delhi-hc-judge-steps-back-from-2020-riots-bail-hearings

Delhi High Court judge Amit Sharma recused himself on Thursday from hearing a batch of bail pleas in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case linked to an alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 communal riots in Delhi, including that of student activist Sharjeel Imam.

 

The matters were listed before a division bench headed by Justice Prathiba M Singh after a change in the roster of judges dealing with such cases. Justice Singh ordered that these matters be listed before another bench of which Justice Sharma is not a member, subject to the orders of the acting chief justice, on July 24.

 

Other accused in the case include Rashtriya Janata Dal's (RJD) youth wing leader and Jamia Millia Islamia student Meeran Haider, and Alumni Association of Jamia Millia Islamia president Shifa-ur-Rehman.

 

Imam, United Against Hate founder Khalid Saifi, and several others, including former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid, have been booked under the UAPA and provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi that left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.

 

The violence had erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC).

 

On April 11, 2022, the trial court denied bail to Imam, who was arrested in the case on August 25, 2020. The Delhi Police opposed Imam's bail plea before a bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait in March on the ground that he mobilised members of the minority community and "propagated" "chakka jam" as a mode of disruption, with "no window for a peaceful protest."

 

Police have claimed that the protests were part of a conspiracy to trigger violence at the time of the visit of then United States president Donald Trump and that Imam, in his public addresses, had propagated the idea of "chakka jam" as the plan of action to paralyse the government.

 

The other accused persons in the case, including Haider and Rehman, are also facing similar charges under the UAPA and IPC. The charges stem from the Delhi Police's investigation into the riots, which they allege were premeditated and orchestrated by the accused to incite violence and disrupt peace.

 

The police have cited various pieces of evidence, including speeches, social media posts, and witness testimonies, to support their claims.

 

The decision of Justice Sharma to recuse himself from the case adds another layer of complexity to the legal proceedings, which have already seen multiple delays and adjournments.

 

The bail pleas of the accused have been a contentious issue, with their supporters arguing that they are being unfairly targeted for their activism and dissent against the government's policies.

 

As the case progresses, it will continue to be a focal point of debate and scrutiny, both within the legal community and the broader public.

 

The outcome of the bail pleas and the subsequent trial will have significant implications not only for the accused but also for the broader discourse on civil liberties, dissent, and the state's response to protests in India.