Delhi violence | SabrangIndia

Delhi violence 2020: 4 years on, the shadow of violence lives on

sabrang — Thu, 07 Mar 2024 05:13:17 +0000

In 2020, just before the pandemic struck, north eastern parts of the nation’s capital were struck with communal violence. Even four years after the incident, which took place from February 23rd to February 27 in the bustling capital of India, Delhi, as the general assembly Lok Sabha elections approach this year, the reports have arrived that the Delhi Police fears violence ahead of the elections. Hindustan Times reported that the police has been given an advisory and it has now decided to keep ‘an eye out for’ protestors who had taken part in the 2020 anti-CAA movement and to keep vigilant in ‘communally sensitive’ zones of the city. The police have thus been reportedly advised to take preventive steps.

The Delhi violence case however has progressed slowly after the series of violent incidents which saw over 50 people dead, 38 Muslims and 15 Hindus, and 700 injured. A committee, formed by the Delhi Minorities Commission in the aftermath of the violence noted that over the next three days in February 2020 mobs spread across the district in Delhi targeting Muslims.

According to a report by The Print, 183 individuals have been acquitted, and 75 have been discharged in 757 registered cases in connection with the violence. The case has seen many twists and turns. In November 2023, a court acquitted 7 people after the prosecution reportedly failed to prove that these people were part of a violent mob. Despite the evidence of video recording, the video recording was not admissible as evidence according to the court because it was examined to check for manipulation. In another instance, a court remarked on the Delhi police’s investigation as a ‘shoddy probe’, and slammed them for manipulating evidence without conducting real investigation. Similarly, in June 2023, The Hindu reported that the Karkardooma Courts had acquitted four Muslim men within a span of nine days the In two separate cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots stated that there was a lack of evidence against them. In October 2023 according to The Hindu, once again the court directed the Police Commissioner to start an inquiry into the conduct of the Investigating Officer (IO) who had drafted the charge sheet the court said was only relying on ‘hearsay evidence.’ Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala stated that, “Regrettably, previous IOs have caused significant delays for this court by submitting investigation reports founded on hearsay evidence.”

In recent news from January last month, the Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad is one of the special prosecutors who represents Delhi Police in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots cases, took back his resignation after he tendered it on December 15, 2023.

A report from 2020 by The Wire reported on the case as the Delhi police tried to prove its claim that the Delhi riots were a conspiracy organised by anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protesters. The Delhi police had reportedly accused several prominent figures including Sitaram Yechury, the general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), world renowned economist Jayati Ghosh, Delhi University professor and public intellectual Apoorvanand as well as others. The essay also argues that the Delhi police seem to be trying to ‘intensifying target of its critics’ by implying that figures like Yechury and Ghosh were also part of the conspiracy.

Furthermore, in another twist in 2023, as per a report by India Today, speaking at a public event in Bengaluru, Justice S. Muralidhar, the former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, stated that he was confused about the central government’s reaction to his verdict in the Delhi riots case. In February 2020, Justice Muralidhar had presided over three urgent sittings addressing pleas regarding police inaction during the Delhi riots and had issued an order instructing the Delhi Police to ensure the safety and treatment of riot victims after an emergency midnight hearing was called at his home. Furthermore, he had directed the government to provide temporary shelter, treatment, and counselling for those displaced by the riots. However, this proved to be his final say in the matter as reports state that immediately after this order, the government transferred Justice Muralidhar to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, according to India Today.

However, despite the trajectory of the court cases, the lives of the victims remain affected unchangeably by the violence. As part of the government’s formulated scheme to compensate victims of the riots, people who had experience the death of their kin would receive Rs. 10 lakhs.

The government has compensated the kin of the 53 people who lost their lives, according to a report by Frontline Magazine, however people still live in the shadow of the violence. The Frontline reported the story of Shabnam, a 30-year-old resident of Khajuri Khas. Her husband, Mohammad Amjad used to operate a mobile repair shop from their home which was destroyed when a mob set their house on fire. The couple is currently still grappling with the ongoing financial setback and losses they faced after the violence.

Shabnam shared to Frontline, “My husband, even though he never shows it, is very stressed. He has changed as a person since the violence. Our house was burnt, and we had to spend multiple days confined in a cramped room in a nearby house with over 50 people. We had to take extreme measures, like throwing our own children from one terrace to another, just to ensure their safety.”

Several activists and students were arrested in relation to the violence. These accused people are charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and the often termed draconian Unlawful, Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. Currently, six of them have been granted bail, while the remaining continue to endure imprisonment. Several of these originally incarcerated have been granted bail, one of which is one Mohammed Faizan Khan, a mobile seller who was granted bail four months later, and then Safoora Zargar, a student activist from Jamia Millia Islamia was given bail due to her six-month pregnancy. Ishrat Jahan, a former Congress councillor and advocate, was also granted bail by a session’s court. In June 2021, the Delhi High Court granted bail to activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha citing lack of evidence in June 2021. The judgement in Asif Tanha’s case was a lead judgement, path-breaking in the manner in which it examined the “offences” under the UAPA.

Some of the names, who continue to be incarcerated as undertrial detainees in the case include Khalid Saifi, a 42-year-old member of the Delhi-based United Against Hate organisation, Umar Khalid a student leader and activist, Sharjeel Imam, a PhD scholar from Bihar, Meeran Haider, a student leader associated within the Rashtriya Janata Dal Youth Wing, and student activist Gulfisha Fatima. Along with these there are Tasleem Ahmed, an education consultant, Athar Khan, a former employee of a Delhi-based telecom company.

Meenakshi Ganguly, who is the South Asia director of Human Rights Watch has said in connection to the case, “Indian authorities have been targeting activists for harassment and arrest instead of impartially investigating allegations that BJP leaders incited violence and police officials were complicit in attacks.”

During a gathering in 2022, UN Special Rapporteur of Human Rights Defenders (HRD), Mary Lawlor too voiced concerns on the arrest, and has stated that the Indian government is trying to criminalise human rights defenders by charging them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

According to Amnesty International, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is frequently used by the government as a means to put aside human rights and suppress dissent.

According to Al Jazeera, the law was originally introduced in 2008 by the Congress party and there onwards it underwent several changes in 2019 under the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. These changes give the authorities more power to label people and not just organisations as terrorists. While the UAPA has been used by many Indian governments, its usage has exponentially risen in recent years.

In 2020, the conviction rate under the UAPA stood at 2% as government data shows that out of the 5,922 people arrested under the law from 2016 to 2019, only 132 resulted in convictions. Thus, critics argue that the law functions more as an easy tool of harassment, allowing the government to intimidate, imprison, and target individuals critical of its policies. The deliberate slow duration in the investigative processes and the highly strict bail provisions within the UAPA contribute to lengthened detention, and provide a welcome environment for unlawful confinement and often, even torture.

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 violence 2020: 4 years on, the shadow of violence lives on appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Delhi violence: Will not take such mishaps leniently: says Court as Delhi police brings “irrelevant witness”

Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:29:16 +0000

A Delhi Sessions Court judge, Pulastya Pramachala (Karkardooma courts) pulled up Delhi Police for presenting irrelevant witnesses for examination in a 2020 Delhi riots case. The judge said he was issuing “last warning for prosecution to wake up”. The court was conducting trial of accused Noor Mohammad in SC No. 242/21 in FIR no. 221/20 filed by Khajuri Khas Police Station.

“Despite repeated directions given, in the past in a number of cases, for the prosecution to go through the record and to check, if everything is well with the record, such pain was not taken in this case, either by ld. Prosecutor or by the IO. One more last opportunity has been sought by the IO as well as representative of ld. Prosecutor,” the court said in an order.

It was observed by the court that charges were not framed in respect of complaint made by witness presented before the court. Moreover, wrong date of incident was mentioned in the charges.

“After this incident, no more such mishappenings shall be taken leniently by this court and this would be the last warning for the prosecution to wake up. At the cost of repetition of previous directions, it is again reminded that before obtaining summons for any witness, a duty has been cast upon the IO and the ld. Prosecutor to ensure relevance of such witness in the case and apparently it was not so done. Therefore, they must take care in future,” the court warned the prosecution.

The court set November 29 as next date for hearing the case and directed the prosecution to take all requisite steps before that.

The order may be read here:

Delhi Police pulled up several times

In the past as well Sessions courts have pulled up the Police for not doing their jobs effectively. In November 2021, a Delhi court ordered the Delhi Police to investigate if a “deliberate attempt” had been made to shield five men, accused of being part of a mob that looted a Muslim man’s house and a medical store during the North East Delhi violence. The court said that the “accused were not discharged because the incident did not take place or that they were falsely implicated.”

In October 2021, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) in Delhi imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Delhi Police to be paid to the accused persons for causing delay in moving an application regarding segregation of complaint that caused “undue harassment” to the accused persons who were in judicial custody. The Magistrate pulled up the police and ruled that repeated directions in the communal violence case have “fallen on deaf ears” of the senior police officials. This order was later stayed by the Sessions Court.

On September 28,2021 the ASJ Vinod Yadav reprimanded Delhi Police for “sorry state affairs” in that it has not begun investigation in a riots case in which it is alleged that certain accused gave a call to violence over loudspeakers, to attack people from the other community.

On September 22, 2021 ASJ Yadav hauled up the Police and dropped arson charges against 10 people who were alleged to have damaged shops during the communal violence. He pulled up the Police for not registering the FIR on time despite the fact that the complaint of the alleged incident had reached the authorities on time. “No explanation in this regard has been provided by the investigating agency in the entire chargesheet,” said ASJ Yadav.

On September 2, 2021 ASJ Yadav discharged three accused- Shah Alam (26), Rashid Saifi (23), Shadab (26) from the case FIR number 93 of 2020, on the basis of two complaints alleging that a shop was burnt, attacked and looted during the violence. “The sort of investigation conducted in the instant case and the lack of supervision thereof by the superior officers clearly depicts that the investigating agency has merely tried to pull the wool over the Court’s eyes and nothing else,” he had said. The court observed that the case appeared to have been solved merely by filing this charge sheet “without any real effort being made to trace out eye witnesses, real accused persons and technical evidence”.

On March 23, ASJ Yadav had granted bail to one Amit Goswami accused of vandalising, looting and setting on fire a shop in Bhajanpura main market area by allegedly being a part of a riotous mob. While the bail was granted on grounds of parity, the court had questioned the credibility of the police witnesses while observing that no PCR call was made by them on the date of witnessing the incident, “Being police officials, what stopped them from reporting the matter then and there in the PS or to bring the same in the knowledge of higher police officers,” he questioned.

It is pertinent to note here that ASJ Yadav who reprimanded Delhi Police time and again, was transferred by the High Court soon after.

Irshad Ahmed, an associate of jailed Tahir Hussain (who is the main accused in UAPA FIR 59), was granted bail by the High Court on October 7, 2020. Justice Suresh Kait noted that the police constables did not make any complaint on the date of the incident (February 25), and filed the FIR only on February 28. “Thus, the said witnesses seem to be planted one”, he observed.

Evidently, the Delhi Police and its investigations in the Delhi Violence cases seem to have fallen through. The rampant arrests made during the riots, innocents languishing in jail for months, shoddy investigation, ‘planted witnesses’ were some facets that unraveled during the many hearings that have taken place in the last 2 years.

The post Delhi violence: Will not take such mishaps leniently: says Court as Delhi police brings “irrelevant witness” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Delhi Violence: Prosecution opposes Umar Khalid’s bail plea claiming protests were planned in detail

Wed, 24 Aug 2022 09:08:31 +0000

Image Courtesy: siasat.com

On August 23, 2022, during the bail plea hearing of Dr. Umar Khalid in the matter pertaining to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi violence, the Prosecution told the Delhi High Court that protest sites were deliberately picked based on their proximity to Masjids, reported LiveLaw.

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad argued before a special bench comprising Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar how the Shaheen Bagh protest was not driven by women protesters, but was instead planned and coordinated by activists who also tried to make the protest look secular instead of just driven by Muslims.

It was the prosecution’s case that every spot and protest during the riots had continuous support and was co-ordinated through whatsapp group namely DPSG. He reportedly argued, “Every time some police action is taken, immediately lawyers are sent. Support is given.” He reportedly added, “I will demonstrate from their own chats, that how they are saying that bring in more Hindus so that it looks like secularism. Locals did not support. There were people who were transported from sites. And I’ll show from statement of witnesses, how people were transported.”

He argued that sit-in protests had speakers and performers to hold the protesters together and to keep them entertained. He further stated, “All protest sites are in proximity to masjids. Then they (those allegedly involved in planning riots) say ‘our only concern is 24×7 protest sites are in muslim dominated areas, it will help BJP narrative’… Then you bring in the Government saying narrative.”

The matter has been listed to be heard on August 25 at 2:15 P.M.

After the court vacation, the Court resumed hearing Senior Advocate Trideep Pais appearing for Dr. Umar Khalid as he continued to make his submissions with respect to the bail plea filed by him, challenging the order passed by the Trial Court denying him bail in connection with the case involving charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), in the larger conspiracy case about the February 2020 Delhi violence.

Before the Court vacation, the Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar had heard the submissions by Dr. Umar Khalid over the span of four to five days and concluded his arguments on July 28, 2022. The Court then posted the matter for hearing on August 1, when Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad was granted an opportunity to make his submission on behalf of the State.

Background

Dr. Khalid was arrested by the Delhi Police in September 2020, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), on the charge of larger conspiracy to allegedly unleash violence to defame the Indian government during a visit by former US President Donald Trump. While Dr. Khalid was granted bail in the matter concerning Penal Code and Arms Act charges, he continues to remain in custody in connection with the Delhi Riots larger ‘conspiracy case’ concerning UAPA charges under FIR No. 59 of 2020.

While granting bail concerning the IPC & Arms Act charges, the Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav recognised that probability of a lengthy trial in the said matter. The court observed, “The applicant cannot be made to incarcerate in jail for infinity merely on account of the fact that other persons who were part of the riotous mob have to be identified and arrested in the matter.” It came down heavily on the State for providing inadequate evidence in this case, that is based on the statement provided by a prosecution witness. The court found the statement provided by the witness to be insignificant material and couldn’t comprehend how a lofty claim of conspiracy could be inferred based on it.

Importantly, the court noted that the material against Khalid was “sketchy” and that he cannot be incarcerated indefinitely on the basis of such evidence. “The applicant cannot be permitted to remain behind bars in this case on the basis of such sketchy material against him,” read the order. The judge also held that neither was Dr. Khalid present at the crime scene on the day when communal clashes broke out last year, nor was he captured in any CCTV footage/viral video. Further, the court also said that “…neither any independent witness nor any police witness has identified the applicant to be present at the scene of crime. Prima facie, the applicant appears to have been roped in the matter merely on the basis of his own disclosure statement and disclosure statement of co-accused Tahir Hussain.”

Under UAPA, Dr. Khalid has been charged under sections 13 (Punishment for unlawful activities), 16 (Punishment for terrorist act), 17 (Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act) and 18 (Punishment for conspiracy). Under UAPA, an accused person shall not be released on bail if the Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. The Delhi court made out a prima facie case merely on the basis of implausible, contradictory and vague statements made by the witnesses and gave no regards whatsoever to the fact that:

Dr. Khalid had not given any public calls to incite violence;
There is no evidence on record that proves Dr. Khalid’s participation in funding or transporting arms nor were they recovered from him,
Dr. Khalid was not even present in Delhi when the riots took place.

The post Delhi Violence: Prosecution opposes Umar Khalid’s bail plea claiming protests were planned in detail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Delhi Violence: Delhi HC issues notice in Gulfisha Fatima’s bail plea

Wed, 11 May 2022 10:58:04 +0000

Image Courtesy:outlookindia.com

On May 11, 2022, Delhi High Court issued notice to the Delhi government on the appeal filed by student-activist Gulfisha Fatima challenging the Trial Court’s order denying bail in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the outbreak of violence in North East Delhi in February 2020. Fatima is charged with several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in this larger conspiracy case.

A division bench comprising Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar sought response from the government and listed the matter to be heard on July 14. This is the same bench that is also hearing similar appeals filed by co-accused in the FIR, namely, Dr. Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Their bail pleas are listed for hearing on May 19 and May 26 respectively.

On March 17, 2022, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat of Delhi’s Karkardooma Court dismissed Fatima’s bail plea, saying that in view of the charge sheet and the accompanying documents, the allegations against the accused appear to be “prima facie true” and therefore, no relief can be given on account of the embargo under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

In the order, the court noted that the statements of the protected witnesses showed “sufficient incriminating material” against the accused, who was “not only involved in the entire protest before the period of riots at Seelampur and Jafrabad in North East Delhi, but was also actively guiding it.” It further recorded that Fatima was allegedly engaged in mass mobilisation, created two WhatsApp groups and was also present in northeast Delhi at the time of the riots.

“In fact, as per the witnesses, she was the one who started the blockade and prompted the attack on police personnel and others with weapons like dande, lal mirchi powder and others in the Jafrabad area, which had a cascading effect, leading to the riots,” the court noted.

Fatima along with several other activists, students and lawyers, has been booked under the anti-terror law, UAPA, in the infamous FIR 59/2020. The case alleges a larger conspiracy behind the riots and claims made by police within it have been challenged by reports of the Delhi Minorities Commission among others.

The post Delhi Violence: Delhi HC issues notice in Gulfisha Fatima’s bail plea appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Delhi Violence: Ishrat Jahan granted bail in wider conspiracy case

Wed, 16 Mar 2022 12:57:54 +0000

Image Courtesy:theleaflet.in

On March 14, 2022, the Karkadooma Sessions Court granted bail to lawyer-activist Ishrat Jahan after 25 months of incarceration. Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat had reserved orders in Jahan’s bail plea in February this year after extensive arguments had been made by Jahan’s counsel Pradeep Teotia. Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad appeared for prosecution.

Ishrat Jahan’s bail application was granted in FIR 59/2020 which alleges a larger conspiracy in the Delhi violence that broke out in February 2020. Jahan was arrested on February 26, 2020, and has been held in custody since then. This was a case under the controversial Unlawful Practices (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and was the second case slammed against dissenters and activists targeted in the case. It is noteworthy that Jahan,a Congress councillor, had vociferously protested the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)and was active in leading the protest at Khureji, Delhi.

The bail order imposes the following conditions:

The accused shall neither leave the jurisdiction of NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the court nor shall she indulge in any kind of criminal activity;
She shall also not tamper with any evidence or contact any witness;
She will cooperate in the investigation and shall not indulge in any activity influencing the investigation;
She shall attend the court on every date of hearing or as directed by court;
She will not indulge in any activities for which she is investigated/tried during the period of bail

Brief background of the case

Ishrat was arrested initially on February 26, 2020, on charges of “inciting violence, rioting and attempt to murder” under the Indian Penal Code. After spending a month in judicial custody, Ishrat along with four others were granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge Manjusha Wadhwa on March 21, 2020. The court had noted that the role assigned to Ishrat is that she incited the crowd to remain present at the protest spot as well as raised slogans of freedom, however, no overt act had been imputed to her regarding taking law into her own hands.

On the same day, she was re-arrested under UAPA charges and has remained in jail since then. For a brief period of 10 days, she was released on interim bail on account of her wedding in June 2020. Ishrat had moved for interim bail in November, which had been then rejected by the Delhi Sessions Court.

In December, Ishrat moved an urgent application before the Sessions court alleging harassment and beating from her fellow inmates inside Mandoli jail. The court directed the Jail Superintendent to ensure Ishrat’s safety and security, and also asked the authorities to file a report on this matter on December 22, 2020, accepting that Jahan fears for her life.

Making the argument on Ishrat Jahan’s behalf, advocate Teotia had added, “They have created a fear amongst people. She has been a lawyer. She was a young political person. She has a brilliant acumen. I was victorious from a ward where Muslims were less in number. Both the sects had given vote to her. No Muslim had even won from the said ward.” He further said, “She was a popular lady. They have no single iota of evidence regarding her involvement in the conspiracy. There has to be something.”

Arguments put forth by the prosecution against Ishrat Jahan’s bail

The prosecution argued that Ishrat’s role in the conspiracy must be taken together with the other accused persons and not individually.
A connection is drawn between the Anti-CAA protests in Khureji with the Communal riots in North- East Delhi stating that the creation of 23 protest sites were not organic in nature rather they were planned.
There have also been repeated attempts to draw a connection between Ishrat Jahan and other accused persons in the Delhi riots on the basis of 1097 calls and SMSs between Ishrat and Ammanullah
The prosecution alleges that the sole purpose of the Anti-CAA protests and Delhi riots was to defame the government internationally as also destabilise it.
Ishrat Jahan is alleged to be a contributor to the Delhi riots for making provocative speeches in Khureji.
The prosecution also alleges that the suspicious funds in Ishrat Jahan’s account were used for protests and procuring weapons for the riots.
The prosecution alleges that Ishrat Jahan is a co-conspirator and insinuates her being linked to organisations or incriminating Whatsapp group which plays a role in the entire conspiracy such as Muslim Students of JNU (MSJ) or Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC) or the four Whatsapp groups created by JCC, Pinjra Tod, Students of Jamia (SOJ) or Alumni Association of Jamia Milia (AAJMI) or Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG).

Arguments put forth in the favour of Ishrat Jahan’s bail

The counsel stated that arrest of the accused in present FIR leads to “double jeopardy” because of previous FIR No. 44/2020.
Then the counsel stated that Section 43D UAPA only puts restrictions but is not an absolute bar to the grant of bail and there is no cogent material to prima facie disclose commission of a terrorist act or conspiracy or an act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act.
The counsel also alleged that Ishrat Jahan has no deadly weapon or arms, reading material propagating violence were from her.
The counsel claimed that Ishrat Jahan has been falsely implicated in this case out of political vendetta.
The counsel dismisses that Jahan was a member of any banned group or organization or any Whatsapp group or a terrorist organisation that caused the violence and there is no video footage or electronic data or recoveries to prove that she incited the public or caused “terror” as claimed by the prosecution.Instead, the counsel claims that the video footages played in the court Jahan can be seen requesting people to remain peaceful and abide by the law.
The counsel also turns down the allegations made about Jahan’s connection with Amanatullah Khan to form Jamia Awareness Campaign Team (JACT).The counsel states that only 132 calls have been recorded to be made between Amanatullah and Ishrat Jahan as opposed to the prosecution’s allegations of 1097 calls and messages. It further states that out of those calls, 29 calls are zero second calls and there is no proof of incriminating messages that could establish conspiracy regarding riots.
The counsel denies prosecution claims about connections between Ishrat and Devangana as there is no evidence to establish the same. The only chat, the counsel admitted, is between Jahan and co-accused Tasleem, which are not ‘incriminatory’.
The counsel argues that the accused had only conducted peaceful protest against the CAA at Khureji site which was not banned and where no riots took place.
The counsel also claimed discrepancies in the witnesses produced by the prosecution and stated that they were either false or cannot be trusted.
Regarding Ishrat Jahan’s bank account, the counsel argued that her passbook indicates the same of pattern of expenditure as it was before the period in question.
The counsel also contended that even when Ishrat was out on interim bail in June 2020, she did not influence any witness or hamper the investigation
It was also argued that the Right to Protest is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India and that no complaint of any kind of criminal activity had been moved against any of the anti-CAA protestors, besides her.

Grounds for granting bail

Quoting section 43D of UAPA, the Court stated that as per the section, there should be reasonable grounds in the court’s opinion for believing that accusation against the accused is prima facie true. Therefore, apart from the general conspiracy and applicability of UAPA, the Court took into consideration the material against Ishrat Jahan and drew the following conclusions:

Ishrat Jahan is not the one who created the idea of chakka-jam;
She is not a member of any of the organizations or incriminating Whatsapp group which plays a role in the entire conspiracy;
She is not a member of Muslim Students of JNU (MSJ) or Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC) or any of the four Whatsapp groups created by JCC, or Pinjra Tod, or Students of Jamia (SOJ) or Alumni Association of Jamia Milia (AAJMI) or DPSG;
Ishrat Jahan was only involved in the protest site at Khureji, Delhi which is away from North-East Delhi where the horrendous riots took place in February 2020 and the two places are not even contiguous;
Even though the Court accepts that she had connectivity with the other accused persons, it considers the fact that she was neither physically present in North-East Delhi for riots nor was she part of any group, organization or Whatsapp groups or her name cropped in flurry of calls or in any CCTV footage or in any of the conspiratorial meetings;

Therefore, taking a wide view of Ishrat Jahan’s role in the entire conspiracy, the court allowed the bail application despite the embargoes contained in Cr.PC and UAPA. The Court briefly mentionedthatthe allegations of her provocative speeches at Khurejicontributing to the violence in North-East Delhi and the allegations of suspicious funds in her account used for the purpose of protest would be dealt in the due course of the court proceedings.

The Court’s order may be read here:

Why is UAPA known as a draconian statute?

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which after amendments made in 2004 and 2008, introduced acts of terrorism, funding terrorist activity and conspiracy to commit acts of terror into its ambit (the law dates back to the 1960s), has been regularly abused since then, often to incarcerate politically inconvenient voices, more especially so by the executive in the past seven years.

Ishrat Jahan was charged under the draconian UAPA. 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 UAPA were also added against her by the Delhi Police.

The main reason why UAPA is known as a draconian statute is because the proviso of Section 43-D of the Act states that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the stipulated period of 90 days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of 90 days, extend the period upto 180 days.

Hardships faced by Ishrat Jahan in Jail

In November 2020, when Ishrat moved for interim bail which was rejected by the Delhi Sessions Court, Ishrat’s lawyers had argued that in October, 2020 she had taken a fall in the bathroom where she sustained spinal injuries. She was already suffering from spinal ailments but since she was in jail, she had not been receiving any proper treatment and that aggravated her back pain. Jahan’s migraine was also getting out of hand and in addition to this, she also developed high blood pressure and anxiety. Her lawyers had argued that she is a law-abiding citizen and that due to Covid-19, she should be granted bail.

The State objected to her bail plea and told the court that Jahan had tested negative for Covid-19 and that the jails were being regularly sanitised. They also submitted that the situation was “totally under control” and that she had been receiving proper treatment in jail for her “minor health issues”.

Additional Sessions Judge, Amitabh Rawat, who was hearing her case, agreed with the State and found no cogent reason to enlarge her on interim bail on medical grounds. He said, “the applicant is complaining of cervical, spine injury/lower back pain, migraine and high blood pressure. There is no medical emergency shown by the applicant. Moreover, as per the report of the Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail, all the necessary protocols regarding Covid-19 related precautions are being taken and the situation is totally under control. There is no Covid scare inside jail. The applicant is also being given proper treatment for her minor health issues and her condition is stable.”

In December 2020, Ishrat moved an urgent application before the Sessions court alleging harassment and beating from her fellow inmates inside Mandoli jail. Her lawyer Pradeep Teotia contended that this was not one isolated incident and that she had been facing regular discrimination and beatings at the hands of other inmates.Her family had alleged that Ishrat had been attacked, her clothes torn, head smashed against the wall several times. Her mental, emotional and physical health had been affected under such circumstances.

According to an Indian Express report, Ishrat had told the court that this was the second incident in a month. “In the morning today at 6.30, they (inmates) beat me badly and abused me verbally. One of the inmates even slit her hand so I’m punished on a false complaint. Fortunately, jail officials did not listen to them. I have given a written complaint. They keep calling me a terrorist. They also demanded money from me in the canteen,” she was quoted saying by the IE.

ASJ Rawat had orally observed, “She (Jahan) seems to be in a state of utter fear. Please talk to her immediately and understand the situation. File a detailed report about steps taken to allay her apprehension and fear. Take all necessary steps, take immediate steps. I don’t want to hear that the accused was further harassed by her inmates or anybody else because she complained. I do not want to hear that the present accused is harmed in any way,” as per the IE report.

The other accused in the Delhi Riots case had also been facing similar discrimination inside jails, recorded Judge Rawat. Further, the court directed the Jail Superintendent to ensure Ishrat’s safety and security and also asked the authorities to file a report on this matter on December 22, 2020, accepting that Jahan is fearful of her life.

According to her sister Sarwer, Ishrat had been “very active and healthy all throughout” however the “grave trauma and stress of this case being falsely put on her she has become a patient of high BP and other psychological health related issues inside the jail.” Ishrat had been asking for medicines, however, her sister says all she had been given in jailwas a “a paracetamol for all issues.” Her sister also stated that she was confined to the barrack due to the Covid-19 restrictions inside the prison and there was no ‘time out’ given even for an hour in 24 hours to step outside for fresh air. Her family had feared that the isolationand lack of movement would aggravate Ishrat’s health problems. Sarwer shared that even in the peak summer, the cell had coolers placed, which were ineffective as they had no water supply. The drinking water dispensers were kept in the sun, and inmates had no access to cool water in the summer.

Not one to be sitting idle even under trying circumstances, Ishrat, had started teaching yoga to women lodged with her in the barrack. She spent her whole day doing yoga, reading a few books and the Quran. Though there have been many moments, when tears have flown as freely from her eyes, as the prayers did from her lips. For Ishrat, as it is for all political detainees, the time she spent in jail was a massive punishment in itself. Outside the jail, her family, and an extended family of friends and well-wishers who underwent a similar trauma. Her widowed mother, her sister, and her husband now release a sigh of relief as she has been granted bail after the 25 months long wait.

The post Delhi Violence: Ishrat Jahan granted bail in wider conspiracy case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Delhi Violence: Peace and Harmony Committee serves notice to Facebook

Fri, 29 Oct 2021 11:57:46 +0000

Image Courtesy:thestatesman.com

Things are not going Facebook’s way. Ever since the shocking revelations made by a whistleblower a few weeks ago, Facebook’s role in allowing hate to spread unchecked on its platform and even spill onto the streets has been getting increased scrutiny. So much so, that the Peace and Harmony Committee of the Delhi Legislative Assembly has asked it to send a representative to appear before the Committee on November 2.

On October 27, the Committee issued notice to Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. The Indian Express quoted an official government communique as saying, “In continuation of previous proceedings, the Delhi Legislative Assembly’s Committee on Peace and Harmony has decided to call upon representatives of Facebook India to depose its view on the important role of social media in curbing the spread of false, provocative and malicious messages which can fan violence and disharmony.” It further said, “So far, the committee has examined extremely crucial witnesses, including senior journalists, fact checkers, digital rights activists and Facebook employees. Proceedings shall be live-streamed to maintain the utmost transparency in the functioning of the committee.”

So far journalists Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Prabir Purkayastha and fact-checking portal Atl News’s founder Pratik Sinha have testified before the Committee.

It remains to be seen though if Facebook would send a representative given how it has, in the past, used every trick in the book to avoid appearing before the Committee.

A brief history of Facebook vis-à-vis Peace and Harmony

In March 2020, the Delhi Legislative Assembly formed the Committee of Peace and Harmony comprising 9 members in response to the riots that took place in north east Delhi in February. The Committee has been examining the role of Facebook in helping the instigation of the riots and has issued summons to the company twice.

On September 14, 2020, the Committee received a letter from Facebook India stating that it would not be answering the summons because it considered the subject matter to be “within the exclusive domain of the Union of India.” Ajit Mohan, the Vice President of Facebook India moved the Supreme Court against the notice issued by the Delhi Legislative Assembly’s Committee of Peace and Harmony. Mohan’s petition stated that the Committee cannot summon him as the same issue is being considered by a Parliamentary panel as well.

On July 8, 2021, the Supreme Court, in a judgement in connection with the case Ajit Mohan & Ors. V. Legislative Assembly, NCT of Delhi ruled that the Committee had the power to summon both, members and non-members, including representatives of Facebook. The October 27 notice has been issued in furtherance of this judgment.

Facebook turns a blind eye to complaints against Hate Speech

A recent revelation by a whistleblower showed how Facebook was unable to control the spread of hate speech on its platform. While the company tried to dodge the bullet by claiming it did not have factchecker and people to examine and block hate content in all languages, truth it, that the platform has refused to check hate, even when it is pointed out to it.

SabrangIndia’s sister organisation Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has sent complaints on two occasions to Facebook concerning hateful and violence-inciting speech made by Ragni Tiwari, a right-wing social media influencer who has frequently encouraged acts of violence. CJP’s December 24, 2020 complaint was about her video whereby she appealed to the masses to prepare themselves for December 17 to recreate Jafrabad (read a reference to the February 2020, Delhi Violence) if the farmers don’t stop protesting and leave Delhi. She openly issued a fresh warning to the Central and Delhi Government that if the protests are not put to an end by December 16, she will take to the streets and get all roads cleared and history will repeat itself. By history, she meant the targeted Delhi Pogrom where she brazenly called for the slaughter of the Muslim community and the violence that followed led to deaths of more than 50 people.

Another complaint was sent on March 3, 2020 for the comments she made in a Facebook live broadcast on February 23, 2020, amidst the Delhi violence. In the video she is seen using derogatory language including cuss-words against the Delhi police for their alleged inaction against stone-pelters. In the 23-minute-long video she said, “Yes, for my country and religion, I cleaned out Jafrabad, and I don’t regret it. If I stay alive, then I vow that every time Shaheen Bagh and Jaffrabad [situations] are created, I will clean them out again, in my style.”

In January 2021, Facebook Inc has responded to two complaints sent by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) against hateful and inciteful speech made by Ragni Tiwari, stating that they are not in a position to take any action against Tiwari. Instead, Facebook suggested that CJP contact the party directly to get a resolution on the issue.

The post Delhi Violence: Peace and Harmony Committee serves notice to Facebook appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Delhi court denies bail to Sharjeel Imam in sedition case

Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:56:57 +0000

Image Courtesy:livelaw.in

A Delhi court has denied bail to Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar, Sharjeel Imam in connection with the sedition case registered against him in December 2019, where it was alleged that his speech made during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB at that time) led to the Delhi violence in 2020.

Additional Sessions Judge, Anuj Agarwal, said that his speech delivered at Jamia was “clearly on communal/divisive lines. In my view, the tone and tenor of the incendiary speech tend to have a debilitating effect upon public tranquillity, peace and harmony of the society.”

Judge Agarwal also added that the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression cannot be exercised at the cost of communal peace and harmony of the society.

However, as far as allegations against him for offences like being part of an unlawful assembly, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy, rioting with deadly weapons, voluntarily causing grievous hurt are concerned, the court said, “I am of the prima facie view that the evidence in support of the allegations (rioters got instigated by the speech dated 13.12.2019 of applicant/accused and thereafter they indulged in the acts of rioting, mischief, attacking the police party etc), is scanty and sketchy.”

The court noted that there was no eye witness to this effect, and that there is no evidence presented by the Delhi Police to suggest that co-accused persons got instigated and committed the alleged act of rioting upon hearing Imam’s speech.

The order also said, “The theory as propounded by investigating agency leaves gaping holes which leaves an incomplete picture unless the gaps are filled by resorting to surmises and conjectures or by essentially replying upon the disclosure statement of applicant/accused Sharjeel Iman and co-accused. In either case, it is not legally permissible to build the edifice of the prosecution version upon the foundation of imagination or upon inadmissible confession before a police officer.”

The order delivered by Judge Anuj Agarwal also quotes Swami Vivekananda as saying, “We are what our thoughts have made us; so, take care about what you think. Words are secondary. Thoughts live; they travel far.”

Sharjeel Imam has been accused of giving provocative speeches on December 13 in 2019 and January 16, 2020 that were alleged to have culminated into the North East Delhi violence in February last year. The present case dealt with his speech on December 13, 2019 where the prosecution alleged that he instigated a particular religious community against the government by creating fear in their minds regarding the citizenship amendment bill (at that time) and National Register of Citizens (NRC).

He was charged for section 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) of the Indian Penal Code. He is also facing UAPA charges in cases pertaining to the North East Delhi violence of 2020, and is currently lodged in Tihar Jail.

He has applied for bail in the UAPA case which is being heard by Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat.

The order may be read here:

The post Delhi court denies bail to Sharjeel Imam in sedition case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Delhi Violence: Sessions Court stays Magistrate’s order imposing Rs. 25,000 costs on Delhi Police

Tue, 19 Oct 2021 06:45:46 +0000

Representative Image

The Principal District and Sessions Judge has stayed the operation of the Magistrate’s order which had imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on Delhi Police after observing that the delay in moving an application regarding segregation of complaint caused undue harassment to the accused persons who are currently detained.

Judge Ramesh Kumar said, “In view of the submissions of Spl. PP and facts and circumstances of the case, the operation of the impugned order, dated 12.10.2021, is stayed till the next date of hearing.”

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Arun Kumar Garg’s order was challenged through a revision petition filed by SHO Police Station Bhajanpura.

As we had reported previously in SabrangIndia, on October 12, the CMM had pulled up the Delhi Police and ruled that repeated directions in the communal violence case have “fallen on deaf ears” of the senior police officials. The court directed the Commissioner of Police to furnish a detailed report regarding steps taken by him to ensure proper investigation or prosecution of riots cases and their expeditious trial within a period of seven days.

CMM Garg also noted that no case diary was written in the matter after September 10, and that the supplementary charge sheet qua the complaint of Faizan Khan will be filed within a period of 3 days. To this, he said, “In view of inconsistency in the submissions made on behalf of IO as well as Ld. SPP regarding segregation of investigation qua the complaint of Akil Ahmad on the one hand and of the complainant Faizan Khan on the other, it is apparent that the prosecution is still not sure as to how it should go about further investigation/prosecution in the present case and in the only purpose for seeking permission for further investigation is to derail the further proceedings in the present case.”

Time and again, the courts have pulled up the Delhi Police for their investigation in the north-east Delhi violence case. Recently, Additional Sessions Judge, Vinod Yadav, who was adjudicating on some of the violence cases was transferred to another court. He is known to have slammed the police for their shoddy investigation on various occasions.

In one of the last orders passed by him, he had reprimanded Delhi Police for the “sorry state affairs” as it had not begun investigation in the riots case in which it was alleged that certain accused gave a call to violence over loudspeakers, to attack people from the other community.

CMM Arun Garg has also slammed the Police’s technique of investigating the cases pertaining to the February violence of last year. On September 6, he had directed the Delhi Commissioner of Police to take action to ensure proper investigation. On September 1 as well, the court had pulled up the Delhi Police for its conduct of filing supplementary chargesheets and failing to ensure conclusion of investigation due to which the court was unable to go ahead with trial.

“Last and final opportunity is accordingly given to the State to do the needful in the matter for filing of supplementary chargesheet positively within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, the Court shall proceed further with the matter without giving any further opportunity to the State in this regard particularly in view of the fact that the accused is running in J/C for over a period of almost one year,” the court had said. (State v. Dinesh Yadav @Michael CR Case No. 1274/2020)

The District and Sessions Judge’s order may be read here:

The post Delhi Violence: Sessions Court stays Magistrate’s order imposing Rs. 25,000 costs on Delhi Police appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Delhi violence: Court imposes 25,000 costs on Police for causing “undue harassment” to accused

Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:31:43 +0000

Image Courtesy:timesofindia.indiatimes.com

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) in Delhi has imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Delhi Police to be paid to the accused persons in the north east Delhi violence case. CMM, Arun Kumar Garg observed that there was a delay in moving an application regarding segregation of complaint that caused “undue harassment” to the accused persons, two of whom are in judicial custody.

The Magistrate pulled up the police and ruled that repeated directions in the communal violence case have “fallen on deaf ears” of the senior police officials. The court directed the Commissioner of Police to furnish a detailed report regarding steps taken by him to ensure proper investigation or prosecution of riots cases and their expeditious trial within a period of seven days.

“It is significant to note that the observations were made by Ld. ASJ in the present case way back on 10.09.2021, however, till date no steps have been taken by the IO to seek permission of the court for further investigation and for segregation of the complaint Faizan Khan or for that matter of complainant Akil Ahmad. Repeated directions have already been issued by this court not only yo DCP (NE), Joint Commissioner of Police, (Eastern Range) and Commissioner of Police, Delhi seeking personal intervention in the matters pertaining to the North East riots, however it appears that all the aforesaid directions have fallen on deaf ears…”, said the court.

The court perused the status report filed by the investigating officer wherein a prayer was made for granting permission and further time for investigation of the matter, and also to investigate the complaint of one Faizan Khan separately.

The Special Public Prosecutor, for the Police, submitted that further investigation in the matter was necessary in terms of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated September 10, 2021, wherein it was highlighted that the investigation qua complaint of the complainant namely Akil Ahmad pertaining to the incident could not have been clubbed with the present FIR.

Accordingly, a fine of Rs. 25,000 was imposed to be paid by the State to all 7 accused persons. Further, the court directed the Secretary (Home) Union of India to order an inquiry to fix the responsibility for imposition of the cost and deduction of the same from the salary of the responsible officer.

The order may be read here:

The post Delhi violence: Court imposes 25,000 costs on Police for causing “undue harassment” to accused appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Chargesheet against me looks like a film script: Umar Khalid to court

Tue, 12 Oct 2021 11:48:54 +0000

Image Courtesy:khaboreprakash.com

A Delhi court continued to hear the bail arguments of Dr. Umar Khalid, accused in the North East Delhi violence case of 2020, through his lawyer, senior counsel, Trideep Pais.

Pais referred to the WhatsApp group that was allegedly made to conspire with co-accused persons to unleash terror in the National Capital. He argued that Umar Khalid never sent a single message in this said group. The chargesheet has stated that Khalid and co-accused Sharjeel Imam communicated about the violence. But Pais argued, “No communication between me and Sharjeel Imam…just being in a group is not a crime. Your (Delhi Police) wish to paint everyone in the same brush crumbles when you look at your chargesheet. Script is nicely tied up. Can we paint these people with one brush. Like it looks like a film script,” reported The Indian Express.

Pais further alleged that there was no consistency in the chargesheet as it first claims that Imam and Khalid have a difference of opinion and later states that Imam was mentored by Khalid who asked him to start the WhatsApp group.

As per a LiveLaw report, the chargesheet filed under the UAPA FIR number 59 of 2020 reads, “On December 17, 2019, an agitation against CAA bill was called by United against hate at Jantar Mantar. Sharjeel Imam joined this agitation…Sharjeel Imam was introduced to Yogender Yadav by Umar Khalid, his senior and mentor.” Pais objected to this and said that such allegations by the Delhi Police are “dangerous”.

He also reportedly added that no witness has said that Sharjeel Imam and Umar were introduced. The IE quoted Pais saying, “The officer who was writing this wants to have a story to tell you. However, he forgets that he is not a storyteller. He is dealing with the law. This is how you want to frame the people.”

Trideep Pais further argued that organising a protest meeting and planning a chakka jam (road blockade) is not an offence that attracts the charges of criminal conspiracy. He also referred to a portion in the chargesheet which states that there was a secret meeting in Jangpura, Delhi, to plan the February violence. The Police had him photographed and Pais argued that it was not a “secret meeting” if the Police knew about his whereabouts.

In the previous hearing, Khalid had withdrawn his section 439 bail application and filed a fresh one under section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This was done when the Delhi Police had raised an objection to the 439 application because of maintainability issues. As we have previously reported in SabrangIndia, Pais has also argued that the Police misquoted Khalid’s speech and the chargesheet against him is a fertile imagination of the Police.

Last month, Khalid, who has been booked under the anti-terror law, completed a year in prison. 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.

His bail hearing will continue on November 2.

The post Chargesheet against me looks like a film script: Umar Khalid to court appeared first on SabrangIndia.