NE Delhi riots: Protest planned was “not a typical protest” normal in political culture or democracy, says Delhi HC

New Delhi [India], October 18 (ANI): “The protest planned was “not a typical protest” normal in political culture or democracy but one far more destructive and injurious geared towards extremely grave consequences,” the Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed while dismissing the appeal against the trial court order denying bail to former student leader Umar Khalid in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case related to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the Northeast Delhi riots in 2020.
“Thus, as per the pre-meditated plan there was an intentional blocking off roads to cause inconvenience and disruption of the essential services to the life of the community residing in North-East Delhi, creating thereby panic and an alarming sense of insecurity, the bench further said.
The bench observed, “The attack on police personnel by women protesters in front only followed by other ordinary people and engulfing the area into a riot is the epitome of such pre-mediated plan and as such the same would prima facie be covered by the definition of ‘terrorist act’. “
“Further, as per precedents, terrorism is an act done with a view to disturb the even tempo of society and create a sense of fear in the mind of a section of society. The argument of the appellant is objective that although there was a sense of insecurity instilled in public by his speeches but he had nothing to do with it and referred to the charge sheet to argue that there is no statement of any witnesses, which could be termed as inculpatory against him, “the bench further observed.
However, this court has to see whether the perpetrators individually or in connection with each other are responsible for it. As already mentioned above, different roles were ascribed to different people (accused) in carrying out the said conspiracy. Different protected witnesses have stated the role of the Appellant and other accused persons and about the open discussion on violence, riots, finance and weapons, ” the bench noted.
Further, the weapons used, the manner of attack and the resultant deaths and destruction caused indicates that it was pre-planned. Acts which threaten the unity and integrity of India and cause friction in communal harmony and create terror in any section of the people, by disturbing the social fabric is also a priori terrorist act, the High Court added.
The court said that during the course of the argument, issues were raised relating to the content, context and use of certain phraseology in the appellant’s speech, which prima-facie appeared to be incriminating per se and inflammatory.
The Senior Counsel Tridip Pais had tried to explain the meaning and import of “Inquilabli Salam” (Revolutionary Salute) and “Krantikari Istiqbal” (Revolutionary Welcome) by submitting that these words were used for greeting everyone and inviting the spirit of revolution and that these words were used in his speech in the context of people standing against a discriminatory law and were protesting against it and by no stretch of the imagination, the use of the words ‘inquilab’, ‘krantikari’, or revolution can be termed as a crime. It was also submitted that it was a call for an opposition to an unjust law and in any case, the appellant did not call for violence.
In the submission of the appellant, these words were used as a call to boycott an unjust law and the speech neither spread the terror of any kind nor did it excite anyone present there and merely, a shamiana was set up, where people came and left peacefully and there was nothing provocative about the speech delivered by the appellant and it was only aimed at exposing the non-functioning government and the law targeting one community, the bench noted in the judgement.
The bench rejected the argument of the Appellant in as much as the call to revolution does not have to affect only the immediate gathering. The call to revolution may affect many beyond those who were visibly present, which is why this court finds it apt to mention Robespierre, who was at the vanguard of the French revolution.
This court is of the view that if the appellant had referred to Maximilien Robespierre for what he meant by revolution, he must have also known what revolution meant for our freedom fighter and first prime minister. The very fact that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru believed that democracy has made revolution superfluous after independence and how it meant the complete opposite of a bloodless change, the bench said. (ANI)