New Delhi: Activist Sharjeel Imam Saturday moved the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court order denying him bail in an anti-terror law case linked to the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in the national capital.
Denying bail to nine persons in the “larger conspiracy” case of the riots, the High Court had ruled that “conspiratorial” violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens cannot be allowed.
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed the bail pleas of Imam, Umar Khalid, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Gulfisha Fatima holding that the Constitution affords citizens the right to protest and carry out demonstrations or agitations, provided they are orderly, peaceful and without arms and such actions must be within the bounds of law.
The order of Justice Chawla’s bench had said the right to participate in peaceful protests and to make speeches in public meetings was protected under Article 19(1)(a), and couldn’t be blatantly curtailed.
However, the right was stated to be “not absolute” and “subject to reasonable restrictions”.
“If the exercise of an unfettered right to protest were permitted, it would damage the constitutional framework and impinge upon the law-and-order situation in the country,” the order had said.
The bench went on to say, “Any conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations by the citizens cannot be permitted. Such actions must be regulated and checked by the state machinery, as they do not fall within the ambit of freedom of speech, expression and association.”
Dealing with the ground of delay in trial besides the time already spent behind bars to grant bail to the accused, the bench ruled such a ground was not a “universally applicable” in all cases.
“The discretion to grant or deny bail vests with the constitutional court, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each of the case,” it added.
The bench had further noted factors such as the interest and safety of the society at large, aside from the victims and their families, ought to be considered by courts at the time of adjudicating bail applications.
On the alleged roles ascribed to Imam and Khalid by the prosecution, the court had ruled the same couldn’t be “lightly brushed aside”.
The court had also rejected the plea for parity with co-accused persons, namely, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal who were granted bail by a coordinate bench of the High Court.
Khalid, Imam and the rest of the accused persons were booked under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The violence erupted during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens.
These accused have been in jail since 2020 and they sought bail in the High Court after the trial court rejected their bail pleas.
The bail pleas of the accused persons, who have denied all charges of Delhi Police, had been pending in the High Court since 2022.
PTI
