The Delhi High Court has recently reserved its decision on the Delhi Police’s plea against the trial court’s order to release Sharjeel Imam, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Safoora Zargar, and eight others in the 2019 Jamia violence case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma reserved the orders after hearing Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain arguments for the police. For the accused, Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared alongside Advocates MR Shamshad, Talib Mustafa, Sowjhanya Shankaran, and others.
The Delhi Police has filed a plea against the verdict of Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Arul Verma, who released 11 of the 12 accused in the case. In his order, the judge also chastised the police for filing an “ill-conceived” chargesheet, claiming that Imam and others were only scapegoats.
“Marshalling the facts as brought forth by a perusal of the chargesheet and three supplementary chargesheets, this Court cannot but conclude that the police were unable to apprehend the actual perpetrators behind the commission of the offence, but surely managed to rope the persons herein as scapegoats,” Judge Verma stated in his order.
On Thursday, ASG Jain argued that the trial court ruling was unsustainable and that the judge held a mini-trial at the stage of framing of charges.
“The trial court’s visualisation or imagination that these are students who are mere bystanders is completely belied by the videos shown by the Delhi Police,” he remarked.
He further added that the important issue in this case is the accused’s joint liability, which makes every member of the unlawful assembly constructively accountable.
Lawyers representing the respondents argued that the majority of them are university students expressing their democratic rights and were protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
According to Senior Advocate John, the person identified as Safoora Zargar has her face covered in the videos. The Police have not given details about how a person whose face was not visible has been identified, she argued. She stated that Zargar was a Jamia student and that her presence in the region was not unlawful in any way.
According to Advocate MR Shamshad, who appeared for four of the respondents, Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was not in effect in the Jamia Nagar area when the individuals began gathering, and hence there was no illegal assembly.
“I have the right under Article 19 to protest. It can only be regulated by imposing Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, this was not done. This was only imposed around Parliament, not in Jamia Nagar,” he explained.
Justice Sharma reserved her decision after hearing the arguments. She also asked that the counsels representing all of the parties provide written submissions on the matter.
