HC says Khalid's speech was 'obnoxious, not acceptable', seeks response to bail plea by April 27

The court asked if free speech can extend to "obnoxious statements" and if Khalid's speech did not attract sections 153 A and section 153 B (of IPC) -- a law against promoting enmity between religious groups. "It is very easy to invoke Bhagat Singh but difficult to emulate him," the court bench headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul said.

New Delhi: A Delhi High Court bench headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul on Friday said that the speeches given by Umar Khalid during the Delhi riots 2020 are not acceptable prima facie, further directing the Delhi Police to file a response to his plea seeking bail in the case by April 27. The said bail application filed in the case is under the stringent UAPA, while the Delhi Police represented by special public prosecutor Amit Prasad was given three days to file a short response against it.

The High Court further highlighted a part of the speech where Khalid allegedly referred to people's ancestors in an 'obnoxious way'. Quoting his remarks ''Jab aapke purvaj dalali kar rahe the' (When your ancestors were brokering), the court stated that 'things like these are very like to incite people.' "There are no qualms against free speech but what are you saying is offensive per se. You said it at least five times. Don't you think it foments religious ferment between groups? Did Gandhi Ji or Bhagat Singh ever employ this language?" questioned the court.

The court asked if free speech can extend to "obnoxious statements" and if Khalid's speech did not attract sections 153 A and section 153 B (of IPC) -- a law against promoting enmity between religious groups. "It is very easy to invoke Bhagat Singh but difficult to emulate him. There was a gentleman who was eventually hanged, but he stayed there, he did not run away. You are saying you weren't even there," the court further said.

Defending the petitioner, Senior advocate Trideep Pais said that the Amravati speech -- which the court is referring to -- was made in the context of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Jamia Milia Islamia violence and that it did not have any "reaction" or incite violence. The lawyer further went on to seek bail on grounds that Khalid was not present when the violence broke out, while no money was recovered from him and the case is based on cooked-up statements, with the present FIR being "premised" only on certain portions of the speech. To this, the court responded that the accused need not be at the place of offense in a conspiracy case.

Khalid along with several others was booked under the anti-terror law in the case for conspiring the February 2020 riots against CAA-NRC, which had left 53 people dead and over 700 injured. Besides Khalid, activist Khalid Saifi, JNU students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and several others have also been booked under the stringent law in the case.