Jamia Violence Case : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Of 4 Accused Against Framing Of Charges

The Supreme Court on May 19 dismissed the special leave petition filed by four accused persons against the Delhi High Court direction to frame charges against them in relation to the 2019 Jamia Violence case.

The bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice M.M. Sundresh said, “Evidence is still to be recorded. The trial court wil independently apply its mind on whether or not the provisions of the relevant sections in which the charges have been framed, stand proved and established.”

"We, however, clarify that the observations made in the impugned judgment would not be treated as observations on merits of the matter", the bench clarified.

The petition was filed by the four accused Mahmood Anwar,Mohd Qasim,Shahzad Raza Khan and Umair Ahmad.

In March, the Delhi High Court had framed charges 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 and 427 of IPC as well as section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The High Court had set aside the order of the trial court which had discharged the accused in the case. The case is related to alleged incidents of violence in Jamia during the anti-CAA/NRC protests in December 2019.

In February, while discharging them, the trial court had observed that the Police had made the students "scapegoats" as they were unable to apprehend the real culprits. Observing that mere presence at the protest site without overt acts cannot lead to implication as accused, the judge said that the prosecution has ex facie been launched in a “perfunctory and cavalier fashion” against them. "There is nothing on record to even prima facie suggest that the accused herein were part of some riotous mob. None of the accused herein were brandishing any weapon or throwing any stones etc”, it said. Notably, the trial court also said that liberty of protesting citizens should not have been lightly interfered with and that dissent is nothing but an “extension of the invaluable fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression contained in Article 19”.

On a challenge made by the Delhi Police, the Delhi High Court reversed the trial court's order observing that there is a prima facie case of unlawful assembly and rioting.

The video clips of the incident reveal that an “uncontrollable mob of students who had turned violent with dandas” were pelting stones continuously, pushing and pulling barricades and forcibly trying to go beyond the barricades which had been put up by the police to enforce rule of law, the High Court observed.

When the case came before the trial court after the High Court order,  Additional Sessions Judge Arul Varma (who passed the initial discharge order), recused citing "personal reasons".

Case Title: Mahmood Anwar & Ors v. State of NCT Delhi

Senior Advocate Huzefa A. Ahmadi and Advocates M. R. Shamshad, Rashmi Singh,Abubakr Sabbaq,Nabeela Jamil, Arijit Sarkar appeared for the petitioners

A.S.G. Sanjay Jain and Advocates Shreekant Neelappa Terdal,Arkaj Kumar,Rajant Nair, Padmesh Mishra,Dr. N. Visakamurthy appeared for the respondents

Click Here To Read/Download Order