Activist Sharjeel Imam has approached the Delhi High Court to challenge a Saket Court order that directed the framing of charges against him in connection with the 2019 Anti-CAA protest case.
The trial court had held that Imam was not only an instigator but also a key conspirator in a larger plot to provoke violence during the protests.
The protests had escalated into violent clashes, with allegations of arson, assault on public servants, and damage to public property by an unlawful assembly.
The trial court had observed that Imam’s speeches had incited disorder, leading to widespread disruptions.
A bench led by Justice Sanjeev Narula has issued a notice on Imam’s plea and scheduled the next hearing for 24 April.
Imam is represented by advocates Talib Mustafa and Ahmad Ibrahim, who also filed an application seeking an interim stay on the trial court’s order.
However, the High Court refused to grant a stay at this stage, stating that it would first seek a response from the prosecution before making any decision.
Trial Court's Observations on Imam’s Role
The Saket Court, in its ruling, described Sharjeel Imam as a senior PhD student who carefully avoided explicitly targeting specific communities but indirectly urged his audience—primarily Muslims—to disrupt public life.
The court highlighted his role in organising “chakka jaams” (road blockades), which, in a densely populated city like Delhi, could have led to severe consequences, including obstruction of emergency services.
The trial court framed charges against Imam under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:
. Promoting enmity between different groups (Section 153A)
. Abetment of offences (Section 109)
. Criminal conspiracy (Section 120B)
. Assaulting public servants (Section 186)
. Damaging public property (Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act)
Along with Imam, the court also framed charges against co-accused Ashu Khan, Chandan Kumar, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, along with nine other individuals.
However, some accused were discharged due to lack of evidence, while charges against proclaimed offenders remain pending until their appearance before the court.
The charge of sedition (Section 124A IPC) has been kept in abeyance, in line with a Supreme Court directive issued on 11 May 2022, which suspended trials under this law pending a constitutional review.
Prosecution’s Allegations vs Imam’s Defence
The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) argued that Imam had delivered inflammatory speeches at multiple locations, distributed provocative pamphlets, and encouraged public gatherings that turned violent.
According to the prosecution, his words instigated hatred and provoked widespread violence, posing a threat to communal harmony.
In contrast, Imam’s defence counsel contended that he did not participate in any unlawful assembly or incite violence. They claimed that his speeches did not promote enmity or disrupt public order, making the invocation of Section 153A IPC unjustified.
Follow us
