Jamia Violence case: Delhi High Court refuses to expunge trial court remarks on investigation; says order will not influence probe

The Delhi High Court on Monday ordered that the remarks in the trial court verdict that discharged Sharjeel Imam and ten others in the 2019 Jamia violence case will have no impact on the ongoing investigation or proceedings against the accused..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to pass interim direction to expunge the remakrs as prayed for by the Delhi Police. "I am only going to say that the observations against the police will not affect the investigation. I will not expunge them," the Court said.The Court then listed the case for further hearing on March 16, 2023..The Court was hearing Delhi Police's plea against the order by Additional Sessions Judge Arul Varma of the Saket courts discharging Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others in 2019 Jamia violence case..Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain argued that the observations could adversely affect further investigation. He thus sought an interim order allowing the police to continue with the investigation and file the chargesheet. "I have serious issues with the court's observations. Are these conclusions permissible? Was he hearing a PIL? The order is like scoring a self goal. And after scoring a self goal, he says 'no, no I have won'. He says the riots created mayhem. If it was mayhem, is it not the duty of the police to arrest those people?" he argued. .Justice Sharma said in response,"Right now I am not expunging the remarks. But ASG has a point that these remarks are going to influence the investigation. I will give a short date. If you want to argue today, you can do that also. I will dispose it of today."After hearing counsel for Tanha and other accused, the Court adjourned the matter to March 16..In an order passed on February 4, Judge Varma had made some very strong observations against the Delhi Police.The court had come down heavily on the Delhi Police for filing an "ill-conceived" chargesheet, and added that their case was "devoid of irrefragable evidence".Though the crowd created havoc and disruption on that day, the police failed to apprehend the actual perpetrators and roped in Imam, Tanha, Zargar and others as "scapegoats", the Court had said..The case relates to the violence that took place in and around Jamia Millia Islamia in December 2019 after some students and locals announced that they would walk towards Parliament to protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC).However, the protests soon took a violent turn, and as the police used force to quell them, some of the protesting students allegedly entered the University.In total, Delhi Police made 12 people accused in the case. Several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including rioting and unlawful assembly were invoked against them.After considering the case, the court discharged 11 accused and framed charges against one Mohammed Ilyas.Apart from Imam, Tanha and Zargar, the others who have been discharged are Mohammed Abuzar, Umair Ahmad, Mohammed Shoaib, Mahmood Anwar, Mohammed Qasim, Mohammed Bilal Nadeem, Shahzar Raza Khan and Chanda Yadav..The plea was mentioned by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta before a bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad on Friday last week seeking early listing. The Bench then ordered the plea to be listed today. In its revision petition, Delhi Police argued that the trial court not only discharged the accused but was “also swayed by emotional and sentimental feelings". It cast aspersions on the prosecuting agency and passed gravely prejudicial and adverse remarks against the prosecuting agency and the investigation, the plea said. The Police further stated that the trial court erred in holding a mini-trial. "...the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence."