The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who are implicated in the 2020 Delhi riots. Both former JNU students have been in custody for five years. Sharjeel Imam was arrested on August 25, 2020, while Umar Khalid was arrested on September 13, 2020. In contrast, Shahrukh Pathan, who was seen brandishing a gun at a Delhi Police officer during the same riots, has been released from jail.
Shahrukh was granted 15 days of bail by the court in March, with the court citing the declining health of his father. Shahrukh’s lawyer argued that he had been in judicial custody since March 3, 2020, and had never received interim bail. Shahrukh Pathan faces charges in two cases linked to the riots, including the act of pointing a gun at Head Constable Deepak Dahiya and being involved in a conspiracy to murder Rohit Shukla.
Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly being the main conspirators in the February 2020 riots, which resulted in 53 fatalities and over 700 injuries. The riots were triggered by protests against the CAA-NRC.
Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid’s requests for release have been denied after five years. They appealed to the High Court for bail, but the petition was rejected. Prior to this, they were denied bail in a lower court. In challenging the lower court’s order, Imam and Khalid cited their long detention and the fact that other co-accused had been granted bail.
In its ruling on Tuesday, the High Court affirmed that the right to participate in peaceful protests and to give public speeches, protected under Article 19(1)(a), should not be misused. The court emphasized that this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under the Constitution. Allowing unrestricted protests, the court said, could undermine the constitutional framework and affect law and order.
The court stated that any conspiratorial violence under the guise of protests or demonstrations is not permissible. Such activities do not fall under the purview of freedom of expression. The court maintained that the Constitution does grant citizens the right to protest or demonstrate, provided such demonstrations are organized, peaceful, and unarmed.
The judgment noted that citizens possess a fundamental right to express concerns regarding legislative actions, which strengthens the democratic process by involving citizens in governance. This right is critical, as it permits citizens to express dissent, expose shortcomings in governance, and seek accountability from government officials. However, such actions must be conducted within the confines of the law.