Farmers Movement Archive

‘Criticising govt not cause for sedition’

NEW DELHI: JNU student Sharjeel Imam, arrested under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for allegedly giving inflammatory speeches in various parts of the country, told a city court on Monday that the prosecution was more of a “whip of a monarch rather than a government established by law”. Imam’s counsel submitted before additional sessions judge Amitabh Rawat that he cannot be allowed to be prosecuted just because he was critical of CAA or NRC. “This is not how the government or executive have to respond. At the end of the day, dispensation will change. Nothing is permanent,” said advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, appearing for Imam. He sought Imam’s bail and subsequent discharge in the case in which Imam has been arrested for allegedly giving seditious speeches at Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia area. During the arguments, Mir referred to the recent Bharat Bandh called by the farmers to protest against the new farm laws, and asked, “Will we call for sedition in all those cases?” The counsel claimed Imam was not a terrorist and not a part of a criminal gang. He further argued that being critical of the government cannot be the cause for sedition. “Since when does the government need the affection of the people? It’s only the monarchs and kings who need the affection of the people. We are not here to bow down before the government…This country is a democracy and stands on the principles of constitutional values. Those values we’re committed to protect today in Sharjeel Imam’s case. He cannot be allowed to be persecuted just because he’s critical of CAA or NRC,” Mir claimed. Referring to the prosecution’s stand that Imam knew how to cause riots since he wrote his thesis on topics related to it, Mir asked whether the prosecution was now going to lay their foundations as to what kind of research was being done in the universities. “Are those the constitutional goals that we set for ourselves?” he further argued. Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad, appearing for the police, opposed the bail plea and argued that the fundamental right to protest cannot go beyond an extent that causes problems to the public at large. “In a situation which is already violent, the speech is made. The fact is that he wanted to give a secular colour when he said, ‘we should keep a bookstall with the book ‘Why I am a Hindu’ by Shashi Tharoor’… Immediately after his speech on 13th December, various violent incidents have taken place,” Prasad said.

The Times of India

2021-10-05

Delhi