In an important development in the 2019 Jamia riots case, a Delhi court has framed charges against former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Sharjeel Imam, referring to him as the “kingpin” of the greater conspiracy behind the violence. The court remarked that Imam’s speech was malicious and aimed at inciting communal violence by setting one religion against another.
The Charges and Court Observations
Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat, while framing charges against Imam under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), noted that Imam’s speech was devised to arouse unrest. The court opined that Imam’s statements played a crucial role in inciting the violence near Jamia Millia Islamia University in December 2019. He has been charged under Sections 124A (sedition), 505 (statements conducing to public mischief), and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), sections 109 IPC (abetment of an offence) 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy) 153A IPC (promoting enmity between groups) 143, 147, 148, 149 IPC (unlawful assembly, rioting, armed rioting) Sections 186, 353, 332, 333 IPC (obstructing public servants, assaulting police officers) 308, 427, 435, 323, 341 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide, mischief, arson) and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
However, the charge under Section 124A IPC (sedition) was kept pending since the Supreme Court had ordered all such cases under the said provision to be halted till the Court decides on the validity of the provision.
The court’s order highlighted that Imam’s speech was not simply an expression of disagreement, but he had a clear intention to rake up violence and disturb public order. “The words used by Sharjeel Imam were not just casual remarks; they were filled with venom, with the aim of creating enmity between different communities,” the court noted in its statement.
Imam purposely utilized the Muslim community, exhorting them to disturb public life through ‘chakka jaam’ (road blockades) in various states to oppose the CAA, the judge stated.
Besides Imam, the court also framed charges against Ashu Khan, Chandan Kumar and Aasif Iqbal Tanha for purportedly misdirecting the mob and inciting violence. Their mobile location data and media interviews were quoted to prove their involvement.
The Court rejected the argument by Imam that he only called for peaceful protests, maintaining that a mass-scale chakka jaam (road block) could never remain peaceful in a city such as Delhi.
Background of the Case
The Jamia riots of December 2019 were caused by widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which led to violent clashes between protesters and law enforcement authorities. The protests took a violent turn near Jamia Millia Islamia University, resulting in allegations of police brutality and excessive use of force. The Delhi Police later filed charges against several individuals, alleging that a coordinated conspiracy had led to the violence.
Sharjeel Imam, a vociferous critic of the CAA and National Register of Citizens (NRC), was accused of making inflammatory speeches that influenced the unrest. He was arrested in January 2020 from Bihar and has remained in custody since then. His purported role in coordinating the protests and inciting violence has been a central point in the investigation in progress.
Imam’s Defence and Allegations of Targeting
Imam has been adamant that his speech was taken out of context and that he did not advocate violence. His defense team has said that he simply called for peaceful protests and that the charges against him were politically motivated. They have also questioned the application of sedition and UAPA charges, asserting that they set a dangerous precedent for free speech and dissent in the country.
Several human rights groups and activists have also raised concerns over the government’s management of dissenting voices, arguing that the use of tough anti-terror laws against student activists and protesters is a way to curb democratic expression. They contend that Imam’s speech, though contentious, should not be equated with incitement to violence.
Meanwhile, the case against 15 other accused persons was dismissed, with the court holding that mere mobile location data was inadequate to determine their involvement in the riots.
The Larger Implications
The framing of charges against Imam is likely to result in far-reaching consequences, not just in his case but for future protests and dissenting voices in India. The case brought forth debates about the limits of free speech, the role of the judiciary in protecting democratic rights, and the government’s approach to handling political dissent.
With the trial likely to proceed, all eyes will be on the courts to arrive at the final outcome of such a controversial case. Irrespective of the pronouncement of the court – guilty or acquitted – the verdict is bound to have lasting implications for India’s legal and political environment.
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.
