‘Under UAPA Burden of Proving Innocence Lies With Umar Khalid, Sharjeel’
Arunima Rai, a law student from Lucknow University, says the denial of bail to 2020 riots accused can be a matter of debate & legal interpretation but the High Court has acted as per law. Her views:
Before discussing the issue of denial of bail to Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots case, it should be made clear to every person born and living in India that anyone’s patriotism and dedication towards the country is not measured or decided by his/her name, caste, creed, religion, region, colour, etc. If an accused is facing serious anti-national or anti-terror charges, he or she is bound to be tried under our laws without any concessions or concerns.
The Delhi High Court in its September 2order has rejected the bail petition of student activist Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others, saying that “conspiratorial” violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens could not be allowed. This has once again stirred things up among the ecosystem behind Khalid-Imam, a bunch of so-called ‘activists’ and self-proclaimed members of the civil society, who have been rallying support for Khalid and team from the day of their arrest!
What was further shocking for me was that Khalid-Imam’s supporters were marking the occasion as one of his achievements, for having stayed behind bars for five years. I do not find it amusing when an accused facing charges under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is lionised as a ‘revolutionary’. Do the supporters of Khalid-Imam approve of their plans (expressed from a public platform, as reported by the media) to cut down a portion of the country from the mainland and instigating a mob to burn the national capital?
ALSO READ: Sedition Law – A Colonial Gift For Savage Rulers
Now the bigger question: The court, in denying bail, has repeatedly stressed upon the fact that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that the accusations against them were “prima facie true”. Essentially, they thought there was enough initial evidence to suggest involvement in a “larger conspiracy”. However, the accused have consistently denied these charges, and their legal teams have been arguing that this long pre-trial detention is a clear violation of their fundamental rights.
To be precise, under UAPA provisions that pertain to matters concerning national security, bail cannot be granted on grounds of delay in trial. The entire trial is important because it can set a precedent for the treatment of all terrorism and sedition cases and also for the state’s strategy to deal with dissent.
It should be crystal clear to everyone and all groups and individuals who are crying foul and trying to project Khalid-Imam and others as victims of a legal system because of their specific identities, that Indian laws treat every citizen of India equally. At the same time, seeking or expecting any kind of relaxations under the garb of prejudice or targeting of their religious identity is far-fetched and impossible in our judicial system.
As told to Rajat Rai
