The story of Sharjeel Imam’s journey is entwined with complexities—a clash of ideologies, legal intricacies, and challenges within the prison walls.
In India’s diverse anecdotes, Sharjeel Imam’s story stands out for its complexities of disagreement, religious bias, and the complex legal system. The 33-year-old used to work as a software engineer, dealing with computer codes, but he ended up caught in the complicated world of politics and protest.
Early Story and Political Stance
In the soil of Bihar, with its undemanding beauty and simplicity, Sharjeel Imam grew up to take an unexpected journey from computer science to the complexities of political talk. He started higher education at the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (IIT), and this set the stage for the unfolding chapters of his life.
In 2013, Imam went to Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), hoping for a place with progressive ideals. However, he encountered what he saw as ‘Islamophobia of the Left’ during his time there. Disappointed with the left-leaning forces’ response to the disappearance of Najeeb Ahmad, he distanced himself from the All India Students Association (AISA) in 2016.
As he moved away from established political groups, Sharjeel Imam’s voice became more prominent. The shift from a disillusioned student to a vocal political dissenter was happening.
Rising Roars: Protests Against CAA, NRC
The roar of disagreement against the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) gave Imam a platform to express his beliefs. Shaheen Bagh, the centre of the protests, saw Sharjeel Imam emerging as a symbol of resistance against what he viewed as unfair policies. His speeches emphasised with the people, advocating for a peaceful protest against what he saw as an attack on the rights of the Muslim community.
January 28, 2020, marked a turning point in Sharjeel Imam’s journey. Arrested for his speeches during the anti-CAA protests, he found himself caught in a legal storm. Accusations ranging from sedition to terrorism and conspiracy cast a shadow over his activism.
In Sharjeel Imam’s evolving story, we find echoes of a bigger debate—a debate that goes beyond individual experiences and delves into the nuanced dance between disagreement and establishment. The pages of his story are still being written, and the ink continues to dry on the pages of India’s ever-evolving socio-political landscape.
Arguments in the Case
On January 25, 2020, seven police reports were filed against Sharjeel Imam. The first five accuse him of breaking 22 laws, mainly for sedition, and three involve a serious law called UAPA. Another report on March 6, 2020, added 35 more charges, claiming he conspired to create trouble during the Delhi riots in February 2020. The last report on December 15, 2019, linked him to violence at Jamia Millia Islamia University in Delhi in December 2020 and charged him with serious crimes like attempted murder (307) and rioting with a deadly weapon. All these reports say he committed sedition under a law called Section 124A of the IPC.
Imam’s speeches during the protests, particularly one urging protestors to “cut off Assam from India,” became the focal point of these allegations.
Sambit Patra, a spokesperson for the BJP, characterized Imam’s statement as a call for “open jihad” and actively portrayed him as a rebellious figure in national media.
Just prior to Imam’s arrest on January 28, 2020, Reuters released his statement regarding the “Cut Off Assam” remark. He clarified that his intent was solely to advocate “Chakka Jam” for the disruption of railway and road links to Assam as a means of participating in the ongoing protests against the citizenship law and asserting that the BJP was attempting to tarnish his image.
During the court proceedings, Imam’s lawyer, Tanveer Ahmad Mir, emphasised that advocating for the blockade of roads does not automatically label a person as a “Secessionist.” Mir also mentioned the dire conditions faced by Muslims residing in detention camps in Assam, emphasising that this critical issue should not be overlooked.
Historically, blockade has been acknowledged as a legitimate form of protest in India. The 2008 Amarnath agitation witnessed Hindutva organizations blocking the Jammu-Srinagar highway without being accused of separatism. It has been argued that Sharjeel Imam, in his call for a blockade, may merely be following a precedent set by various groups in the past.
In another event, Home Minister Amit Shah, in a Delhi rally, urged people to vote for the BJP to teach Shaheen Bagh a lesson. Sharjeel was swiftly labelled as a terrorist, and courts portrayed him as the alleged mastermind behind the Shaheen Bagh protests.
Nevertheless, in legal debates, supporters of Imam have contended that Sharjeel publicly disassociated himself from the Shaheen Bagh protest on January 2nd. They argue that the ongoing protests suggest he is not the instigator but rather a participant amplifying their voices. It is crucial to understand that the protest at Shaheen Bagh is a diverse movement with various individuals expressing their grievances against the CAA. It has been asserted in the courts that his purpose does not entail supporting the secession of any region in India or inciting violence, as clarified in his speech.
“There might be attempts to provoke you, but it is crucial not to react with violence. Our objective is to isolate those who attempt to incite violence. We will refrain from using physical force and, instead, involve law enforcement while maintaining a peaceful approach.”
Sharjeel Imam
Legal Complexities
His arrest in January 2020 ensued after police in five states—Delhi, Uttar Pradesh (UP), Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur—filed First Information Reports (FIRs) against him. Presently, his cases are undergoing hearings in various Delhi courts.
The Assam police invoked sections 13(1) of the UAPA, which encompasses advocating, abetting, inciting, or advising “unlawful activity”; 15(1)(a)(iii), defining a “terrorist act” that disrupts supplies or services “essential to the life of the community in India”; and 18 for “conspiracy.”
On June 26, 2020, UN experts raised concerns over the arrest of Sharjeel Imam and other protestors, asserting that these detentions appeared to be a means of stifling dissent against government policies. Subsequent events, including Imam’s COVID-19 diagnosis in detention, his bail in one case, and recent developments, underscore the legal intricacies surrounding his detention and the challenges of securing bail.
May 22, 2020: Bail Granted by Assam Court: Although granted bail in cases filed by the Assam police, Imam remains incarcerated primarily due to the UAPA FIR filed for conspiracy in the Delhi riots.
July 2020: COVID-19 Diagnosis: In July 2020, it was reported that Sharjeel Imam had tested positive for COVID-19 while in detention, adding a layer of complexity to his already contentious legal situation.
November 7, 2021: Allahabad High Court granted bail to Imam for his AMU speech, wherein he advocated for Assam’s isolation from the rest of India. The court order explicitly mentioned that the speech did not constitute a call for violence and did not result in any violent incidents.
September 30, 2022: Bail Granted in Jamia Speech Case: The Delhi High Court granted bail to Imam in September 2022, specifically in the sedition case related to his 2019 Jamia speech.
January 30, 2023: Limited Communication Facilities: Imam was allowed limited communication facilities for five minutes thrice a week on January 30, 2023, shedding light on the restrictions imposed during his detention.
February 4, 2023: Discharge in the December 2019 Violence Case: A Delhi court discharged Imam in the December 2019 Violence Case on February 4, 2023. However, his continued incarceration was attributed to pending bail in other cases.
February 4, 2023: Acquittal of Sharjeel Imam: On the same day, Sharjeel Imam was acquitted by the trial court due to insufficient evidence in the December 2019 violence case. The judge’s subsequent recusal raised eyebrows, adding an unusual twist to the legal proceedings.
March 28, 2023: Verdict on Mob Violence Charges: The Delhi Police went to the High Court to contest the decision to drop the charges. The trial court had mentioned that there were no people who saw the events and could confirm the police’s claim that the accused were part of the crimes. What’s noteworthy is that the judge of the trial court stepped back from hearing a similar case about the violence, mentioning personal reasons, just a few days after making this decision. Justice Swarna Kantha Sharma highlighted the limitation on the right to peaceful assembly, citing video evidence to charge Imam and others with various offences related to mob violence.
August 20, 2023: The lawyers of Imam sought bail under Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), arguing that he had completed half of the maximum sentence. While facing more stringent sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for the ‘Delhi riots conspiracy case,’ Imam has only been charged with Section 13 of the UAPA for his AMU and Jamia speech, carrying a maximum sentence of seven years.
The UAPA’s Section 43D(5) poses a significant hurdle to Imam’s bail application, as it allows the court to deny bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true.
Inside the Jail
During Imam’s period of detention, he encountered various challenges. Incidents of assault by fellow inmates and his contraction of COVID-19 in July 2020 underscore the difficult conditions he has had to endure.
On July 4th, 2022, Sharjeel reported an assault within the prison, where the accused verbally abused him, labelling him anti-nationalist” and “terrorist,” while also tossing his belongings. The court subsequently handed down a punishment against the accused.
Sharjeel is not the one at the test, but the bench and us
Adv. Tanveer Ahmad Mir
From his early years in Bihar to becoming a symbol of resistance during the CAA protests, Imam’s journey has been entwined with complexities—a clash of ideologies, legal intricacies, and challenges within the prison walls. As the legal proceedings continue, Sharjeel Imam’s story serves as a reflection of the broader debates surrounding dissent, justice, and the evolving contours of protest in the country. As said by Adv. Tanveer Ahmad Mir in one of the hearings, “Sharjeel is not the one at the test, but the bench and us”
