Cases Against Him A 'Whip Of Monarch', Not Govt Established By Law: Sharjeel Imam's Lawyer Tells Court In Riots Case

Sharjeel Imam has told a Delhi Court that his prosecution in relation to the speeches made by him in Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia area in Delhi against the Citizenship Amendment Act is a whip of a monarch rather than the Government established by law.

"Today, this Prosecution of Sharjeel Imam is more of whip of a monarch rather than a government established by law. This is not how the government or executive have to respond. At the end of the day, dispensation will change. Nothing is permanant," Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir appearing for Imam submitted before the Court.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat was hearing the case concerning Sharjeel Imam in relation to the speeches made by him in Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia area in Delhi against the CAA under FIR 22/2020 registered by the Delhi Police under sec. 124A, 153A, 505 of the IPC along with sec. 13 of the UAPA which was added later.

Seeking bail as well as discharge in the matter, Mir submitted that there was no call for violence in the speeches made by Imam and that the allegations made by the Prosecution were only rhetorics having no basis.

"The Prosecution cannot have the discretion to add its own thoughts and inferences. We Prosecute somebody not purely on law but on facts," Mir submitted.

"These are extremely hollow arguments. It seems to be that they (Prosecution) are trying to build a case for the heck of it rather than substantially trying to prove that the speech is in the teeth of Kedarnath judgment," he added.

Mir submitted that being critical of the government cannot be the cause of sedition and that a person cannot be charged on pure suspicion.

He also requested the Court to look at the speech in its entirety, especially the specific instances where Imam had asked people not resort to violence and not to create a situation where this is a conflict thereby asking them to resort to the protest peacefully.

Further arguing that sec. 124A of the Indian Penal Code needs reconsideration, Mir submitted:

"Why does recently the Chief Justice of India say that we don't need sedition. Why? Since when do the government needs affection of people. It's only the monarchs, kings who need affection of people. We're not here to bow down before the government."

"This Country is a democracy and stands on the principles of constitutional values. Those values we're committed to protect today in Sharjeel Imam's case. He cannot be allowed to be persecuted just because he's critical of CAA or NRC," he added. 

Rebutting the prosecution's argument that Imam opened his speech with the words 'As-salamu alaykum' which is enough to show that it was addressed to a particular community and not to the public at large, Mir submitted:

"Would the Prosecution withdraw the Chargesheet had Sharjeel Imam started his speech with good morning, namaskar etc? At the end of the day, the statement is rhetoric and extremely hollow."

"One cannot convert oneself from being at a higher pedestal of Prosecutor and convert to persecutor. More or less, there is an element of persecution in making this statement before this Court. Only because the man is Sharjeel Imam who has chosen to criticise the government and be critical of government policy," Mir added.

Further rebutting another submission made by the Prosecution wherein it was argued that Imam challenged the sovereignty of India and also tried to imbibe a 'sense of hopelessness and insecurity' in Muslims that they have no hope left in the Country, Mir submitted that said argument was only to wreck vengeance on him.

On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad opposed the argument that the fundamental right to protest cannot go beyond an extent which causes problem to the public at large.

Arguing so, he relied on the judgment delivered by Supreme Court in Amit Sahani case wherein it was observed that "we have no hesitation in concluding that such kind of occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions."

"When I say that you're addressing to a particular community, I'm being told that you're being rhetoric. When you're addressing to a particular community, then there is nothing wrong in it," Prasad added. 

He also submitted that Sharjeel Imam tried to create an anarchy by saying that there is no hope left for Muslim community and that there is no other way left other than what he suggests which is road block.

"Therefore chain of events, you have got together a lot of people, created roadblocks and eventually violence happened. Here is what special knowledge comes in," he argued.

Accordingly, the matter was listed to October 23 for taking written submissions on record and for clarifications.

Earlier, seeking bail in the case, Sharjeel had told the Court there was nothing in the speeches which called for any violence or which can invoke sedition charge against him. He also emphasized that the speech was made amid a group of scholars as part of an "intellectual debate" and he cannot be prosecuted merely for holding a viewpoint which is different from that of the Government.

"Critical elements in our society are also necessary because in a society where criticism will die, the society will die. That is why, ultimately, the flag to uphold the constitution in a democracy securely lies in your honours' hands...Courageous men in this country will not be slapped with sedition. This is what our solemn duty is. Sharjeel Imam's view is not hostile," Advocate Mir had submitted.

He had also claimed that the investigative authority had taken "selective passages and lines" from the speech made by him and have given an illegal context to it by cut-pasting the same.

Case Title: State v. Sharjeel Imam