'Acts Of Violence, Violent Speeches Not Protected': Delhi HC Sets Aside Order Discharging Sharjeel Imam, Others In Jamia Violence Case

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday set aside trial court's decision to discharge Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others in the Jamia violence case, and framed charges against them under various provisions of Indian Penal Code. 

The judgment was passed on Delhi Police’s plea against the trial court order discharging the accused in the 2019 Jamia violence case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma , while pronouncing the verdict, said the right to peaceful assembly is subject to reasonable restrictions and that acts of violence or 'violent speeches' are not protected.

"Prima facie, as seen in the video, the respondents were in the first line of the mob. They were raising slogans of Delhi police murdabad and were violently pushing the barricades," said the court, while referring to some of the accused.

The court has said that charges be framed against Mohd Qasim, Mahmood Anwar, Shahzar Raza Khan, Umar Ahmad, Mohd. Bilal Nadeem, Sharjeel Imam and Chanda Yadav under sections 143,147,149,186,353,427 of IPC including section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. They have been discharged of rest of the offences as per FIR.

The Court has also discharged Asif Iqbal Tanha under sections 308, 323, 341, 435 of IPC. It has said that charges be framed under other offences against him.

The bench also said that charges against accused Mohd. Abuzar and Mohd. Shoaib be framed under sec. 143 of IPC. They have been discharged under other offences. 

The court had reserved the order on March 23 after hearing the matter at length for more than two hours. Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain had earlier made arguments for Delhi Police.

On February 4, the trial court had discharged Sharjeel Imam, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Safoora Zargar, Mohd. Abuzar, Umair Ahmed, Mohd. Shoaib, Mahmood Anwar, Mohd. Qasim, Mohd. Bilal Nadeem, Shahzar Raza Khan and Chanda Yadav in the case. However, it had found sufficient evidence to frame charges against Mohd. Ilyas.

Days thereafter, the police approached the High Court challenging the discharge. 

The case is connected to the incidents of violence at Jamia Milia Islamia University in December, 2019. The FIR alleges offences of rioting and unlawful assembly - sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 332, 333, 308, 427, 435, 323, 341, 120B and 34 of IPC were invoked in the case.

The police had filed a chargesheet against Mohd Ilyas on April 21, 2020. A second supplementary chargesheet was then filed against 11 other accused persons, who have been discharged in the matter.

A third supplementary chargesheet was also filed recently on February 1, 2023, during continuation of arguments on charge. The prosecution tried to establish that the witnesses had identified the accused persons on the basis of some photographs.

The trial court in its order observed that Delhi Police failed to adduce fresh evidence and rather sought to present old facts in the garb of “further investigation” by filing another supplementary chargesheet.

It further said that there were no eyewitnesses who could substantiate the police’s version that the accused persons were in any way involved in the commission of the offences.

However, days after passing the order, the trial court judge recused himself from hearing a similar case pertaining to the violence citing “personal reasons.” 

In the revision petition, Delhi Police argued that trial Court was swayed by “emotional and sentimental feelings” while discharging the accused. The court passed gravely prejudicial and adverse remarks against the prosecuting agency and the investigation, it has said.

Contending that trial court held a "min-trial" at the stage of framing charges, the police also said that the trial ought to have only merely sifted through the evidence to find out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

Advocates Rajat Nair and Dhruv Pandey appeared for Delhi Police.

Senior Advocate Rebecca John and Advocates M.R. Shamshad, Abubakr Sabbaq, Arijit Sarkar, Nabeela Jamil, Kajal Dalal, Aparajita Sinha, Javed Hashmi, Farid Ahmad, Shahnawaj Malik, Talib Mustafa, Ahmad Ibrahim, Ayesha Zaidi, Sowjhanya Shankaran, Siddharth Satija, Abhinav Sekhri, Ayush Shrivastava, Ritesh Dhar Dubey, Praavita Kashyap, Anushka Baruah, Chinmay Kanojia, Pravir Singh and Adya R. Luthra appeared for respondents.

Title: State v. Mohd. Qasim & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 272