New Delhi: In the ongoing case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, arguments over framing charges against Shahril Imam were heard at the Karkardooma Court. Shahril Imam’s lawyer presented his defence against the charges, strongly denying any involvement in conspiracy.
Advocate Ahmed Ibrahim argued before the court that conspiracy requires clear consent and coordination, which are absent in this case. He pointed out that there is no evidence of any agreement or communication between Shahril Imam and the co-accused persons. The lawyer emphasised that mere discussions do not amount to a conspiracy.
He further clarified that the WhatsApp chats cited in the charge sheet do not include Shahril Imam’s participation. There are no chats or phone calls involving him or any co-accused related to these conversations. The prosecution’s case largely relies on these WhatsApp chats, but Shahril Imam’s name does not appear in them. The lawyer also denied any mentorship or coordination between Umar Khalid and Shahril Imam.
Highlighting Shahril Imam’s public statements, the defence counsel said there was no mention or endorsement of violence in any of his meetings or speeches. Instead, Shahril had consistently advocated non-violence and peaceful protests. During the widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) in 2019-20, Shahril did not support violent acts. The lawyer stressed that large-scale protests across the country involving many accused persons do not automatically imply a planned conspiracy.
The case has been registered under stringent sections including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), where Shahril Imam faces accusations of orchestrating a major conspiracy behind the riots. He has been in custody since January 2020. Recently, the Supreme Court rejected his bail plea. Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court is hearing the matter related to framing charges.
The defence’s arguments underline the claim that the prosecution lacks concrete evidence and is attempting to portray legitimate protests as a conspiracy. The court will now hear the prosecution’s submissions before deciding whether to frame charges against Shahril Imam.
Leave a Comment