A Rapid Round-Up: Sharjeel Imam's Multi-State Prosecution
Could the Top Court Inquire About the Applicability of Trying Sharjeel Imam for the Same Speech across Multiple States?
In the bustling heart of India, the Supreme Court is mulling over a puzzling question: can Sharjeel Imam, a former JNU student, be prosecuted in different states for offenses including sedition, stemming from a single speech?
This mind-boggling question arose during the recent hearing of Imam’s 2020 petition that aimed to club multiple FIRs lodged against him across four states—Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh—for a controversial speech given during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).
Senior advocate Sidharth Dave, representing Imam, threw his hat in the ring in opposition to the notion of a single individual facing multiple trials across the country for the same speech. He argued that this would be harsh and unjust.
On the opposite end, additional solicitor general S V Raju, who represented the Delhi Police that has also charged Imam, took an opposing stance. He pointed out that Imam's speech had served to instigate mobs in different locations like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi. However, he also admitted that he did not have specific instructions concerning the clubbing or transfer of the cases filed in other states.
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, a keen observer, questioned the logic behind multiple prosecutions for a single speech. He reasoned that if the speech could be accessed on platforms like YouTube throughout the country, it would carry a uniform impact, hinting at a potential double jeopardy scenario. The CJI proposed that the cases be transferred to Delhi for consolidation.
Interestingly, the solicitor general contended that an act against the state and an act against society were distinct matters, but the Chief Justice countered by stating that the speech under contention was the same. He suggested that if all parties agreed, the trials in other states could be stayed.
The court previously enquired about potential objections if the trials against Imam in multiple FIRs were to be transferred to Delhi. The responses from Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh, as well as the Delhi government, are yet to be filed.
In the meantime, Imam has been booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) by Delhi Police. He was nabbed by the Delhi Police’s crime branch from Bihar’s Jehanabad in a sedition case on January 28, 2020. The former JNU student at Centre for Historical Studies was booked on charges of sedition and other offenses following the circulation of purported videos of his inflammatory speeches on social media during the protests against CAA. An FIR was lodged against him by Delhi Police on January 25, 2020, under IPC Sections 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting or attempting to promote disharmony or enmity based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or other factors).
(Please note that this article does not represent the editorial views of our website and is produced by a third-party feed.)
Insights:
- Imam’s case has brought into focus the question of whether a single speech can lead to multiple prosecutions across India.
- The primary argument against multiple prosecutions revolves around the theory of double jeopardy, as the speech can potentially be accessed and impact the whole country.
- The Supreme Court's stance points towards the need for consolidation of such cases.
- The Additional Solicitor General emphasized that separate trials may be justified owing to the distinct impacts of the speech in different locations.
- The Supreme Court is considering the harshness of a single individual, Sharjeel Imam, facing multiple trials across India for a single speech related to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests.
- Sidharth Dave, representing Imam, argues against the notion of multiple trials, asserting that it would be unjust, while S V Raju, representing the Delhi Police, suggests that Imam's speech instigated mobs in various locations like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi.
- Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna proposes consolidation of the cases in Delhi, reasoning that a speech that can be accessed nationwide should carry a uniform impact, potentially creating a double jeopardy scenario.
- The Additional Solicitor General contends that separate trials may be justified due to the distinct impacts of the speech in different locations, while the Chief Justice counters by stating that the speech under contention is the same.
