Speeches alone can’t attract UAPA, Delhi riots accused tell SC

A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria pressed the defence to respond to the core charge – that the speeches were not isolated political expressions but part of a coordinated platform to trigger violence

Giving a provocative speech cannot by itself constitute an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case told the Supreme Court on Tuesday, as the bench granted them one more day to conclude arguments on their bail pleas.

With arguments still incomplete, the matter will be heard again on Wednesday. (Pradeep Gaur/ Mint)

A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria pressed the defence to respond to the core charge – that the speeches were not isolated political expressions but part of a coordinated platform to trigger violence. “The prosecution has alleged that you created a platform to stage violence. How do you get over that?” the bench asked while hearing senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Dave, appearing for Gulfisha Fatima, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam respectively.

Imam’s counsel Dave said, “They need to show apart from the speech, there is something else. I must have met people or done some act. By standing and giving a speech, I cannot be blamed for disrupting supplies as contemplated under Section 15 of UAPA which deals with ‘terrorist acts’.”

The court, however, pointed to video clips played in court by Delhi Police in which Imam allegedly spoke about cutting off Assam from the rest of the country and urging protesters to choke supplies.

“According to the prosecution, when you say there are only four weeks left, this was part of an alleged plan for riots to take place… Can we take it that your argument is that these speeches won’t constitute a terrorist act?” the bench asked.

Dave said that the prosecution was relying on selective excerpts. “I admit these are my speeches. But snippets have been shown. If I said cut off Assam, only Section 13 of UAPA (unlawful activity) is attracted. Where is the additional material to infer Section 15?” he said.

Earlier, Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, had argued that criminalising protest speech would render ordinary political dissent prosecutable under UAPA. He read portions of Khalid’s speeches where he invoked Gandhian principles and urged non-violence. “These are young students who agitated. We also agitated when we were young. If you protest, is there a point in keeping me in jail? This can’t be the law of the country,” he said.

The Delhi Police had argued that the riots were instigated to engineer a “regime change” and it was deliberately timed around the visit of US President Donald Trump in March 2020 to show the country in poor light globally.

Singhvi, representing Fatima, dismissed the claim as a dramatic afterthought. “This allegation of regime change is extraordinary. It was not argued in the high court or the trial court. They suddenly say regime change to make it sound more serious,” he said.

Singhvi also pointed out that Fatima is the only woman among the remaining incarcerated accused. “Nobody needs to be punished like this unless they are convicted. This is pre-trial conviction. This will make a caricature of our criminal justice system,” he said.

With arguments still incomplete, the matter will be heard again on Wednesday.