Organising, participating in protests not a crime: Delhi riots accused to SC
text_fields
New Delhi: Shadab Ahmed, an accused in a UAPA case linked to the February 2020 Delhi riots, told the Supreme Court on Thursday that organising and participating in protests is not a criminal offence.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Ahmed, also rejected the prosecution’s claim that Ahmed had delayed his proceedings before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria.
“He is 27 years old and has been working as a supervisor at NDS Enterprises, Jagatpuri, since 2016. Arguments on the charges are ongoing, but from my side, they are complete, and there has been no delay,” Luthra said.
The counsel pointed out that protected witnesses had deposed about hearing Ahmed discuss alleged conspiracy at a biryani stall, and one witness claimed Ahmed organised and attended protests. Luthra argued that such participation in protests cannot be treated as criminal.
The Supreme Court has posted the matter for further hearing on November 11, when the Delhi Police is expected to present its arguments.
Earlier, activist Shifa-ur-Rehman had told the apex court that he was “cherry-picked” and that no offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was made out against him.
Along with Ahmed, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Shifa-ur-Rehman were booked under the anti-terror law and provisions of the erstwhile IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the riots, which left 53 dead and over 700 injured. The violence occurred during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
In separate bail proceedings, Khalid told the apex court there was no evidence linking him to the violence and denied conspiracy charges.
The Delhi High Court had earlier denied bail to nine accused, including Khalid and Imam, stating that “conspiratorial” violence under the guise of protests cannot be allowed. Others denied bail included Fatima, Haider, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi, and Shadab Ahmed. Another accused, Tasleem Ahmed, had his bail rejected by a different bench on September 2.
The High Court observed that the Constitution grants citizens the right to protest, provided it is orderly, peaceful, and lawful. While Article 19(1)(a) protects the right to participate in peaceful demonstrations and make public speeches, the court noted it is “not absolute” and subject to reasonable restrictions.
“If an unfettered right to protest were permitted, it would damage the constitutional framework and affect law and order in the country,” the bail order said.
All accused, who deny the allegations, have been in jail since 2020 and had approached the High Court after their bail pleas were rejected by the trial court.
With PTI inputs