2019 Jamia violence: Verdict on discharge of Sharjeel Imam, others today

The Delhi HC will give its judgment on a police plea against the discharge of 11 people, including JNU student Sharjeel Imam, in connection to the 2019 violence at Jamia Milia Islamia.

The Delhi high court on Tuesday will pronounce its judgment on a Delhi Police plea against the discharge of 11 people, including JNU student Sharjeel Imam, in connection to the violence at Jamia Milia Islamia in December 2019.

JNU student Sharjeel Imam was indicted by police under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. (PTI)

A single-bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma will pronounce the verdict in the case.

The FIR in the case was lodged after violence broke out near Jamia Milia Islamia University on December 13, 2019 when some 700-800 people were protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The police indicted 12 people, including Imam, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

On February 4, a trial court discharged 11 accused, including Safoora Zargar and Asif Iqbal Tanha, observing that the accused were made “scapegoats” by police. The court, however, ordered framing of charges against one of the accused, Mohammad Ilyas. On February 7,the Delhi Police moved the high court against the trial court order.

In its plea, the Delhi Police have specifically listed remarks of the trial court that criticised them for initiating the prosecution against them in a “perfunctory and cavalier fashion”.

Arguing against the trial court judgment, additional solicitor general (ASG) Sanjay Jain, told the court that the trial court did not consider the third charge sheet, which contained the statements of injured police officials. He contended that the trial court judge had conducted a “mini trial at the stage of framing of charges” and “overstepped its jurisdiction” by passing disparaging observations.

The ASG said that they have ten video clips of the incident in which seven accused have been identified. With respect to the rest of the accused, ASG Jain said that they have been named by the witnesses and the injured policemen.

Opposing the submissions, senior advocate Rebecca John for Zargar told the court that her client could not be identified by the police even by seeing in the video footage of the incident as her face was covered.

Appearing for Imam, his counsel Ahmad Ibrahim argued that his client’s speech in Aligarh, where he had said that his spectacles had broken during the violence, shows that he was a “victim of violence” and had “no active role to play in its culmination”.

The bench of Justice Sharma, after listening to the arguments from all the parties, had reserved the order on Thursday.