Background
A Delhi court has framed charges against activist and former JNU student Sharjeel Imam in connection with the Jamia Millia Islamia riots case. The case pertains to the violent protests that erupted in December 2019 against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), during which clashes broke out between protesters and the police. Imam, who was arrested in January 2020, has been accused of making provocative speeches that allegedly incited violence.
The prosecution contended that Imam’s speeches, particularly at Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University, were designed to create communal disharmony and provoke people against the state. He was charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including sedition, promoting enmity between religious groups, and unlawful assembly.
Court’s Rationale
While framing charges, the court observed the following key aspects of the case:
- Communal Incitement
- The court noted that Imam’s speech allegedly pitted one religious community against another, fostering disharmony and encouraging divisive sentiments.
- His statements were deemed to be inflammatory, with the potential to provoke violence and disrupt public order.
- Call for Blockade
- Imam was accused of urging people to block roads and disrupt connectivity between the northeastern states and the rest of India.
- The prosecution argued that such statements were intended to incite unlawful activities and create a sense of unrest.
- Violence in Jamia and its Aftermath
- The court examined the sequence of events, highlighting how protests turned violent following Imam’s alleged instigation.
- The riots saw stone-pelting, arson, and damage to public property, prompting police intervention and widespread arrests.
- Legal Precedents on Free Speech vs. Incitement
- While acknowledging the constitutional right to free speech, the court emphasized that this right does not extend to speeches that incite violence or promote enmity between groups.
- The court referred to past Supreme Court rulings that distinguish between legitimate dissent and speech that disrupts public order.
Charges Framed
Based on the evidence presented, the court framed charges against Imam under the following sections of the IPC:
- Section 124A (Sedition) – For allegedly making speeches that incite disaffection against the state.
- Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups) – For allegedly delivering speeches that fuel communal discord.
- Section 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) – For allegedly making statements with the potential to incite violence.
- Section 147/148 (Rioting and unlawful assembly) – For allegedly instigating and participating in riots.
Implications of the Judgment
- For Sharjeel Imam – He will now face trial under these charges, and if convicted, could face severe penalties, including imprisonment.
- For the Anti-CAA Protest Cases – The framing of charges against Imam sets a legal precedent for similar cases related to the CAA protests.
- For Free Speech and Protest Laws – This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s stance on distinguishing between legitimate protest speech and speech that allegedly incites violence.
Conclusion
The court’s decision to frame charges against Sharjeel Imam underscores the judiciary’s focus on addressing speech that could lead to communal tensions or violence. While the case now moves to trial, it raises important legal and political debates around free speech, protest rights, and the limits of permissible dissent in India.