Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Delhi High Court’s remarks questioning the imposition of the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) on Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others in connection with the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots have triggered a wave of political criticism against the Delhi Police and the BJP-led central government.
Prominent opposition parties, including the Congress and AIMIM, have condemned the arrests, terming them politically motivated and an abuse of legal provisions.
The riots, which claimed over 53 lives, led to the detention of Khalid, Imam, and others, accused by the Delhi Police of orchestrating a "well-planned conspiracy with ruthless intentions." The individuals have been incarcerated for over four years, with their bail pleas delayed as the police maintain the charges under UAPA are justified.
During the bail hearing, the High Court questioned the grounds for invoking UAPA, asking, "Is it your contention that just establishing a protest site justifies UAPA charges?"
Congress national spokesperson Pawan Khera criticized the approach, stating that dissent cannot be equated with sedition or terrorism. “Protesting against government policies is a constitutional right,” Khera told IANS, emphasizing the need to distinguish between peaceful dissent and insurgency.
AIMIM leader Waris Pathan accused the BJP-led Centre and Delhi Police of misusing UAPA for political gain. “Students like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam protested against government policies. Invoking UAPA against them undermines the meaning of freedom of speech enshrined in the Constitution,” Pathan argued.
Congress leader Shaktisinh Gohil also lambasted the BJP government, alleging it routinely misuses state machinery to stoke communal divisions for political advantage. "The BJP’s history of exploiting administrative tools for its agenda is well-known. It’s reassuring to see the Court holding them accountable,” he remarked.
The controversy highlights the ongoing debate over the use of UAPA in cases involving protests and dissent, with critics alleging that the law is being weaponized to suppress opposition voices.