Activist Sharjeel Imam moved the Delhi High Court on Thursday challenging a trial court’s order to frame charges against him for allegedly inciting the riots during protests over the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019. The High Court has issued notice to Delhi police over Imam’s plea and sought its response.
A Delhi court recently held Imam was the mastermind behind the riots in December 2019 and directed cops to frame charges against him under various charges including criminal conspiracy and promoting enmity among groups. Hearing Imam's plea, Delhi High Court Justice Sanjeev Narula refused to stay trial court proceedings and framing of charges against Imam. The bench issued a notice to Delhi police and sought its response by the next hearing. The High Court will next hear the matter on April 24.
The trial court, on March 7, held Imam was the “kingpin” behind the conspiracy to incite the riots. The court observed Imam’s “venomous and incendiary speeches” incited the violence in December 2019 and he was the “kingpin” who mobilized people to take to the streets, Bar and Bench reported.
Also read
- Citizenship Act: SC's verdict upholding section 6A poses serious challenge to CAA
- Congress-led govts denied citizenship to refugees; allowed intruders to become citizens illegally: Amit Shah
- Centre hands over first set of citizenship certificates under CAA
- BJP committed to implementing CAA, says Assam CM Himanta Sarma
"Evidently, the assembling of a huge mob and the mass-scale rioting committed by it was not a random or spontaneous happening and could not have been committed except in pursuance of a larger conspiracy entered into between the self-proclaimed leaders and initiators of the mob activity, whereas, other members of the mob/unlawful assembly kept joining in,” the trial court observed.
The court held Imam’s speeches were venomous and “pitted one religion against another”. Besides Imam, the trial court also ordered the framing of charges against Ashu Khan, Chandan Kumar and Aasif Iqbal Tanha for the violence. The court held police witnesses and mobile phone records established the accused were part of the mob, a charge they denied.
