New Delhi – Student activist Sharjeel Imam made a significant statement in a Delhi court on Thursday, claiming he had withdrawn from the Sharjeel Imam CAA protests well before violence erupted in northeast Delhi in February 2020. Appearing before additional sessions judge Sameer Bajpai at Karkardooma Courts, Imam argued through his counsel that several co-accused had requested him to step away because they believed his speeches were giving a “communal colour” to the movement and could potentially harm it. This marks the first time Imam has sought to distance himself from other co-accused in the case.
Timeline of Sharjeel Imam CAA Protests Involvement
According to the defense arguments presented by advocate Talib Mustafa, the Sharjeel Imam CAA protests involvement ended by January 2, 2020. “The accused thought that the protest was turning communal and that I was the most renowned figure among them who was giving it that colour. So, I withdrew from the movement by January 2. Till then, there was no violence,” Mustafa submitted to the court. The counsel contended that even according to the prosecution’s case, Imam’s alleged involvement was limited to December 2019, several weeks before the violence that shook northeast Delhi in February 2020.
Defense Strategy in the Sharjeel Imam CAA Protests Case
The arguments mark a significant shift in the defense approach to the Sharjeel Imam CAA protests case. Mustafa argued that the prosecution’s own evidence showed Imam was sidelined midway through the agitation and had no role in any alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots. The defense specifically emphasized that the timeline presented by prosecutors ruled out Imam’s participation in planning or executing the riots. This strategic shift in the Sharjeel Imam CAA protests defense came just two days after the Supreme Court rejected Imam’s bail plea.
Activities During Sharjeel Imam CAA Protests Period
During his involvement in the Sharjeel Imam CAA protests, police allegations claimed Imam drafted pamphlets and addressed protest sites at Shaheen Bagh and Jamia Millia Islamia. However, Mustafa argued that these acts, even if accepted, did not attract provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The counsel maintained that Imam had consistently advocated non-violence while associated with the protests. “I told everyone that with elections impending, mobilisation should not increase and violence should not take place. Till I was heading the protest, there was no violence,” Mustafa stated, adding that Imam’s role was confined to coordinating speakers at some protest sites.
WhatsApp Groups and Sharjeel Imam CAA Protests Coordination
Seeking to further distance Imam from alleged escalation of protests, Mustafa claimed Imam was never part of the Delhi Police Support Group (DPSG) WhatsApp group, which the prosecution claims was used by other accused to coordinate chakka jams and renewed mobilization. Instead, during the Sharjeel Imam CAA protests period, Imam had created a separate group called Muslim Students of Jamia (MSJ) solely for peaceful protest against CAA. This distinction, the defense argued, demonstrated Imam’s commitment to non-violent demonstration methods.
Trump Visit Timing and Sharjeel Imam CAA Protests
The defense rejected the prosecution’s claim that the Sharjeel Imam CAA protests were timed to coincide with then US President Donald Trump’s February 2020 visit to India. Mustafa argued that Trump’s schedule was made public only after Imam was arrested on January 28. “By the time the direction of the protest allegedly changed, I was already in custody,” the counsel submitted, emphasizing the impossibility of Imam’s involvement in later planning stages given his arrest date.
Distancing from Umar Khalid in Sharjeel Imam CAA Protests
In a pointed submission regarding the Sharjeel Imam CAA protests narrative, the defense specifically distanced Imam from former JNU student Umar Khalid. Rejecting police claims that Khalid had mentored Imam, Mustafa told the court: “There is no call record or meeting to show that I was mentored by Umar Khalid. We had not spoken for almost six years on campus.” This represents a crucial element in the defense’s strategy to separate Imam from other accused in the conspiracy case.
Supreme Court Decision Impact on Sharjeel Imam CAA Protests Case
The arguments came shortly after the Supreme Court refused bail to Imam and Khalid in the alleged conspiracy case. A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria held on January 5 that the gravity and statutory nature of offenses, coupled with their “central and formative roles” in the conspiracy, disentitled them to relief at this stage. However, the top court granted bail to five co-accused—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed—observing that their continued incarceration was not indispensable for fair trial.
Broader Context of Sharjeel Imam CAA Protests Prosecution
As many as 18 accused are facing prosecution in the case, which pertains to an alleged coordinated conspiracy culminating in communal violence in northeast Delhi in February 2020 that left 53 people dead and hundreds injured. Eleven of the accused are currently out on bail. The Sharjeel Imam CAA protests case represents one of the most significant legal proceedings related to the 2020 Delhi riots, with implications for understanding the events leading to the violence and determining accountability for the tragic loss of life.
