2020 Delhi Riots Case: Tahir Hussain Argues Riots Not Scheduled Offense Under NIA Act

In the ongoing proceedings related to the 2020 Delhi riots, the counsel for former Municipal Corporation of Delhi councillor Tahir Hussain has recently argued that riots do not qualify as scheduled offenses under the National Investigation Agency Act.

The Karkardooma court is currently reviewing the framing of charges against several accused individuals in this case.

Delhi Police have invoked the stringent anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), against the accused. Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai presided over the hearing, where Advocate Rajiv Mohan presented arguments on behalf of Hussain, supported by Advocate Rishabh Bhati. The prosecution was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad.

At the outset, Advocate Mohan cited Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008, emphasizing that riots do not fall under the category of scheduled offenses. He further elaborated on Section 15 of the UAPA, asserting that the mere use of firearms, such as pistols or rifles, does not meet the legal criteria for a terrorist act as defined by the Act. Mohan argued that the term “firearms” in Section 15 refers specifically to lethal weapons, such as AK-47s or AK-57s.

Regarding the issue of sanctions, the defense contended that the necessary approvals were obtained improperly since cognizance had already been taken in related cases. Mohan stressed that actions against the government or political entities do not equate to acts against the nation itself.

“To invoke the UAPA sections against the accused, the prosecution must demonstrate that the actions were against India’s sovereignty and capable of instilling terror among the populace,” Mohan stated. He emphasized that the alleged acts in this case didn’t target the sovereignty of India, nor did they meet the threshold for threatening the nation’s unity or security.

The court is examining UAPA charges against a range of individuals, including Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, Safoora Zargar, Ishrat Jahan, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Salim Malik, Athar Khan, Gulfisha Fatima, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Meran Haider, among others. These individuals face charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the UAPA.

As the hearing continues, the legal arguments will play a critical role in determining the future of these cases and the interpretation of laws surrounding terrorism and public disorder in India.

Further discussions are scheduled for Friday.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International