The Indian Express (Delhi Edition)
Police repeating name like mantra in chargesheet, does repeating a lie make it a truth: Umar Khalid’s counsel
THE DELHI Police was repeating Umar Khalid’s name like a mantra in the chargesheet, and there was a vicious media trial against him, argued advocate Trideep Pais, representing Khalid during his bail arguments in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots ‘ larger conspiracy’ case.
“... Does repeating a lie a hundred times make it a truth?” asked Pais, adding recurrent mention of Khalid’s name in the chargesheet and allegations that he had preplanned protests in 2020 at 23 sites, eventually leading to riots.
Former Jawaharlal Nehru University ( JNU) student Khalid, who was booked under the
Unlawful Activities ( Prevention) Act ( UAPA) for his alleged involvement in the case, had earlier told the Delhi court that other accused facing graver allegations than him were out on bail, and people allegedly involved in similar activities were not even made an accused by the Delhi Police.
In February, Khalid withdrew his bail plea from the Supreme Court and moved the Delhi court of Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, citing a “change in circumstances”. Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad had earlier said Khalid was amplifying his narrative as part of a conspiracy by sharing certain links with people with a social media following.
“Is sharing messages a criminal or terror act?” Pais asked on Wednesday, responding to the
SPP. “Is the court able to see the ridiculousness of the prosecution’s attempt to keep someone in jail?” The advocate also asked the court if Khalid was restricted by the number of people to whom he could send messages. “Why can’t an accused forward news to someone else… he was sharing the ‘ correct narrative’,” he added.
After reading statements from anchors from news channels such as Aaj Tak, India TV, and Zee News, Pais also said a vicious media trial was taking place against the accused. “The anchors were reading from the chargesheet 24/ 7,” said Pais, asking if this didn’t amount to a “vicious” media trial.
He also argued that the court must examine each witness and analyse each document while hearing his bail plea to determine whether a terror case is made against him. “Surface analysis was not done. This is just naming and shaming... they have no material,” argued Pais, relying on the judgments of Vernon Gonsalves vs the State of Maharashtra and Shoma Sen. He also said that the case has yet to move an inch forward three years after the trials began.