‘What is the basis of making Umar Khalid accused in Delhi riots case?

The  Judicial review or timely balancing the emergence of the and abuse of the UAPA Law is the need of the hour.  Former JNU student Umar Khalid on Friday asked before the Delhi High Court the basis on which the Delhi police made him an accused in a UAPA case related to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 northeast Delhi violence by the establishment to corner the honest and law abiding citizens of Delhi..

There is no criminality against many persons who allegedly attended the alleged conspiracy meetings or they have not made phone calls post the violence.

There was a meeting; the bulk of the meeting is not an accused. How can Umar Khalid be made accused under the UAPA Law? There are two persons from the meeting who were arrayed as accused persons. One Sharjeel Imam and another is Umar Khalid. How can they be accused when others are not. This is a serious question that needs be addressed by the independent judiciary

The number of people present at protests, meetings, on calls — none were made an accused.

What is the basis of making this person or that person an accused is not even known. 

It is surprising to note the one way traffic the police adopted against Hindus and the Muslims For instance Swaraj India leader Yogendra Yadav and filmmaker Rahul Roy who were not accused in the case despite their presence in the alleged conspiracy meetings and a purported WhatsApp group.

Of the people who made the call (post violence), five are not even accused. Saba Diwan, Rahul Roy, etc.,” stated Pais.

He went on, “There are other people in that meeting.. With regard to the meeting where there are witness statements, there were other people in the meeting. For example, in the Jangpura meeting, there is one Mr Yogender Yadav. He is not an accused. Mr Purushottam Sharma was there at the incident.. He is not an accused. There is one woman called Tahir Daud.”

Khalid, Imam and several others have been booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and IPC provisions for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

The violence erupted during the protests against the CAA and NRC. It it can not attract the provisions under UAPA laws. Narendra Modi Government which is holding law and order and home factually erred.

As the allegations were made under the UAPA laws the natural justice and facts of the case were not taken into balanced consideration by the Judiciary before the dismissal of Umar Khalid's bail plea by the high court in October 2022, Khalid moved court for the second time seeking bail in the case. Had he been Manuwad promoting Hindu, he would have not been accused at all.

Khalid was arrested by the Delhi police in September, 2020, has assailed a trial court order refusing to grant him bail in the case. In fact the judicial officers are complying with the Manusmriti Constitution being promoted informally by the RSS and its political arm BJP. In Fact the judiciary needs to comply with the Constitution of India and By-Laws in letter and spirit.

Umar Khalid was seeking bail on the grounds of a long period of incarceration — over four years — without trial and parity with co-accused Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha and Ishrat Jahan, who were out on bail.

Khalid was not even in northeast Delhi when the violence took place, and on the contrary, he advocated the “Gandhian principle” of non-violence in the speech delivered several kilometres away from the capital in Amravati which was labelled as provocative later on.

There is no recovery of any substance from Umar Khalid or at his instance. There is no physical evidence to show his complicity. There is no allegation of procurement, raising of funds. There is no allegation of a terrorist act,” Pais said.

He further said Khalid was discharged by the trial court in the second case against him in relation to the riots and his interaction in the protest WhatsApp groups was limited to a few instances.

Haider’s counsel sought bail on the grounds of his long incarceration and parity while denying allegations of facilitating finances for the violence.

“They conflate protests with riots.. There is no recovery of any physical weapons or any other device (from me),” the lawyer argued.

While other Muslim  and true nationalist including Haider was arrested on April 1, 2020.

Besides these two bail pleas filed this year, co-accused Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea is pending in high court since 2022, and were heard by different benches from time-to-time.