New Delhi – Khalid Saifi, a co-founder of United Against Hate and an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots ‘larger conspiracy’ case, argued before the Delhi High Court that there is no evidence to prove he committed any terrorist act or conspired for terrorism. His counsel, Senior Advocate Rebecca John, emphasized that mere presence at a public protest site should not be a basis for invoking the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), reported the Livelaw.
John, appearing before a division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, contended that Saifi attended the protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) solely out of his belief that the legislation was unjust. She also accused the prosecution of selectively targeting individuals while ignoring others involved in organizing protests.
“I accuse the prosecution of following a policy of pick and choose. They decide who will be accused while presenting material against others who were administrators of protest-related WhatsApp groups but were never charged,” she argued.
John further pointed out that the protest sites in question, such as Jantar Mantar and Gandhi Peace Foundation, are known venues for political discourse and peaceful demonstrations, not locations where criminal conspiracies are hatched. She stressed that no money or weapons were recovered from Saifi and that charges under the Arms Act were already dropped against him in a separate case.
Highlighting allegations of police brutality, she recalled how Saifi was produced in court on a wheelchair with a plaster on his leg on the first day of his remand. “This must shock the conscience of the Court. This is the credibility of the prosecuting agency, which has kept me in jail for five years,” John asserted.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for April 16. The case pertains to FIR 59 of 2020, registered under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code and UAPA. Several activists, including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Safoora Zargar, are co-accused in the case.
