In a significant hearing at Delhi's Karkardooma Court on Thursday, the legal team representing activist Sharjeel Imam strongly contested the prosecution's conspiracy theory in the larger 2020 Delhi riots case. The defence argued there was no proof of a criminal conspiracy or a "mentor-protégé" relationship between Imam and co-accused Umar Khalid.
Defence Counters Conspiracy Allegations
Appearing before Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, Imam's counsel presented a detailed rebuttal. The lawyer emphasised that the prosecution had failed to establish the fundamental legal requirement of an "agreement of minds," which is essential to prove a criminal conspiracy. The defence highlighted a critical gap in the evidence: there were no phone calls, chat records, or any form of communication presented that directly linked Sharjeel Imam to Umar Khalid or other accused individuals in the case.
Scrutiny of Speeches and Actions
The arguments also focused on the speeches attributed to Imam, including one delivered at Jamia Millia Islamia in December 2019. His counsel asserted that these speeches had no causal link to the violence that erupted during the Delhi riots. It was further submitted that Imam had voluntarily distanced himself from the Shaheen Bagh protests and had subsequently travelled to other states. The defence maintained that his speeches in those locations did not incite any violence.
Addressing Witness Claims and Arrest Timeline
Responding to claims made by a protected witness regarding plans around former US President Donald Trump's visit to India, the defence pointed to Imam's arrest timeline. Sharjeel Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, which, according to his lawyers, meant he could not have participated in any alleged planning meetings that occurred afterwards. The counsel also noted that Imam was never described as a "top conspirator" in the initial stages of the investigation.
This court appearance follows the rejection of Sharjeel Imam's bail plea by the Supreme Court on January 5. He remains charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in this high-profile case.
