[Delhi Riots] No concept of conspiracy of silence in law: Delhi Court told on behalf of Khalid Saifi

The only conspiracy taught in law is criminal conspiracy and there is no ‘conspiracy of silence’, Senior Advocate Rebecca John argued for United Against Hate's Khalid Saifi, accused in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case in relation to the Delhi Riots of 2020 [Khalid Saifi v. State].

Rebutting the prosecution’s arguments before Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat, John submitted,

“I have been brave enough to show evidence against me...Only conspiracy taught in law is criminal conspiracy. Conspiracies can be hatched in silence, but there is no 'conspiracy of silence'. 'Conspiracy of silence' not culpable.”

Earlier, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad argued that Saifi was a member of United Against Hate and someone who was in touch with co-accused Umar Khalid. He was accused of setting up the Khureji protest site in North-East Delhi.

Prasad had also relied on WhatsApp chats of witnesses and accused persons besides others, to connect the Delhi Riots to a “conspiracy of silence”.

On Wednesday, however, John took objection to the arguments of the prosecutor, stating,

“Prosecution has sought to delegitimise protest. I am sorry, that is unconstitutional. I accept, I was part of the protests; had to do something with the Khureji protest site; I was part of DPSG group apart form some others, so what?”

According to John, the prosecution's arguments were based on conjectures and surmises that had been taken from only a few WhatsApp chats and not from the entire reading of chats as a whole.

“Ye chup the, ye bolne lage gaye (They were quiet, they speak now)...We cannot attribute meanings to messages. For prosecution to base its arguments on conjecture, surmises...which is solely theirs, is impermissible in law,” she argued.

“We cannot criminalise acts that have not led to violence. Cannot criminalise acts singly which have multiple narratives. Same record shows multiple narratives,” she added.

SPP Prasad had referred to chats of a key witness to demonstrate disagreement among the alleged conspirators over the call for protests and purported violence. However, John said that the witness could not have been used to validate only a few things.

John read out other purported chats of the same witness to submit that chats should not be read in isolation, for the ones not referred to by the prosecution reflected a different picture.

“There is no single narrative in these chat groups. There are multiple narratives. Multiple grievances with the police or the current dispensation. I object vehemently to the prosecution taking out messages in isolation and give meaning to further their case,” she stressed.

She further underlined,

“The moral of this is don’t isolate messages. View it with a holistic whole with all imperfections and try and understand whether the group as a whole or individuals were perpetrating terrible, terrible violence.”

The senior lawyer also stated that Khalid was the only accused person whose legs and arms were cracked and brought to court. As far as charges of UAPA were concerned, John argued that the same was not attracted against Saifi.

Earlier, on the allegation of a secret meeting among Umar Khalid, Tahir Hussain and Saifi, John said,

"I meet a hundred people everyday. This great meeting has been addressed by me separately. Assuming if that's true, even then it is not robust evidence to show conspiracy."

Arguments on behalf of Umar Khalid will be made on Friday, February 18.

[Read Arguments]