In a significant development in the 2020 Northeast Delhi violence case, the defence counsels for activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have strongly contested the chargesheet filed by the Delhi Police. The legal teams have argued that the document criminalises legitimate protest and is built on selective evidence.
Challenging the 'Mastermind' and 'Mentor' Narrative
The defence has taken sharp objection to how the chargesheet portrays the accused. It labels Umar Khalid as a "veteran of sedition" and describes Sharjeel Imam as his "protégé". Lawyers have outright rejected this characterisation, particularly the alleged mentor-protégé relationship.
Representing Sharjeel Imam, defence counsel Ahmad Ibrahim stated there is "no evidence to show that Sharjeel was taking instructions from Khalid or any other co-accused". He further argued that Imam was the only accused found to have no connection with any other co-accused, including his so-called mentor, Khalid.
Questioning the Basis of Allegations
The defence has systematically questioned the foundations of the prosecution's case. A key argument revolves around Khalid's alleged physical presence. The defence has maintained that Khalid was "not even present in northeast Delhi during the period when the violence ensued", challenging the police's claim that he was the main mastermind.
Another major point of contention is the reliance on WhatsApp groups. The defence pointed out that the charges heavily rest on Khalid being a member of at least four WhatsApp groups. However, none of the administrators of these groups have been named as accused, raising questions about the investigating agency's selective approach.
Regarding Sharjeel Imam, the defence refuted the prosecution's claim—based on a protected witness 'Bond'—that the 'MSJ' WhatsApp group was formed on Imam's direction to execute a 'chakka jam'. They clarified that MSJ was an informal group of Muslim students at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and was "inactive after January 15, 2020". They submitted that not a single chat from the group indicated any intent to cause violence.
Alleging Selective Prosecution and Legal Misuse
The defence has raised serious concerns about selective prosecution. They referred to witness statements indicating that certain meetings, alleged to be part of the conspiracy, were attended not only by Khalid but also by other notable individuals. The prosecution has failed to explain why Khalid alone is being "differentiated" and booked under stringent anti-terror laws, while others in similar situations face no action.
The legal team also highlighted a precedent. They noted that Umar Khalid had earlier been granted bail in FIR No. 242/2019 after a court found no link between his Jamia speech and the violence. The defence reiterated that a call for 'chakka jam' (road blockade) constitutes a form of protest and cannot be treated as a "criminal act", let alone a terror act.
The arguments presented paint a picture of a legal battle where the defence is striving to separate the act of protest from criminal conspiracy, challenging both the factual claims and the legal framework applied by the investigating agency in this high-profile case.
