Talk to a lawyer @499

News

Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and 8 others were discharged by a Delhi Court in the 2019 Jamia Millia Islamia case

Feature Image for the blog - Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and 8 others were discharged by a Delhi Court in the 2019 Jamia Millia Islamia case

A Delhi court discharged Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and 8 others in a case related to the violence at Jamia Millia Islamia in December 2019. The Additional Sessions Judge, Arul Varma, stated that dissent must be encouraged and not suppressed and criticized the Delhi Police for filing a "ill-conceived" chargesheet that was "devoid of irrefutable evidence". The court's decision to discharge the accused reflects the importance of protecting the rights of individuals to express dissent and the need for solid evidence to support criminal charges.

The court accused the police of failing to catch the actual perpetrators of the violence at Jamia Millia Islamia and instead blaming Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and others as "scapegoats". 

The case pertains to the violence that occurred in December 2019 during a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) near Jamia Millia Islamia university. The protest turned violent, leading the police to use force. Some of the protesting students allegedly entered the university. Delhi Police charged 12 individuals in the case, using several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including rioting and unlawful assembly.

After reviewing the case, the court discharged 11 of the accused and only framed charges against one individual, Mohammed Ilyas.

The court stated that the police arbitrarily selected some individuals from the crowd to charge as accused and others to serve as police witnesses. This "cherry-picking" went against the principle of fairness. The judge emphasized that dissent is a manifestation of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, and it is the responsibility of the courts to uphold this right.