[Delhi Riots] "Grant Of Sanction Pre-Determined": Jamia Alumni President Tells Delhi Court In Bail Hearing

President of Jamia Millia Islamia Alumni Association, Shifa-Ur-Rehman has told a Delhi Court on Monday 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 dictation of somebody while doing so.

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 that the sanction, which is a prerequisite to be followed for prosecuting somebody under UAPA in compliance of sec. 45 of the UAPA Act, was granted while the investigation was not completed.

"When sanction is granted, investigation is not complete. When the exercise under sec. 45 is carried out, nothing is complete. Where is the application of mind? I don't say it, they say it." Singh submitted.

Furthermore, he said "The Prosecution committed the mistake of arresting me without any evidence. I was vindictively arrested as I'd made a complaint against a BJP minister. If the investigation wasn't complete, if they were still analysing things, how was the draft chargesheet prepared?"

Stating that not only Rehman is entitled to bail but the case also needs to be quashed against him, Singh submitted that the authorities completely abdicated their duties while granting sanction in the matter.

"On what basis this review was conducted? The only conclusion that we can arrive at is that they were acting under dictation of someone. Grant of sanction was pre determined. Somebody had said do it, and it was done. There was absolute abdication of authority." He submitted at the outset.

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.

Furthermore, it was also submitted that merely being a member of the Jamia Coordination Committee WhatsApp group is not an offence.

Stating that neither was Rehman an administrator of the said WhatsApp group nor had he sent any message in the group, Singh submitted:

"The very fact that he was made an accused for being party of AAJMI or JCC, is no offence. When there was no single message from my end in the WhatsApp group, I ought not to have been made an accused at all."

"Tell me one rationale reason why only applicant has been made an accused and not any other office bearers. According to their chargesheet, being member of AAJMI or JCC is an offence."

Singh also submitted that there has been a systematic violation of fundamental rights of the applicant. Alleging that there was an attempt to prevent Rehman from having legal advice from his counsel, reliance was placed on the Delhi High Court order wherein the Court observed that it is the constitutional right of a person in detention to consult with the lawyer of his choice which cannot be diluted by the State.

"There is absolutely no doubt that sec. 45 is mandatory. The requirement of sanction is mandatory. If in a case it's prima facie visible that such an exercise is not completed or when it is impossible to be completed, the Prosecution cannot go on." Singh argued.

Hearing the aforesaid submissions, the Court adjourned the matter for further hearing on August 3.

Title: Shifa ur Rehman v. State