The Delhi High Court has listed a batch of matters seeking action against the Delhi Police officials for their alleged role in the December 2019 violence at Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) before a Division Bench headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul.

Jamia Millia Islamia in 2019 was involved in the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and later in the National Register of Citizens (NRC).It was back then that the Delhi Police officers allegedly entered the University campus and library without permission and thrashed the protesting students.

The petitioners have asked for an independent probe into allegations of police brutality, along with compensation for those who had suffered serious injuries as a result.

The pleas were put for hearing before the bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad today.

The Bench was apprised that the Supreme Court had passed an order on October 19 requesting the High Court to decide the matters soon because they have been pending since 2019.

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Rajat Nair, who appeared for the State, informed the Court that the matter before court are inextricably linked to the batch of matters related to the hate speeches delivered in Delhi during the CAA/NRC protests which allegedly led to the riots of February 2020.

The lawyer also said that these matters are already pending before the Division Bench II (Justice Mridul’s court) and therefore it should be transferred there as well.

The SPP Nair also added that, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aman Lekhi was arguing the matter, but since he has now demitted office, it has been assigned to ASG SV Raju.

The Bench has sent the matter to the Justice Mridul bench with a request to take up the matter at an early date, as requested by the apex court.

The cases will now be heard on November 29 along with the batch of petitions dealing with hate speech.

A local court in the national capital on Friday granted bail to former JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a sedition case of 2019.

However, Imam would remain behind the bars as he was yet to get bail in other cases pending against him, including the larger conspiracy leading to riots in Delhi.

 
The former JNU student was granted bail in the FIR registered at New Friends Colony Police Station, alleging that his ‘provocative speech’ against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) at Jamia Millia Islamia led to violence in the area.

A detailed copy of the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge Anuj Agrawal is awaited.

On September 26 this year, the Delhi High Court had permitted Imam to withdraw his application for regular bail and directed the trial court to first consider his application seeking relief under Section 436-A CrPC on the ground that he has remained in custody for 31 months.

Under Section 436-A, a person can be released by the court on bail before the conclusion of trial, if he has undergone an imprisonment of up to half of the maximum sentence specified.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta had observed that the trial court should take into consideration the order by Supreme Court on keeping the offence of sedition in abeyance, while taking a decision on Imam’s application.

Bail was denied to Sharjeel by the Saket Court earlier on the pretext that the tone and tenor of his ‘incendiary speech’ had a debilitating effect upon public tranquility.

Following the High Court order, the former JNU student moved an application in the trial court under Section 436A.

Imam has argued that since he has been incarcerated for about 31 months after being arrested in February 2020, he was entitled for the benefit of being released.

As per Section 436-A, Imam has already undergone detention for more than one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment under Section 153A of IPC. Section 153A provides for a maximum of three years of punishment.

Representing Imam, Advocate Ibrahim Mir said the trial court, while dismissing his bail plea, had only made observations against him with respect to offences under Section 153A and 124A of IPC and opined that no case was made out under other offences.

He argued that the only offence which now warrants consideration of the trial court was Section 153A.

Mir sought for a clarification that the pendency of his bail plea in the High Court should not come in the way of deciding his application under Section 436A CrPC before the trial court.

The prosecution, however, submitted that the bail plea pending before the High Court may be withdrawn in entirety, as it was wrong to consider the application under Section 436A CrPC in a piecemeal with reference to Section 153A of IPC.  

The Delhi Police was issued a notice by the Delhi High Court on Friday on JNU student Sharjeel Imam’s appeal against a lower court order denying him interim bail in a sedition case.

On Imam’s appeal against the court’s refusal to stay trial in the case, notices have been issued by the Division Bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal.

The Delhi Police has been directed by the bench for filling a status report in the matter within two weeks and has listed the case for further hearing on August 25.

The current case is that of the speech Imam gave at at Jamia Milia Islamia in December 2019.

On July 23, Amitabh Rawat, the Additional Sessions Judge, had rejected the bail plea of Imam stating that it had already been denied earlier on merits and even though the Supreme Court had kept Section 124A (sedition) in abeyance, the case can proceed based on other charges against Imam.

The court said, “The pending trials with respect to the charges framed under Section 124A IPC have been kept in abeyance however, adjudication with respect to other Sections can proceed if the court is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused.”

The Court, therefore, underlined that there was no embargo on the trial continuing in a case which has various other offences besides Section 124A IPC.

Imam has been charged with promoting enmity between groups, public mischief, and offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), besides sedition.

A court had denied bail to Imam on October 2021 alleging that the speech given by him was clearly on communal/divisive lines and could affect peace and harmony in the society.

Imam had subsequently moved an appeal before the Delhi High Court.

The Supreme Court had passed a landmark order on May 11, directing that all pending appeals and proceedings across the country with respect to the charges framed for sedition (Section 124A IPC), be kept in abeyance.

Imam then filed an application before the High Court seeking interim bail but the High Court directed him to approach the trial court.

Imam had moved the bail plea before the trial court, which rejected it on July 23.

A Delhi Court today has dismissed the bail plea of Jamia Millia Islamia student and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) youth wing leader Meeran Haider who was arrested on April 1, 2020 in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case related to the Delhi Riots of 2020

Justice Amitabh Rawat, Additional Sessions Judge pronounced the verdict and informed that a detailed order was expected soon.Haider has been in the jail and his case is been pursued by Advocates Shri Singh and Faraz Maqbool.

The Delhi Police Special Cell has charge sheeted many others also, including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam,  Khalid Saifi (better known as United Against Hate activist) former Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan, former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, and also the famous Pinjra Tod activists Gulfisha Fatima, Safoora Zargar, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita.

Also Read: Rajasthan doctor suicide: PIL filed in Supreme Court for CBI inquiry into incident

The common charge on all of them is hatching conspiracy by calling for march, instigating communal feeling and leading a mob.

Few days back Congress Councillor Ishrat Jahan was granted bail in the case, the bail applications of Umar Khalid and Gulfisha Fatima have been dismissed by the Court .The Delhi Police believes that a large number of students, ex-students and other members of a particular community participated in the anti-CAA rally and are responsible of inciting violence.

The police report says

“Attack on the police personnel, damage to police and public/private property, stone-pelting and arson took place on the barricade/police party stationed outside Jamia campus,”

Also Read:

• Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response in plea against Sections 15, 16 of Hindu Succession Act
• Delhi High Court seeks response from Centre in plea seeking implementation of Uniform Banking Code for foreign exchange transactions
• Supreme Court upholds decision of Telangana High Court in dismissing petition over reduction of water spread area
• Delhi High Court directs concern authorities to stop unauthorised construction in Jama Masjid area

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought a response from the Delhi Police on a petition filed by JNU student Sharjeel Imam, challenging the Trial Court’s order denying him bail in a case pertaining to alleged hate speeches made by him against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, while issuing notice, called for a Status Report from the Delhi Police and slated the matter for next hearing on March 24.

Imam was initially charged under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 153B (making imputation prejudicial to national integration) and 505(2) (promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes by making statements conducing to public mischief)) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in relation to a First Information Report registered by the Delhi Police in the year 2020 for delivering hate speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia and at Aligarh Muslim University. However,later on, Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967, was added.

During the course of hearing, Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, representing Imam, submitted that the instant FIR has been registered by picking out certain portion from the alleged speech in order to portray that he was intending to spread hatred.

The Bench directed the State to file its response, citing why he should not be enlarged on bail.

“In bails pertaining to the IPC, the Court is loath to permit detention unless there are compelling circumstances prior to conviction. For pre-conviction detention, there have to be compelling reasons for us to detain,” the Bench orally remarked.

The instant petition has been filed on behalf of Imam by Advocates Ahmad Ibrahim, Talib Mustafa and Kartik Venu seeking setting aside of the January 24 order passed by a Special Court in the national capital refusing to grant him bail in the instant case.

It was alleged in the petition that his bail application has been wrongly dismissed by the Special Court after relying on incorrect proposition of law.

“The Special Court failed to appreciate that in cases where substantive penal offences do not place any embargo on the power of the Court in deciding a bail application, then merely by virtue of the fact that the Court of Sessions having been designated as a ‘Special Court’ under the NIA Act shall not prejudice the right of an accused to his liberty. It remains a trite law that penal provisions, if can be construed in two ways, must be construed in a way favoring the accused,” the plea read.

The petitioner has averred that-
“The Courts have wrongly held that the additional/special powers conferred upon the Special Court to take cognizance of the offences and having power to order for summary trail in certain offences as are available to a Court of original criminal jurisdiction and as such they limit the Special Court’s power, which otherwise is a Court of Sessions, and make it a Magisterial Court for the purpose of grant of regular bail as well.”

It was further alleged in the petition that the ‘criticism of the Indian Constitutional Principles i.e., Secularism and Democracy as it is there in the present form cannot be alleged to having being said to spread disaffection against the Government’.
“The prosecution has tried to create a narrative of communalism and religious extremism around the Appellant Sharjeel Imam by conflating purported discussion of issues affecting a particular religious community,” the plea contended.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a professor’s plea to rejoin Jamia Milia Islamia after his resignation. As the resignation of petitioner Moharram Ali Khan was accepted by the authorities, hence there is no merit in the petition. And he cannot be allowed to rejoin his duties, said the single-judge bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao.

“The only issue which arises for consideration is whether the respondent University could have allowed the petitioner to re-join his duties as Professor (Mathematics). Initially the petitioner had applied for Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) but the same was rejected vide order dated August 20, 2010. It is also seen that his alleged meeting with the Vice-Chancellor of the University did not bear any fruits. He being keen to join his assignment in Saudi Arabia had in the alternative made a request to resign from the post of Professor (Mathematics). It is the said request of the petitioner dated September 21, 2010, which was accepted by the competent authority, and an office order of September 29, 2010, was issued relieving the petitioner from the services of the University w.e.f. September 22, 2010.”

“If the request of the petitioner for EOL was rejected, he could not have left the University for taking the assignment in Saudi Arabia. He should have at least made inquiries about his resignation, before leaving for Saudi Arabia. A resignation once accepted cannot be taken back,” the bench noted.

Naginder Benipal, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted the petitioner had met the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University, who had observed that the request of the petitioner for Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) shall be favourably considered. According to Benipal, after completing one year of contract service in Saudi Arabia, the petitioner came back to India on August 25, 2011, and reported for duty at the University. But his request for joining was not acceded to, which resulted in the filing of the present petition.

“Inaction on the part of the University by not allowing the petitioner to join the duties on the ground that the petitioner had resigned from the post before going to Saudi Arabia is untenable as no such order was ever communicated to the petitioner nor the petitioner has followed the process of handing over the charge to the successor,” Benipal submitted further.

“The petitioner voluntarily left for Saudi Arabia, despite the petitioner’s request for EOL having been rejected. So, his departure Saudi Arabia is for the reason that he had tendered his resignation. Having submitted his resignation with open eyes he cannot contest the same today. The request of the petitioner for rejoining his post in the University was also rejected,” said the bench.

Per contra, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Standing Counsel for the respondent University, submitted that the petitioner, though sought EOL alternatively expressed his desire to resign from the post of Professor (Mathematics). The said request of the petitioner was accepted by the competent authority as is seen from the notings on the letter dated September 21, 2010, of the petitioner, and pursuant thereto an office order dated September 29, 2010, was also issued accepting the request of the petitioner to resign.

During the hearing, the Court had asked Benipal, the current status of the petitioner as it was noted by the Court that the petitioner is pursuing the present petition through his attorney, namely S. Saqib Khan, his son. The Court was informed that the petitioner is in employment in Nigeria w.e.f. 2013.

The court observed, “The petitioner has resigned which request having been accepted, he cannot be allowed to rejoin his duties. In the facts of this case, I do not see any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.”

According to the petition, the petitioner joined the respondent University as Professor in Mathematics in 2007. While working so, he, on February 17, 2010, applied for the post of Professor in King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia, for which he sought ‘No Objection Certificate’/grant of Extra Ordinary Leave (‘EOL’, for short) from the University. The request of the petitioner for EOL was not acceded to in terms of the letter dated August 20, 2010.

Days after the court granted bail, the Pinjra Tod sactivists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Jamia Millia Islamia student activist Asif Iqbal Tanha approached the Delhi High Court seeking immediate release on Thursday.

In the urgent applications filed before the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC, the three have contended that the trial court’s action in deferring orders on their release despite the bail granted by the High Court was violative of their fundamental rights. In the plea, the three said the continuing custody despite the clear mandate of law, beyond 24 hours since the direction to verify sureties, is illegal, Direct the authorities to release us forthwith.

The Additional Sessions Judge Ravinder Bedi of Karkardooma Courts on Tuesday had deferred the order on their release citing heavy board after the Delhi Police sought time for verification of the addresses of the accused and their sureties. But on Wednesday, the police told the ASJ that they would be able to file the verification report only by June 22. Following which the Delhi High Court slammed police for delaying the procedure and further questions the cause of delay as the police have asked for time to verify the address and sureties of the accused.

However, the media was barred during the hearing of the case as they were abruptly removed from the hearing.

The Delhi Police on Wednesday approached the Supreme Court challenging the aforesaid bail orders. The Police filed a petition seeking to delay their release till verification of addresses and sureties were completed. In Special Leave Petitions, the Special Cell of Delhi Police said the High Court conducted a mini trial in this case and watered down provisions of the UAPA which will have wide ramifications and will affect all the cases registered by the NIA under the Act.

While seeking time to file the verification report in the matter, Delhi Police has said that since Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devanaga Kalita are permanent residents of Jharkhand, Assam and Rohtak, time will be required by the investigating agency to complete the verification report in the matter.

Apart from this, the Delhi Police also seeks directions to the UIDAI to verify the Aadhar card details of the sureties. In view of this, the Delhi Police has said that mere phone number is not sufficient for the verification of the surety, thus, the physical verification was required.

Read Also: Kerala HC extends interim orders of all proceedings in state till June 29

The student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha were granted bail on Tuesday by the Delhi High Court but they were remained in custody on Wednesday. The three had granted bail on June 15 by the Delhi High Court after observing that offences under the UAPA are not made out prima facie against them in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.

All three were arrested in May last over alleged links to riots in Delhi that followed widespread protests against Citizenship Amendments Act.

The Delhi Police had filed chargesheet against them alleging that the Anti-CAA protests organized by them from December 2019 were part of a larger conspiracy behind the North East Delh riots which took place in the last week of February 2020 when US President was on India visit.

The Delhi High Court on Saturday dismissed a plea challenging the appointment of Dr. Najma Akhtar as the Vice-Chancellor of the Jamia Millia Islamia University while finding no merit in the petition the bench called the appointment of Dr. Najma as justified.

Highlighting the position of law, a single-judge bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao noted that “ the Court can not sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Search Committee.”

The petition has been filed by M. Ehtesham-Ul-Haque an alumnus of Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia University challenging the appointment of Dr. Najma Akhtar to the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University alleging that there is a flagrant violation and total non-compliance of the statutory provisions and regulations of statute 2(1) of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988 read with clause 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Search Committee has recommended 3 names out of the 13 shortlisted names, without giving any reason which is in violation of clause 7.3 (ii) of the UGC regulations read with statute 2(1) of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act.

Also Read: Policing digital media, OTT content

Whereas, the bench while referring to the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences noted that

“it is not necessary for a selection committee to give reasons of its conclusion unless the rule governing the appointment to a particular post stipulates so. In the case in hand, Clause 7.3 (ii) of the UGC Regulations does not contemplate reasons to be given against each name, so recommended.”

The bench while further justifying the position of law and referring to the case of R.K. Jain noted that

“the court can not sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Search Committee. Rather the scope is limited to judicial review of the decision whereby the court is only concerned with whether the incumbent possessed qualifications for the appointment and the manner in which the appointment came to be made or whether the procedure adopted was fair, just and reasonable.”

New Delhi (ILNS): The Delhi High Court came down heavily on Zee News for its irresponsible conduct of making public the disclosure statement of an accused in the Delhi riots case, when it did not even have the signatures of the accused.

The court also declined an application by the channel, represented through advocate Vijay Aggarwal, seeking to file the name of the source in a sealed cover. It however, gave another chance to the channel to file its affidavit disclosing the source of the statement that was broadcast on the channel.

A single judge bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru was hearing a plea filed by a Jamia Millia Islamia student alleging misconduct by police officials in leaking his disclosure statement, recorded by the probe agency during the investigation, to the media.

The order said that confessional/disclosure statements of an accused which are not in public domain cannot be accessed and are a part of the case diary, cannot be published while stating that a news channel, which had telecast and publish the disclosure statement of Jamia student in connection to the north-east Delhi riots, has prima facie, made a “mistake”.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru asked the news channel to look for appropriate redressal and asked them what remedies could be taken while observing that there can be no sensationalisation of the news media. It gave another chance to the channel to file its affidavit disclosing the source of the statement that was broadcast on the channel.

“Prima facie, we find that a mistake has been made by you. Now in order to redress the people who are aggrieved, think of an appropriate redressal,” the judge said.

Aggarwal requested the court to allow him to submit the affidavit in sealed cover stating that it is for the comfort of the journalist who has reported the matter as she had asked not to disclose the name of her source as it would put him in risk. He said that the right to freedom and speech entitles every person to report and read out the rules in the same regard.

To this the judge said, “You are crossing the line here. There is no material to show this. Police has conducted high level enquiry and is taking action against its officials.

“Police have already initiated a vigilance inquiry into the matter. You (Zee News) have got access to documents which even the accused does not have. You file the counter reply disclosing the source from where you got the document,” the judge added.

Appearing for the petitioner, his counsel Siddharth Aggarwal told the court that they are not concerned with the internal investigation of the police. He said that such a thing would not have been possible without the contact between the journalist and the prosecution. He said that his client had not even signed the disclosure statement.

The judge sought to know that if they find out, what remedy he would want. He said it is for the police to find out how the documents got leaked and put their house in order. Aggarwal said that his rights would be jeopardised and the world of journalists use and quote sources to report stories.

The court, however, maintained that it does not think that a journalist has a right to take out the case diary and publish it and that the news report cannot be based on documents which are not in the public domain.

“These are documents which you cannot take out and publish. There is no doubt about it,” the judge said.

While the police has claimed that the disclosure statement was not leaked by any of its officials, the counsel for the news channel said the journalist has requested that he should not be pressed to disclose his source of information in view of the fact that the truthfulness of the petitioner’s (also an accused) confessional statement has not been disputed by him in the petition. The police had said that even they are aggrieved with the news report.

Read Also: Covid infections: PIL in Calcutta High Court asks for a stay on community Durga pujas in Bengal

New Delhi: While a division bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Chief Justice D. N. Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan was hearing arguments on a bunch of petitions seeking investigation into police brutality on students of Jamia Milia University, Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, the police counsel, said that Delhi Police’s action was justified and at par with the threat to life faced by the police.

The applications have also sought compensation for students who sustained severe injuries during the police attack.

Lekhi told the court that

“even after repeated warnings, they continued to reach Mathura road through a parallel road.” He said that action taken by police was as per the standard operating procedure. “We warned them, they were not exercising restraint because of which mob was declared unlawful. Unlawful, not because they were protesting against CAA, but because they indulged in acts of arson,” Lekhi added.

Lekhi also said: “We made a demand for more force because of the large mob. I will call them mob, not students. They also started trespassing into residential houses and blocked the roads. They set the public property on fire, with no options left, tear gases and small forces were used.  

“The mob became more violent at CV Raman. If it was a legitimate student protest they would not have indulged in this. Even if the initial protest was for a genuine cause they participated in, an unlawful mob crossed the limits of a democratic protest,” Lekhi contended.  

Justice Jalan queried about the force used by the police against the students: “Was it proportionate?”

Lekhi said: “I have shown the gravity of the threat. Nature was of a criminal mob… The facts were not presented in the way I’m presenting… The right to private defense is also available. It was warranted and the whole thrust is that it remained in limits.

“Offences were attempt to murder, culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The response was proportionate to severity. Policing is the prevention and detection of crime,” Lekhi argued.

The Chief Justice said: “We will now hear on the next date.”

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioners, stated:

“A small request. We are seeking inspection of the CCTV camera footage submitted by the Delhi Police in a sealed cover.”

At this Lekhi stated: “We only referred to the charge sheet, no copy be given.”

Read Also: Letter to Central Tribunal by unemployed man gets good response

The bench has listed the matter for further hearing on September 18.

-India Legal Bureau