NE Delhi riots: ‘Can’t afford a system where conspiracies become endless’, Sharjeel Imam lawyer tells court

He argued that Imam, who was arrested in January, 2019, cannot be held for the consequences of the riots which broke out in February, 2020. He added: “Arrest is prior, act is later. Arrest is prior, riot is later.”

“Even after arrest, consequences of riots will not come against me. Your honour have prima facie my speeches as seditious, but it didn’t find out that I advocated for violence. My friend (prosecutor) is under an obligation to show that the agreement entered into within a time frame was an agreement to cause violence,” Mir argued.

He told the court that the prosecutor will also have to show for whose murder did he conspire or be a part of the conspiracy. “To say that he conspired to instigate a riot, and inevitably, people died because every time in this country someone dies for his ethnicity, religion, the entire society dies,” Mir argued.

Mir further told the court that the case has to be decided on merits and not emotions. “The question is that these people unfortunately died. Another question is even ambulances were stopped. Point is, within this circumference of conspiracy, did Imam conspire to the murders?” Mir asked.

The advocate further argued: “Since when did chakka jam become a conspiracy for riots?”

“Every time if we sustain these cases, we will be inevitably killing something which the Supreme Court has recognised as the right to protest. Protest carries with it a sentiment of bringing the country to a standstill,” Mir submitted.

“As if he has a magic wand that the dates of 24 and 25 (February, 2020) are already settled and that he knows people are going to kill themselves. We cannot afford to have a system where conspiracies become endless that they are rendered in perpetuity. Did Sharjeel Imam also conspire for Kapil Mishra to say that if you don’t vacate, will make sure you vacate,” Mir added.

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad rebutted Mir’s arguments stating that the “arrest of Imam is not for conspiracy in the case but for seditious speech that happened prior to arrest. “To say that he was arrested as part of the conspiracy is kind of a misdirected argument,” Prasad submitted.

While arguing why Imam was roped in for the conspiracy case, he borrowed an example from the game of cricket to state, “When a cricket team plays, every player has its own importance. In the sequence of openers, assuming one wicket is lost, that doesn’t mean the intend to win the game is lost.”

“Merely because Imam is removed from the team by the event of his arrest (for giving inflammatory speeches), doesn’t mean the entire conspiracy is abandoned,” the SPP submitted.

On Mir’s argument that Imam cannot be targeted multiple times for the same speeches, the SPP gave another example of a robber stealing a gun and a car, and shoots at a guard while feeling only to meet with an accident later. “Would it mean that merely because he committed robbery and therefore that robbery FIR should alone be continued? It can’t be claimed that merely because he was charged (for giving inflammatory speeches), he cannot be charged in FIR 59 (UAPA case),” the SPP submitted.