Jamia violence: Delhi HC notice to Sharjeel,others on discharge
In its plea against the judgement, Delhi Police contended that the trial court was swayed by “emotional and sentimental feelings” while discharging the accused and passed “gravely prejudicial, adverse remarks”
The Delhi high court on Monday issued notices on a plea by the Delhi Police challenging the discharge of Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others in the 2019 Jamia Nagar violence case.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma said that observations made by the trial court judge will not affect further investigation or trial of any accused, and added that it would therefore not expunge the remarks at this stage and posted the matter for March 16.
The court was hearing a plea by the Delhi Police challenging the order passed by the trial court on February 4 discharging 11 accused, including Imam, Zargar and Tanha, which said they were made “scapegoats” by police and that dissent has to be encouraged, not stifled. The trial court, however, ordered framing of charges against one of the accused, Mohammad Ilyas.
The trial court said there were scores of protesters at the site and some anti-social elements within the crowd could have created an environment of disruption and havoc.
In its plea against the judgement, Delhi Police contended that the trial court was swayed by “emotional and sentimental feelings” while discharging the accused and passed “gravely prejudicial, adverse remarks”.
The plea specifically listed remarks of the trial court that criticised Delhi Police for initiating the prosecution against them in a “perfunctory and cavalier fashion”.
Additional sessions judge Arul Varma had remarked that the right to dissent was part of fundamental protections under the Constitution, adding that such police actions are detrimental to the liberty of the citizens who exercise their right to protest peacefully.
The judge had highlighted that the police and investigating agencies need to know the difference between dissent and insurrection, pointing that though insurrection must be “quelled indisputably”, dissent should be given space as it is reflective of something which pricks a citizen’s conscience.
The court also said that the police should have made use of technology and gathered credible intelligence prior to bringing them before the court. It was further pointed out that despite filing three supplementary charge sheets in the matter, the police had nothing new to offer.
The FIR in the case was lodged after a violence broke out near Jamia Millia Islamia on December 13, 2019 when a gathering of approximately 700-800 people were protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The police indicted 12 people, including Imam, Tanha and Safoora Zargar, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
The plea said that the trial court erred not only in holding a “mini trial” but also recorded “perverse findings” contrary to the record. It said that the trial court should have merely sifted through the evidence in order to find out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused/respondents.
Challenging the trial court’s order, additional solicitor general (ASG) Sanjay Jain for Delhi Police on Monday told the high court that the trial court did not consider the third supplementary charge sheet filed by the police that included statements of the police witnesses who had identified the accused during the protests/violence. He said that police have not yet received the Forensic Science Lab (FSL) report of the examination of CCTV footage of the area, but that despite this, the trial court judge gave a clean chit to the accused.
“The third supplementary charge sheet is being treated as a toy--used and thrown by the trial court, just like a child (would),” the ASG said.
“A charge sheet is a document with a statutory cloak and cannot be disregarded at the whims and fancies of the judge...Investigation is a dynamic process. In a riot case, it is inevitable that the investigation will take time. Only re-investigation requires permission, and not further investigation,” he argued.
Jain also pointed to the remarks of the trial court and said: “What is the scope of such conclusions/observations in a discharge order? The trial court has passed such a kind as if it was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or examining a constitutional issue…These observations would affect me further.”
Countering the submissions, advocate Showjanya Shankaran for Tanha told the high court that the trial court had considered the third supplementary charge sheet in its discharge order.
The court issued notices to the accused that were not represented and asked all the parties to file their written submissions by the next date of hearing.