“These intellectuals are even more dangerous”: ASG Raju asserts during 2020 Delhi Riot bail hearing

Today, the Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria continued hearing objections to the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Shadab Ahmed and others accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case. The accused are charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju pressed the prosecution’s case on delay and structure of conspiracy, citing video clips, WhatsApp chats and protected witness statements.

Raju: Grounds of Delay are Insufficient, Accused Refuses to Argue Merits

Raju argued that the petitioners’ narrative of delay was misleading and submitted that when co-accused themselves stall proceedings, others cannot rely on delay to claim bail. He pointed out that even after the High Court attributed delay to the accused, adjournments continued: arguments listed for 5 August were not completed and adjournments were sought again on 3 and 17 September on behalf of Khalid.

He added that delay alone cannot be grounds for release in UAPA matters and noted that the accused had chosen not to argue the merits at all. Raju submitted that on 7 and 12 August the trial court “expressed anguish” because none of the accused addressed arguments on charge.

Prosecution Plays Video Clips of Imam’s Speeches

Raju then played video clips of Sharjeel Imam’s Jamia and Aligarh speeches. Phrases such as“separating Assam from India,” the “chicken neck”, chakka jam, stopping milk supplies and “paralysing the government of the day” were highlighted. Pointing out references to Article 370, triple talaq, Babri Masjid and calls to “take lathi”, he submitted that the speeches revealed an “ultimate aim of regime change”. He also argued that the plan coincided with the visit of then-US President Donald Trump to maximise international attention.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave objected that the prosecution had shown only “snippets” from hours-long speeches, arguing that the selection was prejudicial. Raju maintained that the full recordings and transcripts were on record. Justice Kumar said the Bench would return to the point.

ASG Criticises Portrayal of Accused as ‘Intellectuals’, Alleging Strategic Leadership

Raju argued that individuals projected as “intellectuals” in bail hearings were, in fact, “more dangerous” because they guided and directed others while operating under the facade of being activists.

Dismissing the narrative around the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) as a “red herring” and “whitewash,” he submitted that the real objective was “regime change, economic strangulation and engineering communal riots.” Raju submitted that the riots resulted in 59 deaths, including one police officer who was lynched, and more than 530 injuries.

WhatsApp Groups and Protest Architecture Cited as Evidence of Coordination

Raju then outlined what he described as the organisational structure of the conspiracy. Multiple WhatsApp groups were allegedly used in an integrated manner, including Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG), Muslim Students of JNU (MSJ), Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC) and Students of Jamia (SOJ).

He said Khalid and Imam “broke the secular fabric of JNU” by forming the MSJ, which was used along with JCC and SOJ to mobilise students on communal lines. He added that the JCC group was created using a phone number obtained on fake documents, indicating the alleged intent behind its use.

Raju argued that DPSG and JCC then formed the Jamia Awareness Campaign Team (JACT), which visited Muslim-dominated neighbourhoods across Delhi to instigate 24×7 sit-in protest sites. He submitted that the model was designed to escalate: begin with protest, move to chakka jam, and convert it into a “disruptive Chakka-Jaam” aimed at blocking movement, obstructing essential supplies, injuring police and civilians, and damaging property.

Protected Witness Statements Point to Planning and Instructions for Chakka Jam

Addressing the number of witnesses, Raju clarified that although the petitioners highlighted a list of around 900, only about 155 were public witnesses. Of these, several statements were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and 47  had protected status.

He then read from a protected witness statement describing events at Jamia on 13 December 2019. According to the witness, Khalid, Imam, Saiful Islam and Asif Tanha arrived at the campus that evening. The witness said Khalid introduced them as members of his team, explained the difference between chakka jam and dharna, instructed Imam to start a 24×7 chakka jam at Shaheen Bagh, and directed Islam and Tanha to begin one at Gate No. 7 of Jamia. Khalid allegedly said similar chakka jams would begin in other Muslim areas “at the right time.” The witness also stated that he said the government was a “Hindu government and against Muslims” and “we have to overthrow the government.”

The Court will continue hearing the matter tomorrow.