The Delhi High Court has rejected the bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who are implicated in the 2020 Delhi riots, and both former JNU students have been in custody for five years. Sharjeel Imam was arrested on August 25, 2020, while Umar Khalid was arrested on September 13, 2020. In contrast, Shahrukh Pathan, who allegedly brandished a gun at a Delhi Police officer during the riots, has been granted bail.
Shahrukh was given 15 days of bail by the court in March, with the court citing the poor health of his father. His lawyer informed the court that his client had been in judicial custody since March 3, 2020, and had never been granted interim bail. Shahrukh Pathan is an accused in two riot-related cases: he is accused of pointing a gun at Head Constable Deepak Dahiya and also of being involved in a conspiracy to murder Rohit Shukla.
Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam face charges under UAPA and IPC for allegedly being the main conspirators of the February 2020 riots. These riots resulted in 53 fatalities and over 700 injuries. The violence erupted during protests against the CAA-NRC.
Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid have been in jail for five years. They appealed to the High Court for bail, but the appeal was rejected. Prior to this, their bail petitions were also denied by a lower court. In challenging the lower court’s decision, Imam and Khalid pointed out their lengthy incarceration and the fact that other co-accused had been granted bail.
In rejecting the bail pleas on Tuesday, the High Court stated that while the right to peaceful protest and public speech is protected under Article 19(1)(a), it should not be misused. The court stated that this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the Constitution. The court also said that allowing unrestricted protests could harm the constitutional framework and affect law and order.
The court stated that any conspiratorial violence under the guise of protests or demonstrations is not permissible. Such activities do not come under the scope of freedom of expression. The court asserted that the Constitution does grant citizens the right to protest or demonstrate, but only if these actions are organized, peaceful, and unarmed.
The judgment highlighted that citizens have a fundamental right to voice concerns against legislative actions, which strengthens democracy by indicating the participation of citizens in governance. This right is crucial as it permits citizens to express dissent, expose shortcomings in governance, and demand accountability from state officials. However, these actions must be within the bounds of the law.
