'Organising, participating in protests not criminal offence': Delhi riots accused to SC

Shadab Ahmed, an accused in a UAPA case linked to February 2020 riots in Delhi, told the Supreme Court on Thursday that organising and participating in protests was not a criminal offence. Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Ahmed, also refuted prosecution's claim of delay on Ahmed's part before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria. "He is 27 years old and working as supervisor at NDS Enterprises Jagatpuri since 2016. Arguments on charge are going on but for me the arguments are over and no delay on my part. "The protected witnesses deposed that they had heard him discuss the conspiracy at a biryani stall. A witness had deposed that Ahmed had organised the protests and attended them. Organising and participating in protests was not a criminal offence," Luthra said. The apex court has now posted the matter for hearing on November 11 when the Delhi Police will commence its arguments.

On Monday, activist Shifa-ur-Rehman had told the top court that he was "cherry-picked" and no offence was made out against him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider and Rehman were booked under the anti-terror law and provisions of the erstwhile IPC for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured. The violence erupted during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Seeking bail in the UAPA case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, Khalid had told the apex court that there is no evidence linking him to violence and denied conspiracy charges against him. The Delhi High Court denied bail to nine people, including Khalid and Imam, saying "conspiratorial" violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens could not be allowed. Besides Khalid and Imam, those who faced bail rejection are Fatima, Haider, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Shadab Ahmed.

The bail plea of another accused, Tasleem Ahmed, was rejected by a different high court bench on September 2. The high court said the Constitution affords citizens the right to protest and carry out demonstrations or agitations, provided they are orderly, peaceful and without arms, and such actions must be within the bounds of law. While the high court said the right to participate in peaceful protests and to make speeches in public meetings was said to have been protected under Article 19(1)(a), and couldn't be blatantly curtailed, it observed the right was "not absolute" and "subject to reasonable restrictions". "If the exercise of an unfettered right to protest were permitted, it would damage the constitutional framework and impinge upon the law and order situation in the country," the bail rejection order said. The accused, who have denied all the allegations against them, have been in jail since 2020 and had moved the high court after a trial court rejected their bail pleas.