The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (January 8) raised a critical question to the prosecution regarding the application of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
The court asked whether merely setting up protest sites could attract charges under UAPA or if the resulting violence must be linked to the accused.
Hearing the bail pleas of student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others for the second consecutive day, a division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur sought clarity on the prosecution's arguments.
Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad presented WhatsApp chats and video evidence in an attempt to establish a conspiracy among the accused.
Justice Chawla posed a significant question: “The problem is only this. Is it your case that only setting up a protest site is enough (cause for attracting offences under) UAPA? Or if those protest sites resulted in violence (be the cause for attracting offences) UAPA? See, the most important thing is intent under UAPA which has to be established. Let us say chakka jam (where demonstrators block traffic) is not protest…then have they (the accused) exceeded their rights?,” reported The Indian Express.
Prasad argued that the alleged conspiracy was orchestrated through multiple WhatsApp groups.
Responding to this, the court directed the prosecution to provide a detailed chart listing the WhatsApp groups each accused was part of and the meetings they allegedly attended.
The case involves eight accused, including Khalid and Imam, who have been in custody for over four years. They face allegations of orchestrating a pre-planned conspiracy to incite riots in Northeast Delhi between February 23 and 25, 2020.
The charges include provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the Arms Act, and UAPA.
The High Court is scheduled to continue hearing the case on Thursday, with the prosecution expected to provide further evidence and arguments.
The court asked whether merely setting up protest sites could attract charges under UAPA or if the resulting violence must be linked to the accused.
Hearing the bail pleas of student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others for the second consecutive day, a division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur sought clarity on the prosecution's arguments.
Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad presented WhatsApp chats and video evidence in an attempt to establish a conspiracy among the accused.
Justice Chawla posed a significant question: “The problem is only this. Is it your case that only setting up a protest site is enough (cause for attracting offences under) UAPA? Or if those protest sites resulted in violence (be the cause for attracting offences) UAPA? See, the most important thing is intent under UAPA which has to be established. Let us say chakka jam (where demonstrators block traffic) is not protest…then have they (the accused) exceeded their rights?,” reported The Indian Express.
Prasad argued that the alleged conspiracy was orchestrated through multiple WhatsApp groups.
Responding to this, the court directed the prosecution to provide a detailed chart listing the WhatsApp groups each accused was part of and the meetings they allegedly attended.
The case involves eight accused, including Khalid and Imam, who have been in custody for over four years. They face allegations of orchestrating a pre-planned conspiracy to incite riots in Northeast Delhi between February 23 and 25, 2020.
The charges include provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the Arms Act, and UAPA.
The High Court is scheduled to continue hearing the case on Thursday, with the prosecution expected to provide further evidence and arguments.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment