Jamia case: Dissent part of free speech, says court, discharges Sharjeel, 10 others

Charges were, however, framed against one person in this case – Mohd Ilyas. The next hearing is on February 10.

This is the first case in which Sharjeel Imam has been discharged. He will, however, continue to remain in judicial custody since he has not been granted bail in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) case relating to the Delhi riots.

His lawyer, advocate Ahmad Ibrahim said, “There are a total of eight FIRs against Imam. He has not been granted bail in the Delhi riots UAPA case and another UAPA case registered in Delhi for giving speeches against the CAA, NRC.”

There are two cases connected to the violence which took place near Jamia Millia Islamia University on December 13 and December 15, 2019 – police said Imam’s speeches led to protests which turned violent.

Arguments on charge are currently underway in the December 15 case.

He has also been booked in four other cases registered in UP, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and Manipur. These FIRs were registered on the basis of speeches that Imam delivered in different parts of the country against the CAA, NRC.

Discharging the accused in the December 13, 2019 Jamia violence case, ASJ Varma’s order stated that “dissent is nothing but an extension of the invaluable fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression contained in Article 19 of the Constitution of India, subject to the restrictions contained. It is therefore a right which we are sworn to uphold.”

The ASJ then quoted Mahatma Gandhi in his order: “Conscience is the source of dissent.”

“When something is repugnant to our conscience, we refuse to obey it. This disobedience is constituted by duty. It becomes our duty to disobey anything that is repugnant to our conscience,” the order stated.

The ASJ also quoted Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud’s recent observation that the “destruction of spaces for questioning and dissent destroys the basis of all growth – political, economic, cultural and social. In this sense, dissent is a safety valve of democracy.”

On the CJI’s observations, the court said, “The subtext is explicit i.e. dissent has to be encouraged, not stifled. However, the caveat is that the dissent should be absolutely peaceful, and should not degenerate into violence.”

ASJ Varma said that to allow the accused persons to “undergo the rigmarole of a long drawn trial does not augur well for the criminal justice system of our country”.

“Furthermore, such a police action is detrimental to the liberty of citizens who choose to exercise their fundamental right to peacefully assemble and protest,” he said.

He said “desideratum (something that is needed or wanted) is for the investigative agencies to discern the difference between dissent and insurrection.”

“The latter has to be quelled indisputably. However, the former has to be given space, a forum, for dissent is perhaps reflective of something which pricks a citizen’s conscience,” he said.

The court said there were admittedly scores of protesters at the site and among the multitude, some anti-social elements within the crowd created an environment of disruption and havoc.

“However, the moot question remains: whether the accused persons herein were even prima facie complicit in taking part in that mayhem? The answer is an unequivocal ‘no’. Marshalling the facts as brought forth from a perusal of the chargesheet and three supplementary chargesheets, this Court cannot but arrive at the conclusion that the police were unable to apprehend the actual perpetrators behind commission of the offence, but surely managed to rope the persons herein as scapegoats,” the ASJ said in the order.

The FIR in this case was registered in connection with a demonstration being held against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill by students and residents of Jamia Nagar.

Police said a mob blocked traffic movement on the road and started damaging vehicles. The prosecution claimed that rioters got instigated by a speech Imam delivered on December 13, 2019.