'Is Organizing Protest Site Good Enough To Attract UAPA?' High Court Asks Delhi Police In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned the Delhi Police as to whether organizing a protest site is good enough to attract Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against an individual.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur put the question to SPP Amit Prasad, who was opposing the bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and other accused persons in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots case.

“The problem is only this. Is it your case that only setting up a protest site is enough for UAPA or those protest site resulted in violence? But the most important thing is intent under UAPA which has to be established,” the bench said.

Prasad took the Court through various WhatsApp chats to establish conspiracy and planning to commit the riots by the accused persons.

As Prasad was referring to WhatsApp chat between two individuals who were not named as accused in the case, the Bench asked: “How can you leave these two?... and you're relying on their messages.”

“The conspiracy is that there are WhatsApp groups. In the WhatsApp groups, there are instigations that, let's do this, a planning which is of a chakka jam. There is also a hint of violence there, and violence actually happens. Till then, yes, if they are involved, you may say UAPA is attracted. But when you draw attention to something like a JACT (WhatsApp group) and your own argument is that they were organizing protest sites. Is that good enough?”, the bench asked Prasad.

To this, Prasad said: “That is the reason not everybody involved is made an accused in this case.”

The bench then said: “Why we've been asking you all this is that come to the specific…that this man, this is what I have against him, this is why I'm saying that he was actually instigating violence, rather than having a protest.”

Furthermore , Prasad said that the Shaheen Bagh protest was not organic but was well planned. How can it be organic protest when even the locals were not supporting, he said.

The Court asked Prasad to make a chart showing which accused person was a member of a particular WhatsApp group.

The matter will continue to be heard tomorrow.

The bench is hearing the bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi and Gulfisha Fatima. 

Delhi Police's appeal against bail granted to accused Ishrat Jahan is also listed in the batch.

Umar Khalid was denied bail in October 2022 by the Delhi High Court. He then approached the Supreme Court but later withdrew his SLP. A second regular bail plea was filed by him in the trial court which was rejected earlier this year. 

Khalid's appeal challenging the rejection of his second regular bail plea is pending before the Delhi High Court.

FIR 59 of 2020 was registered by Delhi Police's Special Cell under various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The accused in the case are Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Isharat 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.

Title: Umar Khalid v. State and other connected matters