Cases against him example of monarch’s whip, no government established by law: Sharjeel Imam’s lawyer
Lawyer Tanveer Ahmed Mir also told the court: “Only monarchs and kings need the affection of the people. We are not here to bow down to the government.
Advocacy for bail in a UAPA case in connection with the riots in northeast Delhi, lawyer for JNU student Sharjeel Imam told a city court on Monday that his lawsuit was more an example of a “whipping of a monarch than of a government established by law.”
Lawyer Tanveer Ahmed Mir, appearing before Extra Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat, concluded his arguments on Monday while calling for the imam’s bail and subsequent release. The court asked both the prosecution and the defense to file written submissions in connection with the case.
Mir had started his arguments by arguing that there were numerous lawsuits against Imam simply because he had criticized the policies of the government. “Sharjeel Imam is not a terrorist and is not part of a criminal gang. He is not there on a political agenda but on a social agenda, ”Mir told the court.
Referring to the recent Bharat Bandh called by farmers, Mir asked, “Are we going to call for sedition in all of these cases?
“Since when does the government need the affection of the people? Only monarchs and kings need the affection of the people. We are not here to bow down to the government… This country is a democracy and is built on the principles of constitutional values. These values that we are committed to protecting today in the case of Sharjeel Imam. He cannot be allowed to be persecuted just for criticizing the CAA or the NRC, ”Mir told the court.
Mir said there were 20 cases in his speech where he called for peace and asked protesters to refrain from violence. He argued that the whole affair was based on “the rhetoric constructed by the television stations” and that it was the “duty of every citizen to criticize the government”.
“A university student who wants to study the modern history of India, if he has written his thesis on the reasons for partition, are we now going to lay the groundwork for the type of research that is being done in universities?” Are these the constitutional goals we set for ourselves? The challenges will pass before society. Today, Sharjeel Imam is not to the test… The Bar and the Bench is to the test. [The test is on] if we are going to allow and give holiness and approve such persecution of an innocent person, ”Mir told the court.
He added: “Today this lawsuit against Sharjeel Imam is over [a case of] whip of a monarch rather than a government established by law. This is not the way the government or the executive should react. Ultimately, the exemption will change. Nothing is permanent, ”submitted Mir.
Special Prosecutor Amit Prasad began his rebuttal by stating that from what he understood from the arguments it was “if the government does not listen to your assertions.” it can go to any extent, even if it paralyzes the life of an ordinary man ”.
Prasad told the court he had to read the speeches for himself to see the difference in the content.
“In an already violent situation, the speech is made. The point is, he wanted to give a secular color when he said, “We should keep a stall with the book Why am i a hindu by Shashi Tharoor, ”said Prasad.
The police indictment alleged that the Imam used Tharoor’s book to “put up a secular facade” in the protests against the CAA and the NRC.
“Immediately after his speech on December 13, various violent incidents took place. Riots took place in Jamia. Then there were the incidents at AMU on December 16 and 17. The fact that he’s trying to give it a secular color, ”Prasad told the court.
Mir argued that the Imam “did not incite violence … or discontent” against the state. “Exemptions, governments… have their political narratives. If these communities are on the streets, we cannot say that it is not Indians who are in the streets and that they are extraterrestrials, ”said Mir.
- The Indian Express website was rated GREEN for its credibility and reliability by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources against their journalistic standards.