The legal battle surrounding the 2020 Delhi riots continues as the Delhi High Court seeks a comprehensive comparison to assess the roles of the accused individuals involved in the larger conspiracy case.
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI – The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Police to submit a comparative chart differentiating the roles of Shifa-ur-Rehman, President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Millia Islamia (AAJMI), and Salim Malik, both accused in the 2020 riots ‘larger conspiracy case’, from the three individuals previously granted bail in 2021. The three individuals are Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal.
During the hearing before a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain on Monday, the appellants’ counsel argued that the roles of the appellants were similar to those of the three individuals who were granted bail earlier.
Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, representing the Delhi Police, informed the court that the police had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging the bail granted to Asif, Devangana, and Natasha. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP on May 2, 2023, stated that the bail orders for the three individuals could not be used as a precedent for seeking bail for other accused.
In light of these developments, the bench asked Prasad to file a comparative chart illustrating the distinction in the roles of the two appellants from those of the three individuals already out on bail. The next hearing is scheduled for February 8.
In its May 2 order the apex court said that the respondents (Asif, Devangana, and Natasha) had been on bail for almost two years, seeing no purpose in prolonging the matter. The Delhi Police had raised concerns about the comments made by the high court in the bail order, particularly regarding the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.
Addressing these concerns, the Supreme Court clarified in its order that the high court’s bail order should not be treated as a precedent and should not be relied upon by any party in other proceedings. The court emphasised that the purpose of the interim order dated June 18, 2021, was to prevent the use of the judgment in bail matters, protecting the state against the misuse of statutory interpretations.
In the same order, the Supreme Court noted that another co-accused had sought intervention in the police’s plea, aiming to interpret the June 18, 2021 order, asserting that the observations were hindering the process of seeking bail. The Supreme Court clarified that if a co-accused is entitled to a plea on parity, it is for the court to consider it, emphasising the closure of the proceedings.
The legal battle surrounding the 2020 Delhi riots continues as the Delhi High Court seeks a comprehensive comparison to assess the roles of the accused individuals involved in the larger conspiracy case.
