In November 2021, the Allahabad High Court, while granting bail to Sharjeel Imam, said that in his speech at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), the activist did not call anyone to bear arms and his speech did not incite any violence. Despite this strong-worded ruling, Imam still has several cases against him and continues to be imprisoned. Imam was charged with Sedition, and subsequently with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in January 2020, along with other charges.
On 28 January, he completes four years in jail— more than the maximum sentence under Sedition (three years), and more than half the maximum sentence under UAPA Section 13 (7 years). This, even though, he hasn’t faced conviction in any of the cases yet.
Imam, an IIT graduate who later turned into history student at JNU, was accused of inciting violence after his speech at AMU delivered on 16 January 2020 went viral, during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC), where he demanded that Assam be "cut off" from the rest of India.
His speech at Jamia Millia Islamia delivered in December 2019, also led to a number of cases. Imam’s arrest in January 2020 came after police in five states--Delhi, Uttar Pradesh (UP), Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur—filed FIRs against him. Currently his cases are being heard in multiple Delhi courts.
While several activists were arrested as part of the 'Delhi riots conspiracy' cases, Imam's case was always seen as different, perhaps due to his speeches that went wildly viral — where he asked for the chicken neck of northeast to be cut off from the rest of India. Imam's family say that solidarity has been slow to trickle in.
“It’s been a tough ride, but for some reason, his resolve hasn’t weakened. If anything, he has grown stronger,” said his younger brother, Muzammil Imam.
The Quint examined Imam's case, and spoke to lawyers about it, and also spoke to his family, as he completes four years behind bars.
'Multiple FIRs and Court Cases Is Not The Norm'
Imam has multiple cases being heard in different courts, for the same speech, leading to contrary orders. For instance, for Imam’s AMU speech, where he called for Assam to be cut off from the rest of India, the Allahabad high court in November 2021 granted him bail. The order also categorically stated that the speech didn’t amount to calling for violence nor did it lead to any violence.
“...it may be noted that on an undisputed basis neither the applicant called any one to bear arms nor any violence was incited as a result of the speech delivered by the applicant. The exact imputations made and the effect prompted by the applicant by words uttered or gestures made etc. may remain to be examined at the trial which is yet to commence,” the court said while granting bail to Imam in November 2021.
Months later, in July 2022, the Delhi Karkardooma court denied bail to Imam, in regard to the same speech.
Lawyers say clubbing of FIRs when the allegations arise from the “same cause of action” is the norm, and should have happened in Imam's case.
“The law is clear and there are enough precedents to show that if there is a sameness in allegations, and if the allegations are arising from the same cause of action, the FIRs should be clubbed. In such a scenario, then, there will be only one case being heard by just one court,” advocate Aman Wadud told The Quint.
The Supreme Court in 2022 clubbed six FIRs registered against Alt News cofounder and journalist Mohammed Zubair, and subsequently clubbed all nine FIRs registered against suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma, in connection with her remarks about the Prophet.
In 2020, responding to a petition filed by Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami against FIRs registered against him in various states, the apex court had observed that “Subjecting an individual to numerous proceedings arising in different jurisdictions on the basis of the same cause of action is a violation of fundamental rights”.
In Imam’s case, separate FIRs have been filed against his AMU speech, in 5 different states. While in all the FIRs Imam has been charged with sections such as 124 A (sedition) and 153 A (promoting or attempting to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity on grounds of religion), 153B (making statements provoking breach of peace) and 505(2) (statements made which are alarming, false intention to create disharmony) of the IPC, it is only in the Delhi FIR, that he has also been charged for UAPA for the same speech.
'Completed The Conviction Sentence, Even Without Being Convicted'
In September 2022, the Delhi High Court had granted him bail in the sedition case pertaining to the 2019 Jamia speech.
While Imam has been charged with more stringent sections of UAPA for the 'Delhi riots conspiracy case', he has only been charged with section 13 of the UAPA for his AMU and Jamia speech. In this particular section, the maximum punishment of imprisonment is only for 7 years.
In August 2023, Imam’s lawyers approached a Delhi court for bail, on account of him having completed half of the maximum sentence of seven years for the offences he is accused of for the AMU and Jamia speech. So far, he hasn’t been convicted of any charge.
“…. as per the maximum punishment extending up to 7 years prescribed under Section 13 UAPA, the Applicant has completed one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the concerned offence by law ….and hence, deserves the liberty of this Ld. Court by grant of statutory bail under section 436A of Cr.P.C,” the bail plea said.
The bail application was moved under Section 436A of CrPC.
Section 436A of CrPC describes the maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained. According to the section a person, accused of an offence, shall be granted bail by the court if he has undergone half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence.
The bail application further argued that: “…after the stay of trial in the present case by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in regard to the main offence of Section 124A IPC (Sedition) … the only offences remaining against the Applicant related to an offence punishable U/s 153A which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years, 153 IPC which may extend to five years, 505 IPC which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years and 13 of UAPA which punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years.”
The court has reserved the order in the matter since October 2023.
While delays in granting bail is often seen in contravention with the ‘bail is rule, jail is exception’ maxim, the UAPA charge against Imam complicates the matter.
“With regard to sedition, he (Imam) has already completed more than half of the sentence and he's entitled to default bail under the Criminal Procedure Code. On the other hand, special statutes like UAPA are designed in such a manner that bail isn't a rule here. So, in a nutshell, even if his bail is allowed in other cases, the case under UAPA will be the biggest hurdle,” said advocate Areeb Uddin Ahmed.
Section 43D (5) of UAPA states that, “Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court... is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”
Some Other UAPA Accused In Same Case Have Been Granted Bail
The Delhi High Court last week asked the city police to explain what distinguishes Imam’s role, in the ‘larger conspiracy case’ in the 2020 Delhi riots, and that of other co-accused who have been granted bail-- Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal who were granted bail by the High Court back in 2021.
The court has asked the Delhi police to file a chart distinguishing the role of Imam, after his lawyers pointed to others who had gotten out on bail, despite being accused of the same crimes. In a conspiracy case, the speeches and actions of one are read for the others too, since the assumption is that all the accused conspired together.
However, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad appearing for the Delhi Police stated in court that the “kind of activities” Imam has done cannot be compared. “Sharjeel Imam has a lot of history. When we go through the chargesheet we will show the kind of speeches he has given. The kind of activities he has done and cannot be compared,” the SPP submitted.
'Elite Political Activists Didn't Show Solidarity But Masses Did': Family
Speaking to The Quint, Imam’s brother Muzammil said that there was a vast difference in the solidarity he received versus that the others accused in the same case did.
“The elites of political activism, the most renowned names...they refrained from speaking about Sharjeel or extending him any support. Today, whatever solidarity he has is a result of an organic support from the masses,” said Muzammil.
He added that it took a while for people to understand Imam's writings and perspective, but now he sees many people -- the 'ordinary folk'-- extending support to the activist.
“Since his arrest, I have been sharing snippets of his writings and thoughts, and many people have resonated with those, leading to more people understanding his perspective and supporting him. Ordinary people now pray for him,” he added.
Muzammil said that many people wanted Imam to deny his speech, or to backtrack from his words. “But he refused to do so. That’s because he knows he hasn’t said anything wrong. He wants to get out of jail on merit of his case. So that his case can be used as a benchmark to help others in the future who are wrongfully arrested for their speech,” he said.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)