Is setting up protest site enough to attract UAPA, asks Delhi HC

The bench asked whether organising protest sites alone was sufficient for UAPA or if their connection to subsequent violence needed to be established

The Delhi high court on Wednesday questioned whether setting up protest sites against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) justified booking the accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), underscoring that establishing intent to commit a terror act is crucial for invoking UAPA provisions.

On Tuesday, the Delhi Police had submitted that the riots were a part of a clinical and pathological conspiracy, orchestrated by forces hostile to India and carried out with “ruthless intensity.” (File Photo)

A bench of justices Navin Chawla and Shailender Kaur posted the query to special public prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad, who was opposing the bail petitions of student activists Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Umar Khalid, United Against Hate (UAH) founder Khalid Saifi.

Prasad had contended before the court that Delhi Police had gathered evidence in the form of chats from multiple WhatsApp groups, which conspired to organise protest sites for the riots that took place in February 2020. He contended that it showed that there was a meeting of mindset and connection between the accused.

The bench asked whether organising protest sites alone was sufficient for UAPA or if their connection to subsequent violence needed to be established.

“Is it your case that only setting up a protest site is enough for UAPA or those protest sites resulted in violence? But the most important thing is intent under UAPA which has to be established. See you cut down the conspiracy, the conspiracy there is a WhatsApp group and in these groups, there are instigations that ‘let’s do this’, a planning which is of a chakka jam,” the bench asked Prasad.

It added, “There is also a hint of violence… which actually happens. Till then, if they are involved, you may say UAPA is attracted. But when you draw attention to something like JACT (Whatsapp group), your own argument is that they were organising protest sites. Is that good enough?”

Northeast Delhi erupted in violence on February 23, 2020, following clashes between Hindus and Muslims over the then-proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) that left 53 dead and hundreds injured. The accused students, booked under UAPA, had approached the high court after being denied bail by a lower court.

Prasad contended that the protests were part of a premeditated plan that was given a façade of organic protest. The protests at Shaheen Bagh, Prasad said, were not a “dadi-nani” organic protest and it had sufficient evidence in this regard.

On Tuesday, the Delhi Police had submitted that the riots were a part of a clinical and pathological conspiracy, orchestrated by forces hostile to India and carried out with “ruthless intensity.”

During the hearing on Wednesday, the court also questioned the Delhi Police for selectively naming people as accused in the conspiracy case on the basis of WhatsApp chats. “Conspiracy is actually evidenced according to you, by their messages,” the bench asked Prasad when he submitted that there was a conspiracy, a plan for violence, which could be seen through the chats.

During earlier hearings, Sharjeel Imam argued for bail, asserting that there was no evidence linking him to the co-accused via calls or texts. Prasad, however, presented chats between Imam and his brother, claiming these revealed Imam’s role in masterminding the February 2020 protests.

To oppose the bail, Prasad also presented a PowerPoint presentation that highlighted the manner in which people mobilised with deadly weapons, including swords, in various areas where riots took place. He asserted that before mobilisation, all the cameras were damaged and dislocated.

The accused, denied bail by a lower court, have maintained their innocence, calling the charges politically motivated.

The court will resume the hearing on January 9, with the Delhi Police set to further oppose the bail applications.