Northeast Delhi violence: Why is prosecution trying to communalize narrative, argues Khalid Saifi's lawyer
Feb 16, 2022
New Delhi [India], February 16 : Senior counsel for Khalid Saifi, accused in the Northeast Delhi violence case argued on his bail plea before the Delhi court saying "why is prosecution trying to communalize narrative".
Additional Session Judge Amitabh Rawat on Wednesday reserved the order on the bail plea of Khalid Saifi after Senior Senior counsel John submitted her rebuttals to the arguments of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad.
Meanwhile, the Court will hear the defense argument on the bail plea of Umar Khalid on Friday.
Both of them are accused in a larger conspiracy case related to northeast 2020 Delhi violence.
Rebecca John submitted that the prosecution is relying on some WhatsApp chats that took place in the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG).
During the arguments, John shared a message sent by Khalid Saifi in the group which reads that "The CM must be held accountable for open, clear, the inaction of police during the violence. Protest must be held outside his residence."
She argued that how this incriminates me (Khalid Saifi) is beyond my reasoning or imagination.
John refers to the submission made by the prosecution that protest was communal and not organic.
She asked "So what? Every protest is organized. Even if it was not organic, it doesn't help their case. The protest was communal? The protest was not communal except that the persons who were against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) belonged to a particular community."
She objected to the attempt made by the prosecution to "take messages in isolation by saying that there are messages about Delhi Police and Paramilitary force attacking peaceful protestors. Why is the prosecution attempting to communalize the narrative? Don't lay the narrative on one community. Don't brush aside the actions of Delhi Police, that too are apparent from reading this WhatsApp group."
John referred to a message which reads that Delhi Police are breaking public cameras to avoid accountability.
"But no investigation was made into this", she added.
"Don't put meaning to messages. We can read messages and take the literal meaning. But we can't say 'ab ye chup the, ab ye bolne lage' (they were silent when this thing was discussed and started speaking when other thing is being discussed). We have to take the message for what they are. The prosecution is basing arguments on conjectures," counsel argued.
Senior Counsel further argued that when provisions like sections 14 and 17 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) says that prosecution has to categorize roles that necessitate invocation of UAPA.
"Every violence and every riot does not attract Sections of UAPA," she argued.
"What has to be shown is that how my action was intended to bring disruption in the territory of India," she added.
She further submitted that None of the ingredients under section 15 (terrorist act) and section 17 (terror funding) of UAPA are met. Even Section 18 ( conspiracy to commit Terrorist Act) of UAPA is not satisfied.
She argued that the prosecution is trying to build the entire case only on the basis of certain WhatsApp messages by giving their own meaning to messages.
Around 53 people lost their lives in the violence that erupted in northeast Delhi after clashes between two opposing factions over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
