"Misguided One Community With Resentment, Hatred Towards Others:": Delhi Court On Framing Sedition Charges Against Sharjeel Imam

"Prima facie, the religious groups are sought to be divided on emotive issues and one community is sought to be (mis)guided in a particular way of resentment, ill­will and hatred towards others which can then be remedied by a plan of action which will result in violence," said a Delhi Court while framing sedition charges against Sharjeel Imam.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat made the observation while framing charges under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc.), 153B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC along with Section 13 (Punishment for unlawful activities) of the UAPA.

Charges were framed in a case relating to the alleged inflammatory speeches made by him in Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia area in Delhi against the Citizenship Amendment Act.

"The accused by referring to the blockage/cut­off of 'chicken­neck' which joins mainland India to the North­East by seems to remind everyone that the said land belongs to Muslims and the call to do it, by certain means is indicative of his intention," the Court said.

Perusing the speeches and other material provided by the prosecution, the Court said that prima facie, there appeared to be a tendency to create public disorder and incitement to violence.

"Speech also appears to challenge the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India. It also appears to create hatred/contempt for the lawful institutions of the State and to challenge them by unlawful means," the Judge added.

Importantly, the Court made the following observations while going through the legislative provisions and offences invoked:

- Any comment by itself marking disapproval of any measures of the government is not within the purview of this Section.

- Criticism of any government, government policies or even institutions is fundamentally within the reach of freedom of speech and expression. In fact, criticism and rallying people against what one perceives to be incorrect policy or even law is what makes a country democratic.

- Dissent is the hallmark of a progressive and democratic nation. Even advocacy of a point of view regardless of its force or reasoning or even palpable reprehensibility is not touched by this provision.

- What the Court has to discern is whether the activities of an accused brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excites disaffection towards government established by law.

- What is objectionable and punishable is the activities intending or having a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.

- The cherished Fundamental Rights of Speech and Expression under Article 19 of the Constitution is one of the pillars of a modern democratic nation which seeks to enhance its progress by constant exchange of ideas and meaningful discourse. This will take, within its ambit, the right to offend as naturally curbing any idea or expression which tends to be away from the mainstream and causes affront or offence to some people, would remove the efficacy of the right itself.

- It is equally true, however, that such right is subject to reasonable restrictions. But whenever, one talks of said rights of an individual, it must also be cognizant of the Fundamental Rights of other citizens. While maintaining this balance, the Directive Principles of State policy and Fundamental Duties cannot be just given a go by or consigned to ignominious side existence.

The Court was of the view that since speeches are reflection of one's thoughts, all the speeches made by Sharjeel Imam will have to be read in completion to decipher what he was thinking and trying to convince all those who had gathered around him and to whom the speech would get disseminated to.

"What we have to see is whether the 'laxman­rekha' is crossed or not i.e. the point where stand point crosses the boundaries laid ­down by the Statutes and judicial pronouncements, the law steps in. It is about respecting other people views and finding out legitimate ways of pushing your thinking. To expound an argument to say that a speech howsoever incorrect or incendiary or provocative and threatening must be accepted in complete deference to the right of free speech, is beyond the pale," the Court said.

It added "Speech can raise disparate issues which provides a fertile ground on which receiver of a speech understands what he is being asked to understand. As they say, intention has to be gathered from the words spoken, written or other expressions, therefore, a speaker will be taken to have intent of the consequences that followed. The speeches are made in public and not in a conference or a court."

Perusing the speeches in question, the Court said that a reading of entire speeches of Sharjeel Imam, "at least on a prima facie level, brings to the core the fundamental thinking, ideas and intent of the accused."

"The speeches are delivered and aimed at Muslim audience present there and to whom it will disseminate to. It will also be read and heard by people of other communities. The speeches seems to be indicative of showing the worthlessness of the community and existential crises. The issue of demographic profile in certain cities is misleading and needs to be explained at trial. Again the issue of ridiculing cow protection and in the context of secularism requires explanation at trial," the Court said.

"The accused in his speeches has made vituperative utterances against even the Father of the Nation. He seems to be skeptical of the ideas of secularism and democracy that has come about post Constitution."

The Court said that one a prima facie level, it appeared that Imam was trying to convince that Muslims as a community have been deprived because of the Constitution and the people who made the Constitution or who are required to protect it.

"The religious slogans having been used in the context of the Constitution and CAA/NRC at this stage may be taken as an indicative of his thought process. The references to cow­ killing or reservations not being given to Muslims who had converted from Hindus as such have no relevance for the protest which is ostensibly shown in the arguments as against the CAA law. The speeches appear to be completely pessimistic. In his admitted speech, he focuses that Muslims are concentrated in urban areas and there are 24 cities in the country where the Muslim population can stop the functioning and put to the city at halt and bring the government to its knees," the Court said.

"The accused has made utterances not just once but many times over. It is not as if the words are spelt out in a moment of haste or anger or antagonism without intending it."

Imam was booked vide FIR 22/2020 registered by the Delhi Police. The alleged offence under UAPA was added later. 

Case Title: State v. Sharjeel Imam

Click Here To Read Order