Delhi Riots-"Being A Protestor Not An Offence": Jamia Alumni President Shifa-Ur-Rehman To Delhi Court In Bail Hearing

President of Jamia Millia Islamia Alumni Association, Shifa-Ur-Rehman told a Delhi Court on Tuesday that merely being a protestor is not an offence and that every person is entitled to have his or her own opinion.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat was hearing a bail plea moved by Shifa ur Rehman in FIR 59/2020 which alleges a larger conspiracy in the Delhi Riots that happened last year.

FIR 59/2020 contains stringent charges including Sections 13, 16, 17, 18 of the UAPA, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984 and other offences under Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Advocate Abhishek Singh appearing on behalf of Rehman submitted before the Court thus:

"Being a member or part of AAJMI is not offence. Being a protestor is not offence. A person is entitled to his opinion. Being a member of JCC is not an offence. JCC was a WhatsApp group."

Singh began by submitting that the sanction order issued by the Central and Delhi Government for prosecuting under UAPA against Rehman was a nullity thereby defeating the mandate of section 43D of UAPA.

Submitting that grant of Sanction is a prerequisite to the filing of charge-sheet or taking of cognizance in the matter, Singh said that such a power under section 45 of the Act was subject to the condition that there has to be an independent review of evidence gathered during the investigation.

"The question will be, can such independent review be carried out if the investigation is halfway through or not completed? If exercise is not completed and sanction is granted, will that sanction or chargesheet be valid?," Singh submitted.

In view of this, it was further submitted that where ex facie there was material to show that it was impossible to conduct such exercise, in those cases there will be no basis to form an opinion under sec. 43D(5) of UAPA that allegations against Rehman were prima facie true.

"On July 31,2020, if the investigation was not completed, I ask myself, how could the independent review of investigation could have taken place? How was the evidence gathered provided to them? How could an investigation report have gone on this date if the investigation was not complete?," questioned Singh.

Furthermore, he said:

"It's not a case of invalidity of sanction. It's a case of nullity of sanction. If that precondition is not satisfied, the sanction will be a nullity. It cannot be argued against me that sanction is something which will be looked against me in the later stages of trial."

Relying on Rehman's mobile data analysis done in the matter, Singh argued that there was no instigation of violence in the Jamia Coordination Committee's WhatsApp group.

"In fact, AAJMI, according to their own evidence, made appeal for peaceful protest," Singh added.

"There is a fundamental right to protest. Why are you putting him in the bracket of rioters and not protestor. He had made some financial arrangements also. He paid some protestors who were protesting but does it make an offence under UAPA?"

Singh also pointed out that while the Prosecution claimed that Rehman had given speeches, however, it failed to produce such speeches before the Court.

"He is shown to have given speeches. Why has the prosecution not bothered to bring on record any of his speeches? Because that would destroy the Prosecution case because he always advocated that protest has to be in peaceful manner. They have avoid producing it," Singh said.

During the end of the proceeding, Singh also referred to a complaint filed by him and others in January 2020 seeking registeration of FIR against Union Minister Anurag Thakur, BJP leader Kapil Mishra, Ram Bhakt Gopal and others for allegedly instigating riots.

Singh posed a question as to why the investigating authority did not register any case against the aforesaid persons. 

"According to Prosecution riots took place. Did the Prosecution issued notice to them saying that we want to know something from you. They are saying that "xyz ko goli maaro". Why was no FIR registered against them? This was the complaint I was pursuing," he submitted.

Earlier, Singh had submitted that the grant of sanction to prosecute him under UAPA in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case was 'pre determined' and that the authorities acted under the dictation of somebody while doing so.

It was also submitted that while the police alleged that Rehman, being Alumni of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia (AAJMI), provided support to the protestors, none of the other office-bearers of the association had been made an accused.

Singh also submitted that there had been a systematic violation of the fundamental rights of Rehman.

The Court will continue to hear the arguments on September 8.

Title: Shifa ur Rehman v. State