Is it proper to use the word ‘jumla’ about PM: HC during bail hearing

Hearing the bail plea of former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union president Umar Khalid, the Delhi high court on Wednesday asked whether it was proper to use the word “jumla (false promises)” while referring to the Prime Minister (PM) of the country and said there should be a line or “Laxman Rekha” which cannot be overstepped while criticising the government.

The speech in question was given by Khalid in Amravati, Maharashtra, during the 2020 protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. It forms part of multiple charge sheets that have been filed by the Delhi Police special cell in the last two years in connection with the February 2020 communal riots in northeast Delhi that claimed 53 lives and left over 700 injured.

The video of the entire speech was played in the court, after which the justices raised questions about certain words and expressions used by Khalid.

“What he says about the Prime Minister in the speech? Some ”changa” word was used and after that….this word “jumla” is used against the Prime Minister of India. Is that proper?” a bench of justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajinish Bhatnagar asked Khalid’s counsel, senior advocate Trideep Pais.

Referring to a part where Khalid had said “oonth pahad ke neeche aa gaya”, the court sought to know as to who was referred as the oonth (camel) in the speech.

Pais replied that “changa” was used as an expression of satire by Khalid, as the PM had used it in some of his speeches. He said “oonth” refers to the Union government which had purportedly agreed to hold talks on the NRC/ CAA during the protest in 20192020 after intially being adamant about not wanting to hold talks.

“Criticism of the government cannot become a crime. 583 days in prison with UAPA charges was not envisaged for a person who speaks against the government. We cannot become so intolerant. At this rate, people will not be able to speak,” Pais argued.

To this, the court said, “There has to be a line for criticism also. There has to be a Laxman Rekha.” The issue in this case, the court said, was whether the speech incited people to violence.

Khalid has challenged the order of the trial court of March 24, by which the judge had dismissed his bail plea saying that the allegations against him are “prima facie” true.

During the hearing on Tuesday, the court also remarked that in a conspiracy everything that each co-conspirator does, can be used against Khalid and the acts of co-conspirators are attributable to him as part of the conspiracy.

When Pais said that people clap and nod but it can’t be termed a crime, the court remarked, “You are not suggesting that this was standup comedy?”

On the last date, the high court had remarked one of the speeches made by Khalid in Amravati during the agitation was “obnoxious” and “unacceptable”, and could “incite” people.

Defending Khalid, Pais told the court the speech did not incite any violence and he was in fact following the principles of Mahatma Gandhi and calling for a non-violent protest during the scheduled arrival of then US President Donald Trump.

Pais argued that the FIR in the present matter is a calculated one and while initially only bailable offences were added by the police, later non-bailable offences, including Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), was added just to ensure that the accused remain incarcerated.

The matter will be heard on Thursday.

What he says about the Prime Minister in the speech? Some “changa” word was used and after that….this word “jumla” is used against the PM... Is that proper? DELHI HC BENCH