Sharjeel Imam: Why Delhi court decided to frame sedition, UAPA charges

A Delhi Court recently decided to frame charges against Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Sharjeel Imam for sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). .The case pertains to Imam’s allegedly provocative speeches in relation to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) at Jamia Millia Islamia in December 2019, and a speech given at the Aligarh Muslim University in January 2020.Imam was charged by police for offences under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity between religions), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration), 505 (public mischief) and Section 13 of UAPA.Below are the primary reasons given by the Court in its order for framing charges against Imam..Imam skeptical of secularism, democracyThe Court noted that Imam lambasted almost every institution, Constitution and the ideas of democracy and secularism besides the entire polity including the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi."The accused in his speeches has made vituperative utterances against even the Father of the Nation. He seems to be skeptical of the ideas of secularism and democracy that has come about post Constitution," the court observed. .Facts of Kedar Nath case far less seditious than Imam's speech, pamphletsThe Court noted that the facts of the 1962 Kedar Nath case in which Supreme Court had upheld the Constitutional validity of sedition law (Section 124A) were far less offensive than Imam's speech. "Facts of the case of Kedar Nath clearly shows that comments are by far less offensive, seditious then the contents of speeches and pamphlets of accused Sharjeel Imam in the present case," the order said. .Speeches not in a moment of haste or angerThe accused has made utterances not just once but many times over, the Court noted. "It is not as if the words are spelt out in a moment of haste or anger or antagonism without intending it," the judge held.Utterances not related to CAA protestsImam was stated to have tried to convince his audience that Muslims as a community had been deprived due to the Constitution and its makers or those who were required to protect it.Utterances were made about killings in the name of cow and of Mulims not being afforded reservation. "The references to cow killing or reservations not being given to Muslims who had converted from Hindus as such have no relevance for the protest which is ostensibly shown in the arguments as against the CAA law. The speeches appear to be completely pessimistic. In his admitted speech , he focuses that Muslims are concentrated in urban areas and there are 24 cities in the country where the Muslim population can stop the functioning and put to the city at halt and bring the government to its knees," the Court noted..Speeches challenged integrity of India, had tendency to incite violenceThe Court prima facie found a tendency to create public disorder and incitement to violence."Speech also appears to challenge the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India. It also appears to create hatred/contempt for the lawful institutions of the State and to challenge them by unlawful means," it added..The 'chicken-neck' remarkImam's remark on blockage of 'chicken-neck' was stated to be about blockading the narrow land area which joins the north-eastern India to the rest of the country. "The accused by referring to the blockage/cutoff of ‘chickenneck’ which joins mainland India to the NorthEast by seems to remind everyone that the said land belongs to Muslims and the call to do it, by certain means is indicative of his intention," the Court stated.The order outlined that Imam had sought religious groups to be divided on emotive issues besides seeking to misguide one community in a particular way of resentment, ill-will and hatred towards others that could be remedied by actions resulting in violence..Dissent hallmark of a progressive nation but laxman rekha cannot be crossedInterestingly, the Court also emphasised that dissent was the hallmark of a progressive and democratic nation and "even advocacy of a point of view regardless of its force or reasoning or even palpable reprehensibility is not touched by this provision."Even criticism of the government or its policies or for that matter any institution was stated to be within the "reach of freedom of speech and expression".However, what is to be examined in whether the ‘laxman rekha’ has been crossed or not."It is about respecting other people views and finding out legitimate ways of pushing your thinking," the Court said..The Court will frame charges formally against Imam on February 4..[Read Order]