Sharjeel Imam, a former student of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and activist, has remained incarcerated since January 28, 2020, after his arrest on charges of sedition and promoting hatred between different groups. His extended imprisonment, spanning almost five years, brings up critical questions about the role of his defence counsel, public prosecutors, and the judiciary in the delay of his bail proceedings.
Background of the Case
Imam’s arrest stemmed from the speeches he delivered at Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in 2019-2020. The authorities alleged that his speeches incited violence, which led to charges under sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity), and 505(2) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code, along with the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
There have been 70 hearings, with the change of seven benches. In this case, three judges have recused themselves, according to Imam’s lawyer. The matter has been heard by the court completely three times. However, the transfer of judges twice after a full hearing led his lawyer arguing the case from the start, whenever a new judge took charge. In all, he has been jailed for five years. His lawyer said, “This is not something that should happen to anyone.”
His lawyer calculated the five years not from the arrest of Imam in the conspiracy case in August 2020, but from the time Delhi police arrested him on January 28, 2020, for the speech he made at the Aligarh Muslim University, Uttar Pradesh, on January 16, 2020, even while the anti-CAA movement was growing.
Subsequently, seven more cases have been registered against Imam, a software engineer from IIT Bombay, and a PhD candidate at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, who hails from Jehanabad, Bihar. The other suspects in the conspiracy case including Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Khalid Saifi, and Meeran Haider have also been imprisoned for between four and five years without bail or trial.
The Observations of Ex CJI
In this regard, Ex-CJI DY Chandrachud stressed that while the narratives of the media often interpret certain cases in a particular light, the actual merits taken into account by the judiciary may differ significantly. He pointed out that judges base their decisions on the case records, which might not align with media representations. The significance of his comments lies in their clarification of the judiciary’s role and the factors influencing bail decisions. By highlighting the delay caused by the defence’s own actions as in the case of Umar Khalid, he contests the explanation that the judiciary is solely responsible for the extended incarceration of individuals. This observation highlights the significance of recognizing the intricacies of legal proceedings and the necessity for appropriate and effective legal representation.
Judicial Proceedings and Bail Attempts
Imam’s legal journey has been marked by multiple bail applications and judicial reviews:
- April 2022: A Delhi District Court denied him bail in the “larger conspiracy” case related to the 2020 Delhi riots, citing that the allegations appeared “prima facie true.”
- September 2022: He was given bail in a case related to a speech near Jamia Millia Islamia in 2019.
- May 2024: The Delhi High Court granted him bail related to his speeches during the anti-CAA protests. However, he remained in custody due to the investigations in progress under UAPA related to the 2020 Delhi riots.
Analysis of the Delay
The extended duration of Imam’s pre-trial detention could be attributed to several factors:
- Stringent Charges: The invocation of serious charges under the UAPA and sedition laws inherently complicates and prolongs legal proceedings. Courts often exercise intense caution in granting bail in such offenses, leading to extended periods of incarceration.
- Judicial Caution: Lower courts have demonstrated reluctance in granting bail, possibly due to the gravity of the allegations and potential public and political ramifications. Such cautious approach contributes to prolonged detention.
- Prosecution’s Stance: The prosecution has consistently opposed bail applications, emphasizing the severity of the charges and potential threats to public order. For example, during a hearing in February 2025, the Delhi Police contended that extended detention alone does not justify bail in cases that involve anti-national activities.
- Procedural Delays: The legal process has faced considerable delay. The bail plea of Imam before the Delhi High Court has remained pending for more than two years and nine months, despite the directives of the Supreme Court for the speedy handling of bail matters.
- Defence Strategy: Even as his legal team has actively pursued bail using various legal possibilities, the complexity and severity of the charges has reduced their effectiveness. The defence’s efforts to contest the constitutionality of the sedition law and other legal strategies may have unwittingly contributed to the procedural delay.
Implications of Prolonged Detention
The extended pre-trial detention of Sharjeel Imam has several profound implications:
- Human Rights Concerns: Extended imprisonment without conviction raises important human rights issues, particularly involving the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
- Judicial Precedents: This case emphasizes the need for the judiciary to weigh concerns about national security with individual liberty. The Supreme Court has stressed that bail should be the norm, not the exception, yet lower courts frequently stray from this principle.
- Legal Reforms: The delay highlights systemic problems within the legal framework, especially related to the handling of cases under strict laws such as the UAPA. There is an urgent need for legal reforms to conduct timely trials and avoid the misuse of such laws.
Conclusion
The extended detention of Sharjeel Imam is a complicated issue, which resulted from stringent charges, judicial restraint, prosecutorial opposition, procedural delay, and the intrinsic challenges that the defence encounters. This case is a critical reflection of the handling of cases by the Indian judicial system involving serious allegations and the necessity to defend fundamental rights, while ensuring justice and not compromising national security.
About Author
Ananda Murthy JS is an English teacher in Hyderabad. His teaching experience spans more than 30 years, which includes his stint as an IGCSE teacher in the Maldives, lecturer in English for Intermediate students, writer and editor/language specialist, and IELTS, GRE and TOEFL trainer. He also provides English coaching to students appearing for CAT, IELTS, GRE and TOEFL privately in Hyderabad. Ananda has proficiency in editing SWOT analyses, market forecast and other reports, conducting Effective English sessions, and imparting training in Business English. He also write business blogs, key word dense articles and original articles on various topics.