New Delhi: The Supreme Court examined the use of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act during the bail hearing of Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria asked whether Imam’s speeches fall within the definition of terrorist acts under Section 15 of the UAPA.
Imam’s counsel, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, stated that his client has faced prosecution for every speech under scrutiny. He said these speeches were already part of earlier FIRs in Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh, and that Imam either received bail or default bail in those matters. Dave stressed that Imam was in custody from January 2020 and that none of the 750 FIRs linked to the February riots name him as an accused.
Dave argued that a speech alone does not meet the legal threshold of a terrorist act. He said the prosecution must show a direct act linked to disruption of supplies or infrastructure. The bench asked Dave to clarify how Imam’s statements on the North East and Assam fail to meet the definition of terrorism.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, said his client was not in Delhi during the riots. He described the Amaravati speech cited by the prosecution as an appeal for non violent protest. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gulfisha Fatima, said she remains the only woman in the case who continues to be denied bail despite over five years in custody.
The bench will continue hearing the matter tomorrow.
