Umar Khalid bail plea in Delhi High court – What is this strictness and generosity of the courts? Pi News

News Details

Recently, while hearing a PIL filed against BJP leaders accused of making inflammatory and hate speeches in the case of communal riots in Delhi in the year 2020, the Delhi High Court had given a very strange argument. The High Court had said, “If something is said with a smile, it is not an offense, but if the same thing is said in an aggressive manner in anger, it can be considered an offence.”

Statements of Thakur and Verma

Before the communal riots in Delhi in the year 2020, Union Minister Anurag Thakur, while giving a speech in a general meeting, had made people shout the slogan – “Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaro saal ko”. The man was shot and fired.

At the same time, Delhi BJP MP Parvesh Verma told people in a meeting, “People who are agitating in Shaheen Bagh will enter your houses to rape and kill your sisters and daughters.”

latest news

The Delhi High Court, while hearing a PIL for registration of FIR filed against these two BJP leaders accused of making inflammatory and hate speeches, made a very strange argument recently. The High Court said, “If something is said with a smile, it is not an offense, but if the same thing is said aggressively in anger, it can be considered an offense.”

Although the High Court has reserved the decision on the petition, but from its above remarks, it can be guessed that what decision it will give. The lower court has already rejected this petition.

However, exactly a month later, the same High Court has taken a completely different stand in the matter of alleged inflammatory speeches. It has considered the speech given by Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Umar Khalid in February 2020 in Amaravati city of Maharashtra against the Citizenship Amendment Act as extremely offensive and hateful.

Umar Khalid was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police in September 2020 under the UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act). He has been in jail since then. The lower court has refused to grant him bail.

On the petition filed against the decision of the lower court, the High Court, after hearing the speech of Umar Khalid, told his lawyer, “It is aggressive, rude and incites people.” Like- Umar Khalid had said that your ancestors were brokering the British. Don’t you think this is offensive? From this it seems that only a particular community fought for India’s independence.

While making this remark, the High Court also appealed to Mahatma Gandhi and Shaheed Bhagat Singh and questioned whether Gandhiji and Bhagat Singh had used such language?

Right now the court has not given the final verdict in this matter as well and has asked the police to give their reply. But at the same time, he has said that the petition filed for bail of the accused is prima facie not acceptable. That is, in this case also it can be estimated from the observations of the court that what will be the verdict!

Umar Khalid bail plea in Delhi High Court - Satya

Whatever the decision of the court in both the cases, but the question is that if the speeches of Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma are not provocative and hate speech in the eyes of the court then how can Umar Khalid’s speech be hate speech?

Umar Khalid neither called for shooting anyone nor called any particular community a rapist. In the context of the anomaly and malignancy of the Citizenship Amendment Act, he had said that “your ancestors were brokering the British”. How the court felt it is the big question.

Despite Umar Khalid’s statement being in the light of facts, it is natural that some people may find it distasteful, because there are some truths which are very bitter. But the truth is the truth. It cannot be that the political group which kept itself away from the freedom struggle should also be considered involved in the freedom struggle, simply because the people of that group are now in power and are very powerful.

Then Umar Khalid is not the first or even the only person to say so. Many people have said this before him and still say and write this. Not only this, many books have also come on this issue, in which this thing has been said in detail and with facts.

This fact is recorded in the history books that when the country’s freedom struggle was in its fastest and decisive phase in the form of ‘Quit India Movement’, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Hindu Mahasabha completely opposed that movement. favored the British rule.

Therefore, if seen in the light of facts, there is nothing objectionable in the statement of Umar Khalid, the court which has made strong remarks in anger. It cannot be said that the court has seen the statement of Umar Khalid from a communal angle, but the court can be expected to consider the statement of Umar in the light of historical facts.

As far as the case of Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma is concerned, the same can be said about the argument given by the court in defense of both of them.

In another case of spreading communal hatred, two accused have been given relief by a Delhi court with surprising arguments. While granting bail to two accused of heinous crimes like ‘Sulli Deal’ and ‘Bulli Deal’ app putting pictures of intellectual women of Muslim community, women journalists and social workers in their bidding, Delhi’s Patiala House Court said that since the accused had having allegedly committed an offense for the first time and the trial would take a considerable amount of time, therefore, keeping him in custody for a long time would not be justified on ‘humanitarian grounds’ for the betterment of his future life.

More news from Thought

No wonder that on the basis of which the court has granted bail to both the accused, they should also be acquitted after some time.

These three cases are hallmarks. In many more cases in recent times, courts have delivered strangely harsh and lenient judgments and made shocking remarks against or in defense of the accused. This attitude of the courts can be considered a sign of worrying change in the character, character and face of our judicial system.