The Supreme Court questioned Delhi Police on invoking stringent UAPA provisions against riot accused for speeches, seeking justification for linking terror acts to their words. Justices sought clarity on how Section 15, pertaining to terrorist acts, applies when arms weren’t directly used by the accused, who have been jailed for over five years. The Supreme Court questioned Delhi Police on invoking stringent UAPA provisions against riot accused for speeches, seeking justification for linking terror acts to their words. Justices sought clarity on how Section 15, pertaining to terrorist acts, applies when arms weren’t directly used by the accused, who have been jailed for over five years. NEW DELHI: Supreme Court questioned Delhi Police Wednesday over how Section 15 of UAPA, which pertains to terrorist acts, can be invoked against Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and other accused in a Delhi riots case for giving speeches and how terror acts can be linked with such speeches.A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria, which reserved its order on bail pleas of the six accused, sought a response from additional solicitor general S V Raju in light of senior advocate Siddharth Dave’s contention that at most Section 13 (unlawful activities) and Section 18 (conspiracy) could be invoked for the speeches. The ASG submitted that the riots took place because of a conspiracy hatched by the accused and whatever they had said in their speeches became reality. Raju said Imam’s speech on blocking Chicken’s Neck was an attack on the integrity of the country and Khalid’s speech on chakka jam was an attack on economic security and justified invoking Section 15.Sharjeel seems to be a punching bag: SCThe court thereafter pointed out that Delhi Police had not attributed the wielding of arms or explosives to the six accused, which is a requirement under the provision. Raju, however, said that petrol bombs were used in Delhi riots. “It is a case of conspiracy. It is not my case that they used petrol bombs. My case is that they are part of the conspiracy to create the situation for the use of petrol bombs. For use of petrol bombs, there is a separate case against other people,” he said.The bench then wrapped up the hearing, which had stretched over 11 days, and reserved its order. As the Delhi Police’s arguments were particularly focused on Imam’s speeches, which were also played in the courtroom to oppose the bail plea, and the other five accused – Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan – had distanced themselves from him, the bench observed that Imam seemed to be a punching bag for both sides.The accused, who have been in custody for more than five years, approached the apex court after their bail plea had been rejected by Delhi High Court. Opposing their bail plea, Delhi Police accused them of indulging in regime change and told the court that they were behind “well-crafted, orchestrated, preplanned, choreographed riots” to divide the country on communal lines to achieve “the final regime change goal”.The accused, however, told the court that holding protests and opposing the govt was not an offence, and they are being prosecuted to send a message to others that anyone who raises their voice would be similarly punished. Invoking Gandhi, they said that non-violent protest and civil disobedience was a part and parcel of democracy and cannot be criminalised, as happened in the colonial era. As Delhi Police played their allegedly inflammatory speeches, the accused brought to the court’s notice clippings of their speeches in which they had talked about the constitutional spirit and responding to hate with love, to violence with non-violence and enmity with brotherhood.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosPM Modi Receives Call From Israeli PM Netanyahu; Reaffirms Support For Gaza Peace PlanUS Pushes $1.25 Billion Into Reko Diq As Critical Minerals Race Heats Up In Balochistan’s Badlands’Detect, Delete, Deport’: Amit Shah Blasts Rahul Gandhi Over Infiltrators, Oppn Stages WalkoutMicrosoft’s Biggest Asia Investment Yet: What The $17.5 Billion India Push Really Means ExplainedOwaisi Calls SIR a ‘Backdoor NRC’ in Lok Sabha, Warns of Selective Religious DisenfranchisementVande Mataram: Priyanka Chaturvedi Urges Parliament To Correct ‘WhatsApp Version’ Of India’s HistoryRahul Gandhi’s ‘Open Challenge’ To Amit Shah In Lok Sabha Over SIR Gets ‘I Will Decide’ ReplyExplained: The Sindhudesh Push In Karachi And The Historical Fractures Driving Pakistan’s TurmoilIndiGo’s 5% Flight Cut Explained: Causes, Impact on Routes, and the Ripple Effects on PassengersMicrosoft CEO ‘Thrilled’ About India’s Growing Data Centre Capacity, Details Meet With PM Modi123PhotostoriesFrom Scorpion to Fennec fox: 5 animals that are rulers of sand5 lessons on how to make money from ‘Rich Dad Poor Dad’ writer Robert KiyosakiRanveer Singh’s wedding outfit in ‘Dhurandhar’ has a hidden 19th-century secret, fans are stunnedK-Names with an Indian heart: Baby girl names popular in Korea that Indians parents can easily pronounce10 high fibre fruits that help ease constipationBhagya Debata, Lal Pahare’r Katha; Mithun Chakraborty’s Bengali roles that blended romance, action and street politics5 homemade natural anti-ageing drinks that nourish from withinWinter Special: How to make Besan ka Sheera at homeNo heartbeat but still alive: 5 animals that survive without a heart’Dhurandhar’ star Sara Arjun just served the most elegant floral moment of the season123Hot PicksIndia US DealMutual Fund AdvisorSpiceJet FlightGold rate todaySilver rate todayPublic Holidays NovemberBank Holidays NovemberTop TrendingPhilip Rivers Earnings 2025Resident Evil 9 UpdatesAnthony Richardson InjuryStephen Curry WifeVenus Williams and Andrea Net WorthSlient Hill 1 Remake Release DateRafael Nadal and Mery Net WorthTrey Benson Injury updateAlvin Kamara InjuryDwyane Wade Wife
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court questioned Delhi Police Wednesday over how Section 15 of UAPA, which pertains to terrorist acts, can be invoked against Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and other accused in a Delhi riots case for giving speeches and how terror acts can be linked with such speeches.A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria, which reserved its order on bail pleas of the six accused, sought a response from additional solicitor general S V Raju in light of senior advocate Siddharth Dave’s contention that at most Section 13 (unlawful activities) and Section 18 (conspiracy) could be invoked for the speeches. The ASG submitted that the riots took place because of a conspiracy hatched by the accused and whatever they had said in their speeches became reality. Raju said Imam’s speech on blocking Chicken’s Neck was an attack on the integrity of the country and Khalid’s speech on chakka jam was an attack on economic security and justified invoking Section 15.Sharjeel seems to be a punching bag: SCThe court thereafter pointed out that Delhi Police had not attributed the wielding of arms or explosives to the six accused, which is a requirement under the provision. Raju, however, said that petrol bombs were used in Delhi riots. “It is a case of conspiracy. It is not my case that they used petrol bombs. My case is that they are part of the conspiracy to create the situation for the use of petrol bombs. For use of petrol bombs, there is a separate case against other people,” he said.The bench then wrapped up the hearing, which had stretched over 11 days, and reserved its order. As the Delhi Police’s arguments were particularly focused on Imam’s speeches, which were also played in the courtroom to oppose the bail plea, and the other five accused – Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan – had distanced themselves from him, the bench observed that Imam seemed to be a punching bag for both sides.The accused, who have been in custody for more than five years, approached the apex court after their bail plea had been rejected by Delhi High Court. Opposing their bail plea, Delhi Police accused them of indulging in regime change and told the court that they were behind “well-crafted, orchestrated, preplanned, choreographed riots” to divide the country on communal lines to achieve “the final regime change goal”.The accused, however, told the court that holding protests and opposing the govt was not an offence, and they are being prosecuted to send a message to others that anyone who raises their voice would be similarly punished. Invoking Gandhi, they said that non-violent protest and civil disobedience was a part and parcel of democracy and cannot be criminalised, as happened in the colonial era. As Delhi Police played their allegedly inflammatory speeches, the accused brought to the court’s notice clippings of their speeches in which they had talked about the constitutional spirit and responding to hate with love, to violence with non-violence and enmity with brotherhood.
