police officials engaged themselves in hate crimes against the complainant/victim and they cannot be protected under the garb of sanction as alleged offences committed by them cannot be said to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge if their official duty,” the Court added, as per Bar&Bench.

“Current SHO is directed to depute a responsible officer not below the rank of Inspector to conduct investigation in the present matter and role of other unknown police officials involved in the commission of alleged offences,” added the court.

The court categorically rejected the police’s argument that the accused officers were merely performing their official duties, stating that hate crimes committed by those in uniform cannot be excused under the guise of law enforcement.

“FIR be registered under sections 295-A/323/342/506 IPC against the SHO PS Jyoti Nagar (Mr. Tomar) who was holding the said post in February-March 2020,” the order stated.

This judgment reaffirms the necessity of accountability for custodial violence, particularly in cases where state institutions themselves become perpetrators of communal violence.

The larger picture: A systemic failure

Taken together, these three orders expose a systemic failure in policing during the 2020 Delhi riots. The courts have repeatedly highlighted:

• Selective investigation: While cases against political figures like Kapil Mishra were ignored, others were prosecuted with flimsy or fabricated evidence.
• Complicity in violence: Police personnel not only failed to control the riots but, in some instances, actively participated in violence and custodial torture.
• Bias in legal proceedings: Individuals from marginalised communities were falsely implicated, while officers and politicians aligned with the ruling party enjoyed impunity.

The Delhi Police’s actions—or lack thereof—during and after the riots raise serious concerns about institutional bias and political interference in law enforcement. These court observations serve as a crucial indictment of a law enforcement agency that has repeatedly been accused of favouring one side in communal conflicts. While the judicial interventions are significant, they also expose the limitations of legal remedies in the absence of genuine political will for police accountability and reform.

Related:

Brinda Karat on the Third Anniversary of Delhi Riots- “Cannot Abandon Struggle for Justice”

Did Nand Kishore Gurjar admit to role in North East Delhi riots?

Hate speeches amplified by television, incited targeted violence against Muslims: CCR Report, Feb ‘20 Delhi riots

The post Delhi Police on Trial: Three court orders reveal collusion, cover-ups, and custodial torture by police officers during 2020 Delhi riots appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Delhi High Court has now issued notice on the petitions by the student activist and asked the investigating agency to file its response, but refused to grant a stay on the trial court proceedings in the meantime, reports PTI.

Kalita made the plea that she needed the videos and chats to prove her innocence, but the Delhi Police counsel contended that her petitions were not maintainable. He said further investigation was still underway in the cases and material being sought by the petitioner was not part of the charge sheet. Interestingly “investigations” have been on since the crackdown on close to two dozen such student activists between April and June 2020. PTI reports that, Justice Amit Bansal listed the case for further hearing on January 17 and said, “There is no question of stay till I hear both sides”.

Meanwhile, Kalita’s counsel submitted that the Delhi Police had commissioned certain persons to record the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens in February 2020 and the footage should be supplied to her before the trial court proceeds to hear the arguments on the framing of charges. “Those videos will demonstrate that from February 22 to 26 (of 2020), we were protesting peacefully. The videos will demonstrate that.. I want to exercise my valuable right of discharge (in the criminal cases),” he said.

“The case against me (in one of the FIRs in the present matter) is a serious one, of murder. I am said to be part of a group of protestors under the Jafrabad flyover. Selective screen grabs have been taken… The videos exist. I say it is exculpatory. Provide me the videos,” Kalita’s lawyer argued. Besides the video footage, the lawyer also sought the “entire WhatsApp chat” of a group, “selective extracts” of which were allegedly being used against the petitioner.

Student activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and several others have also been booked under various FIRs in relation to the riots in the North-East Delhi, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured in February 2020. Kalita, Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi, Umar Khalid and others have been accused of being the “masterminds” behind the violence that took place at a time when the then US president Donald Trump and other dignitaries were in the national capital.

In a historic verdict under the dreaded UAPA (Unlawful Practices Prevention Act), the Delhi High Court had granted bail to three of them –Asif Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, in June 2021.

Related:

A new hope: Student activists charged under UAPA get bail

The post Delhi riots 2020: Student activist Devangana Kalita moves High Court seeking videos of anti-CAA protests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Trans Yamuna region of the national capital (Northeast Delhi) had witnessed a bloody communal violence following a nationwide protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, which claimed 53 lives and left hundreds injured. Majority of those killed were Muslims.

Three years after the worst communal violence in the national capital since Partition, courts in the city have continued to come down heavily on the police — making stinging remarks on the shabby investigation and booking mostly Muslims for the violence that took place in February 2020, on the basis of concocted evidence.

A SAGA OF CONCOCTION, FABRICATION

On August 16, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala at Karkardooma Court discharged three men — Aqeel Ahmed alias Papad, Rayees Khan and Irshad — in a case related to the violence as the judge suspected that the investigating officer had “falsified and manipulated the evidence” and charge sheeted the accused in a “predetermined, mechanical and erroneous manner, with subsequent actions to only cover up the initial wrong actions”.

The court ordered, “… instead of having grave suspicion against accused persons for their involvement in the alleged incidents, I am having suspicion for IO (investigating officer) having manipulated the evidence in the case, without actually investigating the reported incidents properly.”

On August 24, ASJ Pramachala acquitted a Muslim man who was an accused in a case related to the violence, describing the police statement against him as “artificial”. Also in this order, the court concluded that the police had filed its chargesheet in a “mechanical manner without actually investigating the incidents properly”.

On August 28, the same judge accused the Delhi Police of “befooling” the court by relying on a video for evidence when such a video did not exist, “stalling” the trial and adopting “double standards” in two cases.

Acquitting Noor Mohammed, a resident of Sonia Vihar, on May 30, Metropolitan Magistrate Shirish Aggarwal had said that it appeared that the statement of a prosecution witness (a head constable) was “procured and prepared falsely and belatedly to solve this case.… The police was already aware that its case was fabricated…”.

The above mentioned orders are a few sample of a string of judgments in cases related to the violence, faulting the Delhi Police for planting false evidence and carrying out shabby probes.

Let’s revisit some more cases in which the court discharged or acquitted or gave bail to those accused of violence.

On September 20, 2022, ASJ Pramachala acquitted Noor in another case, observing that his identification as an accused was “probably an outcome of an afterthought development” by the police.

The acquittal was also based on the contradictory statements of the investigation officer.

In the same month, the court also acquitted Mohammad Shoaib, Shahrukh, Rashid and Mohammad Shahnawaz in a case. The court, while acquitting the said accused, found that the sole testimony of the constable (prosecution witness), who said that he had seen the accused in the crowd, was not found sufficient to admit their presence in the crowd.

Another contradictory statement by an assistant sub-inspector and a head constable prompted Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav to observe in October 2021 that the “police witnesses are lying on oath”.

The head constable had claimed before the judge that he had identified three of the four rioters as Rinku Subziwala, Golu Kashyap and Vikas Kashyap. He had said that he knew the three men as he had been deployed in the area as a beat constable since 2019.

However, another prosecution witness, the assistant sub-inspector, on the contrary, told the court that the three accused — despite being named by the head constable — could not be identified during the investigation.

The judge then noted, “… there is no material on record that efforts were made by the IO to apprehend the said accused persons. Prima facie, one of the police witnesses is lying on oath (that is) punishable under section 193 of the IPC.”

“This is a very sorry state of affairs,” Yadav had said, seeking a report in that regard from the deputy commissioner of police (Northeast Delhi).

In September 2021, ASJ Yadav, while discharging three men, including Shah Alam, brother of former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain, who were accused of rioting, arson and various offences, had pulled up Delhi Police for measurably failing to conduct a proper investigation.

The judge observed in his order that the police “made no effort” to investigate the case and were “merely filing chargesheets without any real effort being made to trace out the eye witnesses, real accused persons and technical evidence”.

Observing that the “investigating agency has merely tried to pull the wool over the court’s eyes” and expressing suspicion that a constable — a witness in the case — had been “planted”, the court had said, “I am not able to restrain myself from observing that when history looks back at the worst communal riots since partition in Delhi, it is the failure of the investigating agency to conduct proper investigation by using the latest scientific methods, that will surely torment the sentinels of democracy.”

However, months later, the judge, who had passed several orders against the flawed investigation, was transferred.

NewsClick analysed the judgments passed by courts in Delhi adjudicating on matters relating to the riots between 2020 till date. In over 10 orders, the courts have raised serious doubts on the credibility of witness statements. In most of the cases, the prosecution witnesses were police personnel.

In some cases, the statements of the prosecution witnesses were identical — raising doubts about their veracity. The analysis of the orders revealed some of the witnesses had alleged that they were coerced into giving false statements by the police.

In addition to lower courts, higher judiciary too criticised the Delhi Police for its lackadaisical approach in investigating the riots cases.

In October 2020, the Delhi High Court granted bail to one Irshad Ahmad on the grounds that the two police “witnesses seemed to be planted”.

There are several other orders (this and this for an instance) passed by the High Court over the past three years that have strictures against the investigators.

While making scathing remarks against police functioning and prosecution in the cases, the trial court attempted to ameliorate the situation by referring individual cases to senior officers i.e. the concerned DCP and in some cases the Commissioner of Police.

However, these referrals were made with highly critical comments without any action against the erring officer or similar measures to ensure his accountability.

What the courts are calling a “sad and shocking situation”, the judicial orders have consistently reflected a similar tone. But the directions are falling on deaf ears.

IS PRODUCING FALSE EVIDENCE A CRIME?

Fabricating and using false evidence, falsely charging someone with an offence and making false claims in courts are criminal offence against public justice, as per the provisions of Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code.

And the punishment for the offence, depending its severity, varies between a jail term of three years to life imprisonment and even death penalty.

However, despite the Delhi Police being found by different courts indulging in fabricating evidence, there is no accountability of its officers.

WHY SO?

Despite acknowledging perjury on part of the investigators, the judiciary finds itself helpless to prosecute erring police officials who often lie under oath.

The Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecution of offences under Chapter XI of the IPC is extremely complicated.

In case of a complaint for such an offence, preliminary inquiries have to be instituted by a court to ascertain whether the complaint is merited.

In addition, the trial of such offences is to be conducted separately from the main trial wherein the alleged false evidence was produced.

It’s not easy for courts to prosecute every case of alleged fabrication and concoction as it would have no time for other matters as Indian judicial system is flooded with such cases.

Even though the courts have acquitted innocent persons, strict action is needed against guilty police for carrying out unfair and serious lapses in investigations, failure to apprehend and bring the real culprits to book and framing of innocents using fake evidence.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post With Delhi Violence Cases Caving in, Who Will Fix Police Accountability for Lying on Oath? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the order, the bench of Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala stated that “It is worth to mention here that this order of discharge is being passed on account of realizing that the reported incidents were not properly and completely investigated and that the charge sheets were filed in predetermined, mechanical and erroneous manner, with subsequent actions to only cover up the initial wrong actions.” (Para 34)

As a result, the court discharged Akil Ahmad, Rahis Khan and Irshad, who were chargesheeted for offences under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly with a common object), 188 (disobedience to public order), 436 (mischief by fire), 120B (criminal conspiracy), among others of the Indian Penal Code.

It is essential to note that the matter was sent back to the police department for assessment of the investigation carried out in this case and subsequent action as per law. Delhi Police has been required to bring the complaints to a legal and logical end.

Observations of the Court on the alleged role of three accused in rioting and vandalism:

As per the allegations made by the prosecution, a mob had vandalised and set vehicles on fire around Victoria Public School in North-East Delhi. The police stated that the mob, which the accused were allegedly part of, was carrying stones, rods, sticks and blocked roads in the area. As per the order, the court found the existence of inconsistencies in the charge sheets and subsequent statements, suggesting an attempt to cover up flaws in the prosecution’s case.

In accordance to the above-mentioned, the court found contradictory statements given by the complainants in the case and pointed out that the investigating officers (IO) had ignored the fact that there were mobs sloganeering both in favour of and against the Citizenship Amendment Act/National Register of Citizens. 

“This fact is very important to realise that they were two different and rival mobs. IOs remained silent over the question as to which particular incident was caused by a particular mob. If several incidents took place in and around Victoria Public School at the hands of riotous mob, the job of IO was to ascertain the composition of such mob during each of such incidents.” the order stated. (Para 32)

Continuing with this, Judge Pramachala further stated,

” If a person ceases to be member of an unlawful assembly, then he cannot be made responsible for any act done by that mob in absence of such person.” (Para 32)

Instead of suspecting the accused persons for their involvement in the alleged incidents, the court came down to the suspicion that the IO manipulated the evidence in the case, without actually investigating the reported incidents properly.

Observations of the court on cover-up by investigation officer

On February 28, 2020, a first information report (FIR 71/2020) had been registered at the Dayalpur police station on the basis of a rukka (complaint copy from which the contents are taken for filing FIRs) prepared by an Assistant Sub-Inspector. As reported by Livelaw, the Investigating Officer of the said case late clubbed several complaints made by Farooq Ahmad, Shahbaz Malik, Nadeem Farooq and Jai Shankar Sharma.

On July 14, 2020, a charge sheet was filed against the three persons, and cognisance of the same was taken on December 9, 2020. Thereafter, two supplementary charge sheets had also been filed on February 15, 2022, and February 16, 2023, along with certain documents and fresh statements.

Referring to the same, in its order, the judge noted that in the first supplementary charge sheet, the investigating officer (IO) included three individuals as accused who were not mentioned in a constable’s statement.

The court further highlighted that until the court began questioning the timeline of events mentioned in the case, the IO consistently maintained in both the main and the first supplementary charge sheets that, except for one incident, all other reported incidents by various complainants occurred during the night between February 24 and 25, 2020.

The court further noticed that when the complaints were clubbed together, there was no record of the police being informed that the same group had been involved in acts of vandalism and arson from the night before until the information was recorded on the morning of February 25, 2020.

Additionally, the court also stated that the subsequent statements from the complainants were documented primarily to hide the gaps in the prosecution’s case and to provide a basis for charging the accused individuals. The court also pointed out that the investigating officer failed to present any evidence demonstrating the accuracy of these subsequent statements.

“The subsequent statements of the complainants were thus, recorded, only to cover up above mentioned lacuna in the case of prosecution and to justify charge sheeting the accused persons in this case.” (Para 31)

The complete order can be read here:

Related:

Brinda Karat on the Third Anniversary of Delhi Riots- “Cannot Abandon Struggle for Justice”

Charges framed against Tahir Hussain and others, discharge from graver offence in the North-East Delhi riots

Did Nand Kishore Gurjar admit to role in North East Delhi riots?

Hate speeches amplified by television, incited targeted violence against Muslims: CCR Report, Feb ‘20 Delhi riots

Umar Khalid bail: Prosecution claims Delhi riots were successful due to synchronisation and mobilisation

Umar Khalid Bail: Prosecution equates NE Delhi riots ‘conspirators’ to 9/11 culprits

The post “Predetermined, mechanical and erroneous charge sheets”: Delhi Court discharges 3 in North East Delhi riot case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

New Delhi: The victims of riots in North East Delhi came together on the third anniversary of horrific violence that claimed 53 lives at Qaumi Ekta Bhawan in Brij Puri to demand speedy justice. In a public meeting organised by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M) to remember the victims, the family members on Sunday emphasised that the riots were not about tyranny by followers of one religion over other but injustice by ruling leaders who used violence to further their political interests.

Aaghaz who lost his newlywed son Ashfaq in riots said that the struggle for justice must continue if it is to ensure that no violence occurs again in the area. He said, “the victims have gathered here only to say that justice is yet to be delivered. The struggle for justice must continue. We will get it one day. History is a testimony to it that no ruler would be permanent. Just look at the religious scriptures of any religion and you would find the fate of unjust rulers. The one who perpetrates injustice is a tyrant and it does not matter which religion he follows. If Mughals could go, if British could go then present tyrants would be dusted too.”

Mallika, who lost her husband said that her partner could have been alive, had the police intervened in the matter. “My husband was hiding in the room. I had hidden my children inside the bed. When the rioters came, they started beating my husband. When they got to know about my children, they started beating them with iron rods. Later, my husband was brought down in the street and thrown away in the fire. I went to the Policemen to ask for help but they mocked me! My family was finished. After three years, I only seek justice,” she told NewsClick.

The members of the left party maintain that there had been a slew of challenges ranging from rehabilitation and compensation to perusal of justice. After rehabilitation, the struggle for just compensation has begun. We still do not know the status of all cases related to murders. Further, the challenging part has been to enable the survivors to earn with dignity and begin a new life. The space of Qaumi Ekta Bhawan was created with the intention to strengthen the bond among communities.

Ashok Tiwari, who specialises in pedagogical training told NewsClick, “we need to stand up with the communities in a sense that ensure that they are empowered economically and socially. We are right now focusing to impart training for self-employment. When we interacted with community members, we found that there are learning gaps in students studying in school. So, we started coaching and computer classes. We are also looking at other avenues where children could express themselves creatively such as writing and acting workshops too. It’s a new beginning for people and us too.”

Sehba Farooqi, Secretary, of All India Democratic Women Association (AIDWA) Delhi emphasised that the struggle for justice could not be fought by Muslims alone. “It is not a question of Hindu-Muslims unity. It’s a political question. The attacks which happened here were not attacks on Muslims alone. They were attacks on every individual who wish to see India as a secular republic. It was an attack on the constitution. Some people say that Muslims alone endured injustices and they will have to fight alone but if we see the country, it is being pushed in one specific direction. There are attacks on Dalits and Tribals too. People here are saying that Brinda Karat was the first to visit them after the riots. It’s not a new thing for us. She went to Jahangirpuri too when bulldozers were demolishing the homes and shops of innocent people. We could have issued the statements at the luxury of home. We went there to emphasise that the struggle to save the country will be fought on the streets. So, Muslims too will have to join other segments of society for a united struggle too,” Farooqi said.

Addressing the gathering of riot victims, Brinda Karat, Politburo Member, Communist Party of India (Marxist) said that the objective of bringing together riot victims is not to refresh their grief and trauma but to show that they are fighting the hardships and look after their families with unprecedented resolution. She said, “the victims have narrated their ordeal about life without their loved ones. With this meeting, we wanted to show the world that even though our sisters and brothers are living in hardships, they are demanding their right to life. They are saying to rioters that you tried to finish their families but we are alive and demanding justice. One of the victims recounted that when his husband was killed and she went to the police station, she was persuaded by police officials not to file the complaint. In today’s newspaper, we are learning that among 700 cases related to riots, only 10% of cases could see any progress and nobody has been persecuted in murder cases. We cannot abandon this struggle for justice. I urge you to please come up with case files, documents and information for us in the next month and we will initiate this legal struggle by keeping all people together. We must say that what was done to us will not be forgotten. If we want our generations to never face this violence again, we must fight this struggle and get real culprits punished.”

Karat said that it is a pity that government could not fix a universal mechanism for compensation of riot victims and treats different classes without a humanitarian approach. “I also wish to speak about compensation. No compensation can bring back a dead person but I fail to understand the standard of relief for people. The son of Ram Sugarath Paswan was a minor and he was given only half compensation. How inhuman is it? Ankit and Ratan Lal were murdered in a gruesome manner and their families were rightly compensated Rs 1 crore each. I want to ask this government which yardstick it is using to compensate somebody Rs 1 crore and somebody Rs 5 Lakh and discriminate against people. There are victims who lost their eyesight in acid attacks. If the compensation could not help them live with dignity, then it should be reconsidered. So, there should be a renewed for justice collectively.”

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Brinda Karat on the Third Anniversary of Delhi Riots- “Cannot Abandon Struggle for Justice” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Uncertain Justice: A Citizens Committee Report on the North East Delhi Violence 2020”, authored by the five members is an Inquiry into the build-up and fallout of the violence that racked the country’s capital in February 2020. This report, has been released by the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), a group of former civil servants belonging to the All India and Central Services who have worked with the Central Government as well as different State Governments of India, today, October 7.

The report blames squarely several electronic media networks (television channels) that, since the protests against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 began in December of that year began framing the debate in a prejudicial manner. “The analysis reveals that the channels’ reportage of events surrounding the CAA framed the issues as “Hindus versus Muslims” with prejudice and suspicion against the Muslim community.” Thereafter, the Report finds that neither the Delhi police, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to whom the Delhi police reports, nor the Delhi government did what was required to either stem the violence or ensure adequate justice and reparation.

The unbalanced (read biased) non-application of provisions of the Indian penal Code (IPC) against powerful hate offenders on the one hand (these include the notorious Kapil Mishra, Ragini Tiwari and Yati Narsinghanand among others) and failure to prosecute was matched by the unfair and selective application of the dreaded UA(P)A against young protesters, concludes the report. The absence of setting up of an independent Commission of Inquiry has also been commented upon.

Members of the Committee that has today released the report included Justice Madan B. Lokur, former Judge of the Supreme Court (chairperson); Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of the Madras and Delhi High Courts and former Chairman, Law Commission; Justice R.S. Sodhi, former Judge of the Delhi High Court; Justice Anjana Prakash, former Judge of the Patna High Court; and G.K. Pillai, IAS (Retd.), former Home Secretary, Government of India. Dr. Meeran Chadha Borwankar withdrew from the Committee when its work was nearing completion, states the press release issued by the CCG.

Hateful Build-Up to Violence from December 2019

(Excerpted from the Findings)

An ominous combination of elected officials, politic-religious figures amplified by TV channels worked to build an atmosphere conducive to the targeted attacks on the minority, says the report.

“A confluence of powerful, far-reaching voices of politicians, televised news channels, and Hindu nationalist figures emerged as drivers of the hate narrative. This Committee concludes that the prevalence of hate significantly contributed to creating a climate in which a significant section of society became receptive to incitement and calls for violence against the Muslim community” concludes the Report in its eight-page executive summary.

“North East Delhi was shaken by district-wide communal violence between February 23 and 26, 2020. 53 people were killed and hundreds injured. Homes, schools, commercial establishments, and places of worship were attacked.

“The Committee’s report, organized into three parts, examines different facets of the violence from its genesis, nature, and aftermath. Part I sets the context of what was triggered by the amendments passed to the citizenship law, analyses the build-up to the violence, its trajectory, and the state’s response as it unfolded. Part II assesses the role played by sections of television and social media in channeling polarized narratives before and after the violence. Part III contains a legal analysis of the Delhi Police investigations into the violence, and of larger implications of the use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

Build-Up of Hate to Drive Conflict

“Polarisation between communities, particularly anti-Muslim hate, was deliberately fueled in the months preceding the violence. The Muslim community was grappling with deep fears of loss of citizenship, stemming from the combined effect of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), passed in December 2019, with potential exclusion through the National Register of Citizens process. By mid-December 2019, nationwide protests erupted against the law. Delhi emerged as the epicenter of the anti-CAA movement with North East Delhi as the site of multiple sit-in protests.

“Against this background, the campaigning for the Delhi Assembly elections gathered momentum in January. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) focused its election campaign on the CAA issue, within a divisive narrative framing the anti-CAA protests as anti-national and violent. Protesters were labelled “traitors” by candidates and party leaders, such as Kapil Mishra and Anurag Thakur, at election rallies and public demonstrations. Calls for violence against the so-called “traitors”, in the form of the “goli maaro” (Shoot the traitors) slogan, were casually repeated, with no censure. The vilification of the protests and anti-Muslim hate was amplified by widely viewed television news channels and social media.

“The Committee conducted an empirical analysis of the messaging of sections of the television media around the CAA and the protests. This focuses on episodes aired in December 2019-February 2020 of primetime shows of the six most viewed television news channels. These were Republic and Times Now (English), and Aaj Tak, Zee News, India TV, and Republic Bharat (Hindi). We also examined relevant posts on various social media platforms. The analysis reveals that the channels’ reportage of events surrounding the CAA framed the issues as “Hindus versus Muslims” with prejudice and suspicion against the Muslim community. These channels concentrated on vilifying anti-CAA protests, fanning unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, and calling for their forcible shutdown.

“Hindu nationalist figures such as Yati Narsinghanand and Ragini Tiwari, as well as BJP political leaders in the fray such as Kapil Mishra, further spread hate messaging among their thousands of followers through social media platforms from December 2019.

The Face of the Violence

“In response to a call for a nationwide protest, anti-CAA women protesters in the Seelampur-Jaffrabad area of North East Delhi blocked the road outside the Jaffrabad Metro Station on the night of February 22, 2020. From the morning of February 23, BJP leaders, prominently Kapil Mishra, as well as Hindu nationalist figures such as Ragini Tiwari, gave calls for mobilization and direct action against this group. At about 4 p.m. that day, Kapil Mishra delivered a speech at Maujpur Chowk close to the new anti-CAA protest site. He gave an ultimatum to the Delhi Police to “clear the roads in Jaffrabad and Chand Bagh” within 3 days, or he and his supporters would do so themselves. He was referring to the anti-CAA protests taking place in these localities. Shortly after his speech, stone pelting broke out between pro-CAA and anti-CAA groups in Maujpur and Jaffrabad. It becomes clear that the hateful content purveyed on February 22-23, was designed to incite, exhort and provoke actions of violence and these calls, thereby, appear to have acted as an immediate trigger to the break-out.

“The stone pelting across the Maujpur-Jaffrabad faultline spiraled into mass violence by the morning of February 24. Stone pelting, arson, and gun violence by mobs on both sides spread through neighborhoods across North East Delhi in the next few days. There were attacks on journalists reporting on the violence. Alleged police complicity adds another important layer to the nature of violence.

“While the violence in North East Delhi first broke out against pro-CAA and anti-CAA camps, it prompted the onset of full-blown communal violence between Hindus and Muslims. The anti-Muslim hate at the root of the pre-violence build-up carried over. While mobs clashed and caused damage to each other, Muslim identity, ranging from individuals to homes, businesses, and places of worship, was targeted. This grim mix of targeted as well as generalized violence resulted in the death of 40 Muslims and 13 Hindus. This Committee concludes that the deliberate shaping of a divisive Hindu-Muslim binary, in the months preceding, finally manifested in this communally charged violence. In this attempt to alter social relations, Muslim identity and agency stand diminished. This Committee also notes the specific targeting of anti-CAA protest sites, including at Chand Bagh, Kardampuri, Jaffrabad, Mustafabad and Khajuri Khas. This suggests an effort to rein in the anti-CAA sentiment in the course of the violence.

State Failures

“All stages of the February 2020 violence – the inception, occurrence and aftermath (investigation of the violence) – are characterized by a frightening undermining of democratic values. Tragically, the communal polarization that heralded the violence has been hardened by state responses to the violence.

Delhi Police

“The Delhi Police failed to take punitive measures against hate speeches made by political leaders and others in the run-up to February 23 or on the day itself. Allegations of police assisting mobs and participating in attacks on Muslims, anti-CAA protest sites, and mosques have been documented, in eyewitness, media and affected persons’ accounts. The Committee has obtained a limited, but credible mass of information indicating abject police failures, including apparent police complicity, of varying degrees in the violence. This requires investigation through an independent process, possibly a court-monitored investigation.

Ministry of Home “The response of the Government of India, namely the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), was wholly inadequate. Despite having command over both the Delhi Police and the central paramilitary forces, the MHA failed to take effective steps to stem the spread of communal violence. Repeated assurances on February 24 and 25 by police top brass and government officials that the situation was under control did not match the visibility of violence on the ground. Though internal alerts circulated by the Delhi Police advised increased police deployment in North East Delhi on February 23 itself, official data shows that deployment rose only on February 26. It appears that the numbers of police personnel were not increased on February 24-25, even though the maximum number of distress calls were received by the Police Stations in North East Delhi on these days. This Committee concludes that the Central Government’s failure to respond to the violence demands a serious examination. A comprehensive, independent review of the body of known intelligence, total police and other security force strength, and sequence of deployment across affected areas during the days of violence, is urgently required.

Government of Delhi

“The Committee also finds that the Government of Delhi did precious little during this entire time to mediate between the communities, even with the sharp warning signs in the lead up to February 23. Recognizing that the Delhi Government’s ability to control violence was impeded with the police under the Centre’s political control, the Committee feels that it failed to exert the role of civic mediation and statesmanship to calm the situation. Further, the Delhi Government has failed to ensure timely and adequate relief and compensation to those affected by violence. Approval of compensation by the government and the Claims Commission is riddled with delay; where decisions have been made, there are concerns regarding the quantum of compensation not being commensurate to the harm suffered.

Delhi Police Investigations

“To date, the Delhi Police has registered a total of 758 First Information Reports (FIRs) pertaining to the violence. Early in the investigations, in March 2020, the Delhi Police Special Cell registered a First Information Report, FIR No. 59/2020 (FIR 59), claiming that there was a pre-planned conspiracy to instigate the violence which involved terrorist acts, and invoked the UAPA. The Committee has looked specifically at the first chargesheet filed in FIR 59 on the alleged terrorist acts.

Allegations of Larger Conspiracy under the UAPA FIR

“This Committee has carefully considered whether the criminal actions alleged in the first chargesheet filed in FIR 59 qualify as “terrorist” acts (see Chapter 8) and found no material in it substantiating the allegation that the “unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India” was threatened. Neither does the first chargesheet credibly canvass the proposition that persons advocating the repeal of the CAA intended to strike terror in the community. The Committee’s analysis reflects that the material put forward by the Delhi Police in the chargesheet in FIR 59 does not meet the legal threshold to allege crimes of terrorism.

“Further, the Committee finds that the foundation of the prosecution case – the allegation of an overarching premeditated conspiracy aimed at orchestrating communal riots – is based on unexplained, belated statements which are inherently unreliable in law. A comparison of the investigation in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) FIRs with the investigation into the same allegations in FIR 59 reveal a number of contradictions and inconsistencies. These further cast a shadow on the claims made in the first chargesheet. It is the Committee’s view that if the core of the prosecution case bears the taint of tutoring and fabrication, this taint looms large over the entire investigation.

Investigations into the IPC Cases

“The analysis of the investigation into IPC cases reiterate the chronic feature of belated statements, of both police and public witnesses, with no explanation of the delay, rendering them unreliable. Trial courts while granting bail in the IPC cases have also commented on the incongruity of the prosecution narrative in cases where Muslims have been accused of joining members of the Hindu community in beating Muslims. This Committee notes that the police have neglected to investigate the role played by those who made hateful speeches (many of which amount to the crime of hate speech) and gave calls to mobilize for discharging violent acts, in close proximity to the onset of violence.

“The Committee concludes that the overall direction of the investigation appears skewed. It omits to examine the connections between the outbreak of the violence with the spate of hate speeches and calls for violence. It, incongruously, subjects anti-CAA protesters to a UAPA prosecution for allegedly committing violence which ultimately targeted Muslims, and those protesting against the CAA. Only an impartial and rigorous investigation can shed light on the truth, ensure accountability, and do justice to the victims of the violence.

Unjustified Use of the UAPA

“Patterns of larger use of the UAPA suggest its targeted application by the state. The law enables prolonged pre-trial custody of individuals through drawn-out investigation and exceedingly limited grounds to secure bail. UAPA accused are very often acquitted in their trials due to insufficient evidence, yet, forced to remain in custody, often for years. This ensures the legal process itself becomes punishment. This Committee reiterates the urgent need for a comprehensive review of the UAPA.

Need for a Commission of Inquiry

“This Committee finds that a Commission of Inquiry ought to be set up for an impartial inquiry to establish the whole gamut of factors pertaining to the North East Delhi violence. It is crucial that the terms of reference and the choice of the Chairperson for the proposed Commission of Inquiry assure the affected communities of its independent and effective functioning.

Broader Takeaways

“The Committee’s examination of the violence in the North East District of Delhi has led us to discern broader implications impacting constitutional values and the health of democracy in India. The microcosm of an engineered anti-Muslim narrative leading to the violence signals the growing fusion of hate messaging in public discourse with the actual incidence of violence. There seems to be a deafening lack of institutional will to act against hateful content.

“Sections of the media play a key role in propagating hateful narratives, illustrated in small part through the study in the report. Their audience of daily watching households, as well as their social media presence, ensures that the hateful narratives reach a very wide number. Clearly, any oversight exerted by the existing broadcasting oversight bodies pales in proportion to the channels’ reach and leeway. For all of its benefits as an unregulated space for speech and expression, this precise quality of social media presents serious dangers as a carrier of rampaging hate speech and violent content. The need to regulate deeply harmful content on social media, while retaining the free space it offers, is one of the most urgent challenges of our times.

“The clearing of the anti-CAA sit-in protests in North East Delhi cannot be overlooked as an isolated instance. The targeted use of UAPA also cannot be ignored as innocuous. It constitutes not only a gross abuse of the law, but represents a consistent trend of quelling dissent by invoking the tool of criminal law. The use of violence to silence protesters and the use of UAPA in the subsequent investigation has cast a chilling effect on the act of protesting itself. Such actions pose serious threat to the health of our democracy.

“Capacity for empathetic thought and action to enable harmonious interactions, and most importantly, imagination to resolve conflict are essential attributes for a plural society to last in the long run. It is the Committee’s view that this communal episode has set back the internal processes through which a multi- cultural society engenders calm and harmony, forging its plurality into a strength. Instead, an architecture of hate and pathways to violence have been strengthened. The communities stand depleted in their ability to heal and restore. The only way forward is for the state to act towards justice harbored in the conjoined practice of fraternity, equality and freedom.”

Who is the CCG?

The CCG, consisting of former civil servants and police officials with the Indian government seeks to foster civic culture bound by the ethos of the Constitution of India. As a group we are not affiliated to any political party as we strongly believe in being impartial.

Following the riots in North East Delhi in February 2020, a small group of members of the CCG visited some of the affected areas and later wrote to the President of India asking for a judicial enquiry.

Considering the horrific nature of the riots, the scale of violence, the loss of lives and the resulting communal divide between communities, the CCG felt that an expert body should carry out a thorough examination of what transpired before, during and after the riots. We invited a group of retired judges and civil servants with proven records of public service to take on this task. Hence the Committee was appointed consisting of four retired judges, one IAS and one IPS officer.

 The Report gives the Committee’s findings on factors that contributed to the build-up to violence, features of the violence itself, the role of sections of the media and use of social media, and legal analysis of the Delhi Police’s investigations into the violence since 2020. Its main findings can be seen in the Executive Summary and the Report’s Conclusions (pages 161-169).

The entire text of the report may be read here

This report is available electronically at: 
https://www.constitutionalconduct.com 
https://www.citizenscommitteeondelhiriots.in

The post Hate speeches amplified by television, incited targeted violence against Muslims: CCR Report, Feb ‘20 Delhi riots appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sharjeel Imam, who is in judicial custody in connection with the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots case, has now moved court alleging that he was assaulted by convicts at Tihar Jail and called a terrorist during a search inside his cell.

An application was moved before a link judge of Karkardooma Court in New Delhi by Sharjeel Imam’s lawyer Ibrahim to issue a show case notice to jail authorities for the “illegal assault and search committed upon the applicant” and to direct authorities to take immediate steps to protect him from any “further assault/ harassment”, reported the Indian Express.

In his application, Imam has reportedly claimed that the Assistant Superintendent along with “8-9 convicts came to the cell of the applicant in the name of carrying out a search” and during this “illegal search, the petitioner’s books and clothes were thrown away and he was assaulted and called terrorist and anti-national when he prevented them from throwing stuff.”

According to the Indian Express, Imam even “requested the AS to prevent them from doing the assault as the AS was present there during the entire episode, but to no avail… he was further assaulted by the convicts.” He further alleged that “no contraband was recovered.” Instead, the convicts suggested to “place some contraband to put him in trouble.”

The application also sought directions to jail authorities to preserve the CCTV footage of the jail from 7:15 P.M to 8.30 P.M on June 30, when the said incident took place.

Ibrahim told the Indian Express, “I moved the application to secure his safety. This is the first case of an assault that was disclosed by a riot accused. Search operations are regularly carried out inside his cell and they have never found contraband. This time, jail staff came with convicts which is illegal. Only jail staff can check the cells.”

Here is a copy of the application shared by Sharjeel’s brother Muzzammil Imam on Twitter: 

On 30.06.2022 Asst. Superintendent came up with 8-9 inmates on the pretext of carrying out search of my brother Sharjeel @_imaams cell. Upon not finding anything, they called him terrorist, anti-national & assaulted him physically. The entire episode was captured on CCTV camera. pic.twitter.com/cvUoPuBdum

— Muzzammil Imam | مزمل إمام (@imammuzzammil) July 4, 2022

Brief Background

On May 26, 2022, the Delhi High Court asked Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Sharjeel Imam to approach the trial court in order to seek interim bail in connection with FIR 22/2020 pertaining to the sedition case registered against him for his allegedly provocative speeches against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Sharjeel Imam was arrested by the Delhi police on January 28, 2020 from his home village in Bihar, after the police in five states, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur reportedly filed cases under sedition and terrorism in seven First Information Report (FIRs) against him. He is currently lodged in Tihar, New Delhi.

In 2021, Sharjeel Imam had filed an application for a regular bail plea in connection with FIR No. 242/2019 which has alleged that he delivered provocative speeches in 2019 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 tranquillity, peace and harmony of the society.

FIR 242/2019 was registered under Section 143/147/148/149/186/353/332/333/307/308/435/427/323/341/120B/34 IPC, u/s 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act & u/s 25/27 Arms Act.

This bail was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge Anuj Agrawal on October 22, 2021, even though the Court had reportedly observed that the evidence against Imam was “scanty and sketchy” to take a prima facie view that his speeches incited riots. It denied him bail noting that further examination was needed to ascertain if the speech amounted to the offence of sedition under Section 124A IPC and promotion of communal disharmony under Section 153A IPC, reported LiveLaw.

Interestingly, on November 27, 2021, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Sharjeel Imam in connection with FIR No. 50/2020 (a sedition case registered against him in Aligarh) for allegedly delivering an ‘anti-national speech’ at the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) during Anti CAA-NRC protests.

FIR 50/2020 was registered under Sections 124A, 153A, 153B and 505(2) I.P.C

While granting him bail, the Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh noted, “Neither he called anyone to bear arms nor any violence was incited as a result of the speech delivered by him.”

The same year, Imam had also filed a bail application in connection with FIR No. 22/2020 (with respect to the speeches made by him in Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia area in Delhi) before the Delhi Court. FIR 22/2020 was registered by the Delhi Police under sec. 124A, 153A, 505 of the Indian Penal Code along with sec. 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which was added later. However, the said regular bail plea was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat on January 24, 2022.

On April 28, 2022, Sharjeel Imam moved the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order which had dismissed the bail plea in connection with FIR No. 59/2020 (a case alleging larger conspiracy into the Delhi riots of 2020) involving charges under Indian Penal Code and UAPA. However, on May 6, a division bench comprising Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar further adjourned hearings listing the matter to be heard on May 26. The Bench had adjourned the matter on the grounds that it would be appropriate to await the outcome of the Supreme Court regarding the challenge to the constitutional validity of the offence of ‘Sedition’ under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code before continuing with the present appeals.

During this hearing, the Court had decided to hear another challenge made by Imam seeking bail in connection with FIR 22/2020, a case relating to the alleged inflammatory speeches made by him at the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and Jamia area in Delhi against the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA).

During the course of the hearing, Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir appearing for Sharjeel Imam, relied on an order passed by the Allahabad HC granting bail in a case concerning one of the speeches forming part of the FIR in question. Accordingly, Justice Mridul reportedly said, “If you’re saying that order passed by Allahabad HC granting you bail, if you’re pressing that, and you say it covers the present appeal, then you have to show us how and what were the allegations in the FIR?”

On May 26, after directing Imam to approach the lower court to seek interim bail in connection with the sedition case registered under FIR no. 22/2020, the Court listed the pending appeals challenging the order denying Imam bail as well as framing charges against him in the matter on August 26, reported LiveLaw.

There are three more FIRs registered against Imam:

Related:

Delhi HC asks Sharjeel Imam to approach Trial Court to seek interim bail in seditious speeches case
Speech in bad taste, not a terrorist act: Delhi HC On Umar Khalid’s Amravati Speech

The post Sharjeel Imam claims he was assaulted, called “terrorist” in jail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The hearing in Dr. Umar Khalid’s bail application in the Delhi riots conspiracy case continued as the Prosecution started making its submissions today before Additional Sessions Judge, Amitabh Rawat of Karkardooma Shahdara Court, Delhi. The Prosecution argued that the applicant’s arguments were based on speculation and conjecture while the court is required to take a holistic view at this point.

Khalid, activist and former student of JNU has been in prison since September 2020. He has been accused of sections 13 (Punishment for unlawful activities), 16 (Punishment for terrorist act), 17 (Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act) and 18 (Punishment for conspiracy) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

In December 2021, Senior Counsel Trideep Pais appearing for Khalid had concluded his arguments stating that the statements of the witnesses are fabricated and will not stand the test of law. The prosecution represented by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad started its arguments today picking up from the final submissions made on behalf of Khalid and said that the applicant has made references to web series ‘Family Man’ and the movie ‘The Trail of Chicago 7’ because he has nothing to submit on merit and merely wants to divert the court’s attention.

He submitted that at this stage, when the court is considering bail application, it cannot explore whether material on record is reliable; neither can it explore the credibility of the witnesses. “If a person remembers and makes a statement before Court and if on the spur of the moment, he makes some deviation, it cannot be questioned. It cannot be said that the witness is not credible,” he said. He pointed out that Pais had argued that the investigating agency is communal but the first conviction that has happened in the Delhi riots case is of a Hindu man, “So you cannot say that the investigating agency is communal. The agency (Police) is of the state and not of any individual”.

The SPP further stated that Khalid is in the midst of all events that led to the riots right from December 2019 when the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 was taken up in Parliament. Prasad then went through a series of dates starting from December 4 to formation of various Whatsapp groups, to the beginning of Shaheen Bagh protests and the idea of creation of other protest sites like Shaheen Bagh on the concept of ‘chakka jam’. He then stated that at a meeting in Seelampur Khalid met Devangana and Natasha Narwal, founders of Pinjra Tod where he told them that the protests must be escalated to riots.

Explaining conspiracy

SPP Prasad said that conspiracy according to him was a “secret agreement for a number of people for pursuance of policies which they dare not admit in public.” He said that in this case, there is a secrecy and a clear attempt to cover up after the crime came to light. He submitted that after the FIR was registered on March 6, 2020 there were messages on the Whatsapp group to shift to Signal messaging app. “You formed a group for a purpose, and you are disbanding for a purpose. The court has to look into this. We need to understand why a particular thing is being done,” he said.

Riots were not spontaneous

SPP Prasad further contended that the riots were not spontaneous which has been appreciated by the Delhi High Court (BA 2704/2021). In this case, the court dismissed the bail application of an accused in the riots case and observed,

“41. The riots which shook the National Capital of the country in February 2020 evidently did not take place in a spur of the moment, and the conduct of the protestors who are present in the video footage which has been placed on record by the prosecution visibly portrays that it was a calculated attempt to dislocate the functioning of the Government as well as to disrupt the normal life of the people in the city…”

He further contended that the protest sites that were created at several places were also not organic in nature as they were being given logistical support and were meticulously planned, and were in close proximity to a mosque. “Use of identical placards and banners at diff protest sites demonstrate they were not organic and were created in a coordinated manner,” he submitted.

Terrorist Act

SPP Prasad then read out section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) which defines ‘terrorist act’. On the relevant part was read as follows:

(1)] Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security 5[, economic security,] or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country,—

(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause—

(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or

(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or

(iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country;…

He stated that during the riots 53 people were killed, over a 100 police personnel injured, and property worth at least Rs. 21.9 crore was destroyed and there are more claims to destruction of property which will be accounted for in the supplementary chargesheet. Lethal and sharp edged weapons, lathis, stones etc were used for attacking people and police personnel as well as public employees.

Object of the ‘rioters’

Commenting on the objective of the rioters, Prasad said, “The ultimate objectives of the rioters were to overawe the gov’t and undermine the authority of the gov’t which enacted CAA, and to destabilise the democracy. The idea was to bring the gov’t of India to its knees and withdraw CAA.” He said that there are WhatsApp messages which read, “Sarkar ko ghutne par lana hai.” (We have to bring the government to its knees)

Applicant’s arguments

Referring to the arguments made by Pais in the previous hearings, he said that PAis has submitted that the meetings referred to of Seelampur and at PFI office are not secretive in nature since photographs clicked at these meetings were posted on social media. Prasad said, “When a photo is posted, it does not mean it was not a secret meeting. We have a witness who deposes what happened in the meeting.”

He further pointed out that Pais had argued that the investigating agency was putting ‘tadka’. “There are chats which have been recovered, videos recovered, statements given. I’ll demonstrate that where does this flow from, each of the facts that have been placed on record, demonstrates that the conclusion of IO is not the figment of his imagination. It’s not that the IO is saying anything out of thin air. It’s the material on record. I’ll place all the allegations with the material on record,” he said.

He also retorted to the argument made by Pais that Khalid had barely sent  4-5 messages on the Whatsapp groups which he  was part of, saying that If he is there to give support to group, then he was definitely a part of it and it would not matter whether he has sent messages on the group or not. “If someone joins a group, and doesn’t say anything, is he somebody whom one would want to remove when the threat of detection of crime happens,” he said.

SPP prasad concluded the arguments for the day stating that he will rely upon the NIA vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali judgment in the next hearing.

When the court asked if he will conclude his arguments in the next hearing, SPP Prasad said he will need at least 2-3 hearings more to conclude. The court has assigned the next two dates of hearing as January 24 and January 31.

Related:

Umar Khalid bail hearing: Counsel points out “cooked up” witnesses
Protest was secular, chargesheet is communal: Dr. Umar Khalid’s counsel
Chargesheet against me looks like a film script: Umar Khalid to court

The post Umar Khalid bail: He has no argument on merits, State submits before court appeared first on SabrangIndia.