Not a terrorist or anti-national but being labelled without full trial: Sharjeel to top court

Accused of criminal conspiracy for a “regime change operation” in India under the guise of “peaceful protests”, activist Sharjeel Imam on Tuesday asserted before the Supreme Court that he was not a terrorist or an anti-national as alleged by the Delhi Police.

“I would like to say that I am not a terrorist, as I have been called by the respondent (police). I am not an anti-national as called by the state. I am a citizen of this country, a citizen by birth, and I have not been convicted of any offence till now,” senior counsel Siddhartha Dave, representing Sharjeel, told a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria.

Dave expressed anguish over Sharjeel being “labelled” a “dangerous intellectual terrorist” without a full-fledged trial or a single conviction.

“I am being labelled as a dangerous intellectual terrorist. The Additional Solicitor General said intellectual terrorists are more dangerous. Not (even) one conviction against me. The words were used against a citizen of this country… I can understand after a full-fledged trial because I lose the presumption of innocence. But this label has caused anguish to me,” Dave submitted.

He pointed out that his client was arrested on January 28, 2020, before the riots for his speeches, which alone could not constitute the “criminal conspiracy” offence in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots.

“I am being prosecuted for speeches I gave, snippets of which were played in the court. This FIR was registered in March 2020. For over a month, I had already been in custody. This FIR is registered for conspiracy, for riots that were committed in February 2020. Of course, it rules out my physical presence in the riots because I was in custody.

“If they had taken me into custody in January, they could have said these speeches led to the riots. However, I am not named as an accused. My speeches by themselves did not lead to the riots. I was already being prosecuted for those speeches,” Dave submitted.

The police alleged that Sharjeel’s speeches were part of an alleged plan that “created a platform for the riots to take place so that the conspiracy gets fructified”.

“Can we take your argument that these speeches won’t constitute a terrorist act,” Justice Kumar asked Dave, who said these speeches would not constitute the “criminal conspiracy” and that the police would have to show that there was something more Sharjeel did for conspiracy.

Senior counsel AM Singhvi, representing co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, pointed out that the Delhi Police’s claim of a coordinated “regime change operation” found no mention in their chargesheet. “Where have you alleged regime change as the heart of your chargesheet,” he asked.

On behalf of Umar Khalid, senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that he was not in Delhi when the riots happened in February 2020, and that he could not be kept incarcerated “as if to say that I will punish you for your protests”. “You cannot attribute someone else’s speech to me and say I am responsible for the riots,” Sibal submitted.

Opposing the bail pleas of Sharjeel, Khalid, Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman and Md Saleem Khan, the Delhi Police had alleged that the accused conspired to strike at the sovereignty and integrity of the country by a “regime change operation” executed under the guise of “peaceful protests”.

The accused have challenged the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order that denied them bail, noting that “conspiratorial” violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens could not be allowed.

They are facing charges of criminal conspiracy, sedition, promoting enmity between various groups, making statements conducing to public mischief under the IPC and Section 13 of the UAPA, 1967, for allegedly questioning the sovereignty, unity or territorial integrity of India and causing disaffection against it.

Besides the UAPA, the accused were also booked under certain provisions of the IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 Delhi riots during the visit of the then US President Donald Trump that claimed 53 lives and left more than 700 injured. The violence had erupted during the protests against the CAA and the National Register of Citizens.