'Has to be lakshman rekha for criticism'
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Wednesday expressed its displeasure over the use of the term jumla by former JNU student Umar Khalid in his criticism of the Prime Minister while delivering the speech that formed the basis of allegation against him in the case concerning the larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots of February 2020 and said there has to be a "lakshman rekha" even for criticism.
A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar, which was hearing Khalid's plea seeking bail concerning the case under the stringent anti-terror law — UAPA — asked his senior counsel to explain certain statements made by him in the speech given at Amravati in Maharashtra and questioned if it was proper to use jumla (platitude) for the prime minister.
Senior advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for Khalid, explained that certain statements made were satirical and certain other statements were criticisms of the government and its policies, all the while asserting that these remarks were not illegal and criticism of the government cannot become a crime.
"This 'jumla' is used for the PM of India. Is that proper? There has to be a line drawn for criticism also. There has to be a lakshman rekha," remarked Justice Bhatnagar.
"Correct. (But) 583 days in prison for UAPA is not what is envisaged for a person who speaks against the government. We can't become so intolerant," Pais stated. He submitted that a person's statement may not be approved by everyone and may result in outrage but what has to be seen is whether it amounts to any of the offences as alleged.
During the hearing, Justice Mridul also sought an explanation for using words like 'krantikaari' and 'inqualabi' and observed that it had to be seen whether the speech led to violence at any stage.
Pais said that the Amravati speech weeks before the riots, did not call for violence, was not contemporaneously uploaded on YouTube, was not widely circulated, and that the allegation of commission of the offence of section 124A IPC or any reaction in Delhi on account of the speech was unfounded, unlikely and more than remote.
The court said that it has to examine the role of the other co-conspirators and asked if galvanising troops amounted to incitement to violence.
The senior lawyer for Khalid stated that a 'chakka jam' (road blockade) is also not terror by any stretch of the imagination and a reference to the visit of the then U.S President was not illegal and that there are no witnesses to say that they were incited by the speech. The court clarified that nobody has any quarrel with free speech but the consequence of the speech was to be examined in the present case.
What is the consequence of you employing these expressions (in the speech) offensive as they evidently are? Did the speech incite the populous in Delhi? the court said.
