The Delhi Riots Conspiracy: A Defendant's Robust Challenge to Allegations

The intricate legal saga surrounding the 2020 Delhi riots, particularly the so-called "larger conspiracy" case, continues to unfold, with one of the key figures, Sharjeel Imam, recently delivering a spirited defense in court. It’s a moment that truly brings home the weight of these proceedings, as Imam vehemently argued that his speeches, though perhaps controversial to some, bore no direct link to the tragic violence that engulfed parts of the capital.

Speaking before Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat, Imam, who faces charges under the stringent UAPA, or Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, presented his side of the story under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He wasn't just offering a simple denial; he was painting a picture of his involvement – or rather, his lack thereof – in any grand scheme to instigate violence. "My speeches," he stated unequivocally, "are in no way connected to the violence that happened in Delhi." He maintained that he was simply exercising his right to protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), framing himself as a student activist caught in the crosshairs of a larger narrative.

One of the more striking points of his defense involved his alleged connection to co-accused Umar Khalid. Imam flatly denied ever speaking to Khalid, particularly not at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), a detail that, if true, would significantly undermine a key plank of the prosecution’s "conspiracy" theory. It makes you wonder about the precise details the prosecution is relying on, doesn't it?

Imam also delved into specifics, addressing the prosecution’s claim that he was a pivotal figure in a pre-planned conspiracy. He highlighted what he perceived as glaring inconsistencies, especially concerning the timeline of events. For instance, he pointed out that he had called for a "chakka jam" (road blockade) on December 13, 2019, at Jamia Millia Islamia, whereas the actual riots only escalated much later, in February 2020. This gap, he argued, suggests a fundamental disconnect between his actions and the violence. "There is a gap of one-and-a-half months between the protest I was involved in and the riots," he elaborated, emphasizing the logical leap required to link the two.

He further elaborated on his role, or lack thereof, in the Shaheen Bagh protests. While he acknowledges visiting the protest site, he insisted that he never delivered any inflammatory speeches there, nor did he instruct anyone to do so. His visits, he claimed, were merely to observe the protests and perhaps offer some general advice, a far cry from orchestrating violence. It's a subtle but crucial distinction he’s trying to draw, distinguishing between participation in a protest and instigating illegal activities.

Indeed, Imam questioned the very foundation of the police investigation, suggesting that he, along with other activists, was simply made a scapegoat for participating in legitimate, democratic dissent. "I was only raising my voice against CAA and NRC," he asserted, arguing that the police, for reasons unclear, chose to frame those who were vocal against the government's policies. He even went so far as to challenge the police's reliance on a witness's statement that he was seen meeting Umar Khalid and other individuals at JNU, reiterating his denial.

It’s clear that Imam views himself as an academic and a student activist, not a rabble-rousing politician or a plotter of violence. He’s pushing back against the idea that his passionate words, spoken in the context of protest, somehow transmuted directly into the tragic events of February 2020. This defense brings into sharp focus the complex interplay between free speech, protest, and the boundaries of legal responsibility, particularly when serious accusations like "conspiracy" are involved. The court, of course, will weigh all these arguments carefully, but Imam's recent statements certainly add a compelling, human layer to this ongoing and deeply significant trial.