Six years without trial: Questions raised by the incarceration of Sharjeel Imam

By Raqif Makhdoomi 

Much has been said and written about the Delhi riots case. Seven out of the eleven accused, after a long and arduous legal battle, have been granted bail. However, the bail comes with stringent conditions, prompting the question of whether they have truly been released or merely transferred from one jail to another. Two accused—Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid—remain incarcerated.

Sharjeel Imam has completed six years in jail, and the trial is yet to begin. It must be remembered that Sharjeel Imam was not arrested; he surrendered before the police. His alleged crime is speaking out when the government was wrong. As the saying goes, “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” Imam is accused of provoking people and inciting violence during the Delhi riots. His role, however, was to explain the implications of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The BJP government, it appeared, did not want people to fully understand these laws. When Sharjeel Imam addressed gatherings at Shaheen Bagh and educated people about them, it caused discomfort within the government. To shut down what was a peaceful movement, circumstances unfolded that eventually turned the protests violent.

During the protests, the government had appointed interlocutors to engage with the protesters. While discussions between the interlocutors and the protesters were underway, stone-pelting incidents occurred. Who pelted the stones? How many were arrested for it? These questions remain unanswered. The truth is yet to be fully disclosed. What remains undeniable is that Sharjeel Imam has spent six years in jail and continues to remain behind bars.

During the same period, a minister in the Modi government raised a violent slogan at a public gathering: “Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaro saalon ko.” The slogan echoed loudly among the crowd. Had such a slogan been raised at a Muslim rally, it would likely have resulted in immediate detentions, the banning of organisations, demolition of properties, and the arrest of many attendees. However, since this was a BJP-backed rally and the slogan was raised by a BJP minister, no action was taken. Not a single FIR was registered, despite ample grounds to do so.

Following these slogans, shooting incidents took place. A man was seen brandishing a gun at protesters at Shaheen Bagh. What happened to him? What action followed? The answers remain unclear. Two individuals who arguably should have been accused in the Delhi riots case continue to roam freely, untouched by the law. Another individual who delivered a provocative and threatening speech is also free and now serves as a minister in the Delhi cabinet. He openly threatened protesters and even issued an ultimatum to the police. Surrounded by police personnel, he warned that if the protesters did not vacate the area, they would be removed forcibly. This threat was issued during the visit of then US President Donald Trump to India. He stated that action would be taken after Trump’s departure. Such an open threat should have resulted in the registration of an FIR, but instead, it was rewarded with a ministerial position.

The arrest and prolonged incarceration of scholars like Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid have drawn global concern. Human rights activists, organisations, lawyers, academics, and journalists across the world have expressed serious reservations about the manner in which the Delhi riots case is being handled. Their prolonged incarceration has cast a shadow over the credibility of the Indian judiciary in the eyes of the international community.

Sharjeel Imam hoped that the Supreme Court, as the apex court of the country, would intervene and restore his liberty. However, when the judgment was delivered, it shocked not only Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid but many observers across the world. The Supreme Court not only dismissed their bail applications but also imposed a bar preventing them from applying for bail for a year. Never before has the Supreme Court curtailed an individual’s right to seek bail in this manner.

In delivering its judgment, the Supreme Court appeared to depart from its own long-standing principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.” This principle, which had been applied without conditions, was now qualified by considering the nature of the offence. Even the delay in trial—often a decisive factor in granting bail in the gravest of cases—was set aside. A reading of the judgment gives the impression that the denial of bail to Sharjeel Imam was preordained. Curiously, the very next day, the Supreme Court granted bail in another case using the same principle—“bail is the rule and jail is the exception”—and clarified that it applies irrespective of the offence. One is left wondering how judicial reasoning can change overnight.

Umar Khalid has been portrayed as a leader influencing Sharjeel Imam, a claim Sharjeel Imam has categorically denied, stating that he never met Umar Khalid before or during the protests. The police have attempted, through various means, to establish a conspiracy, but these efforts have yielded little substantive evidence.

As Sharjeel Imam completes six years and enters his seventh year in prison, it is not merely the allegations against him that stand questioned, but the functioning of the judiciary itself. The judiciary is often seen as the last refuge for those who have lost faith in all other institutions. Yet, the past six years have eroded that hope for many. There appears to be no institution left where people can confidently seek justice.

As per the judgment, Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid must spend at least one more year in jail. The injustice continues, with no clear avenue left to seek redress.

---

Raqif Makhdoomi is a law student and human rights activist. He is currently an undertrial under the UAPA and a former PSA detainee