NEW DELHI: Activist Sharjeel Imam on Thursday rejected the Delhi Police’s claim that fellow activist Umar Khalid was his mentor or guru, telling a Delhi court that the two had no meaningful interaction during their time at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
The submission was made through Imam’s counsel as arguments on the framing of charges continued in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Appearing before Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai at the Karkardooma Courts, advocate Talib Mustafa contended that the prosecution had failed to establish any link or coordination between Imam and Khalid. He argued that during Imam’s five years at JNU, there was no substantial interaction that could support allegations of conspiracy or mentorship.
Mustafa submitted that to prove a criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must demonstrate an agreement between the accused—something he said was entirely absent in the present case. He maintained that the claim that Khalid instructed or guided Imam was false and unsupported by evidence.
According to the defence, there was only one meeting at which both men were present, and even the witness statement relating to that meeting did not suggest any discussion on violence.
The submissions were made in a case in which the Delhi Police has accused Imam, Khalid and several others of being part of a larger conspiracy to orchestrate violence during the communal riots that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020. The prosecution has invoked stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, alleging terror-related activities and planning.
Placing the allegations in a broader context, Imam’s counsel argued that widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act could not automatically be construed as a criminal conspiracy. He submitted that participation in peaceful protests did not amount to planning violence.
Mustafa further asserted that Imam consistently advocated non-violence, telling the court that his chats, pamphlets and speeches contained no calls for riots or killing, and that none of the meetings cited by the prosecution involved discussions on violent action.
With this, the defence concluded its submissions. The court is expected to hear arguments on behalf of the remaining accused starting next week.