E-Paper
2020 northeast Delhi riots aimed at dividing country, say cops; oppose bail
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked the Delhi high court to not treat the 2020 violence in northeast Delhi as a case of “mere riots
NEW DELHI: The 2020 riots in northeast Delhi were not spontaneous but a well-planned and well-thought-out conspiracy aimed at creating divisions on religious lines and embarrassing the country globally, the Delhi police told the Delhi high court on Wednesday, arguing against bail to student activists Gulfisha Fatima, Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and United Against Hate (UAH) founder Khalid Saifi.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who appeared for the Delhi police, urged the bench of justices Navin Chawla and Shailender Kaur to not treat the case as a case of “mere riots” but as one where the accused had conspired to cause communal divide, and destabilise India’s unity, law and order.
The bench has reserved its verdict.
“One of the intentions was to globally defame our nation by choosing a particular date for more rioting, arson. It’s not a spontaneous riot. This is a case where riots were pre-planned, well-orchestrated, organised with the view to achieve the sinister goal of dividing the country on religious lines. The intention was to cause embarrassment at a global level since the same were committed on a day when the United States of America Donald Trump was to visit the capital,” Mehta submitted.
The top law officer said the objective of the riots, in which 100 police personnel and others were injured and one policeman lost his life, was to defame the country
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 – which include jailed student activist Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Umar Khalid, United Against Hate (UAH) founder Khalid Saifi – were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). They approached the high court for bail after the trial court rejected their request.
They argued that they had spent more than four years in custody and that the trial’s slow pace made prolonged incarceration unjustifiable. They also asserted that they are entitled to be released on bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the high court in 2021.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Mehta insisted that prolonged incarceration could not be a ground for release on bail, in a case where the accused intended to cause violence in the capital and break the country into two parts.
“It’s not a riot case where someone can get bail for prolonged incarceration. Prolonged incarceration is held in some cases to be ground enough per se for grant of bail but in the matter of this nature, where the capital bleeds violence and the country breaks into two parts, the same is not applicable. If you’re doing something against the nation, you better be in jail until you are acquitted or convicted,” Mehta submitted.
He also submitted that the Delhi police had done a good job and recorded statements of almost 58 witnesses before the magistrate.
