2020 Delhi riots case: Court questions police on intent under UAPA

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned the Delhi Police whether organising a protest was sufficient to invoke the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or UAPA against the accused in the 2020 North East Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

A Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur was hearing the bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and other accused.

Special public prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad opposed the bail citing WhatsApp group chats relating to protest organised against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

“Is it your case that only setting up of a protest site is good enough for the UAPA or is it your case that protest site which resulted in violence is good enough for a case under UAPA? But most importantly, for us, it is the intent, under UAPA, which has to be established,” the court questioned.

It also added that the people were protesting against the law and they may have felt that Chakka Jam (roadblock) could have been a valid protest. “Does holding a Chakka Jam be sufficient to invoke UAPA,” it added.

Responding to the court’s questions, special public prosecutor Prasad said mere participation in WhatsApp groups used for organising protests did not automatically lead to charges under the UAPA.

However, he argued that individuals instigating violence through these groups could be liable under the law.

The court sought specific evidence from the prosecution to demonstrate that the accused were involved in instigating violence rather than merely organising protests.

Since charges are yet to be framed, the accused have sought bail on the grounds of delay in the trial. The prosecution countered by citing legal precedents stating that delays alone cannot justify bail and accused the defendants of contributing to the trial’s slow progress.

During the hearing, the court also questioned the selective naming of individuals as accused based on WhatsApp messages. Justice Chawla remarked, “In the conspiracy, how can you leave these two... conspiracy is actually evidenced, according to you, by their messages.”

In response, SPP Prasad highlighted the sheer volume of messages—over 2,000—and presented videos of public gatherings and protests to support the case.

However, the court expressed scepticism, asking how the cited chats were directly linked to the violence in question, stating, “This whole thing happened, we know... this is neither here nor there.”

The prosecution also showcased a chart illustrating the alleged involvement of the accused in organising protests through WhatsApp groups. Prasad argued that the protests were not spontaneous but part of a planned effort, suggesting evidence of conspiracy. The hearing is set to continue on Friday.