On 9th April, Delhi Karkardooma Court heard the prosecution’s arguments in Umar Khalid‘s bail matter. Umar Khalid is one of the accused in a larger conspiracy case in the anti-Hindu Delhi Riots 2020. During the hearing, the Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad read out WhatsApp chats between Umar Khalid and several others, like AltNews, Swara Bhaskar, Sushant Singh, Yogendra Yadav, Pooja Bhatt and others, arguing that Umar Khalid, if let out on bail, would influence the social media and media narrative to his favour, thereby influencing the proceedings.
During the hearing, Prasad played a specific interview in open court. The interview was of Umar Khalid’s father, SQR Ilyas, with TheWire’s Arfa Khanum Sherwani.
“I want to show you how they are playing around”, the SPP said. On a perusal of the interview, it becomes rather apparent how attempts are being made to influence the judicial process with lies and misinformation being peddled by those who wish to subvert justice in the Delhi anti-Hindu riots conspiracy case.
The interview in question was aired on the 17th of February 2024.
The interview starts with Arfa Khanum Sherwani setting the tone by calling Umar Khalid a brave young man and how he was jailed under UAPA for the conspiracy of the Delhi Riots.
She talks about how every time Umar Khalid’s bail petition is heard, the “nation” looks with hope towards the judiciary, however, every time they are disappointed since he is denied bail. In a loaded question, Arfa then asks SQR Ilyas, the former SIMI terrorist, whether he withdrew Umar Khalid’s bail petition from the Supreme Court and approached the lower court because he did not trust the highest court of the country.
The answer to this question by SQR Ilyas was laden with insinuations and lies. He says that from 2023, the bail petition of Umar Khalid was being heard in the Supreme Court and for ‘some reason or the other’, the hearing was delayed 14 times. However, he felt like every time his bail was heard, the “bench had been changed”. He further says that for the past 5-7 hearings, the same bench was hearing the case but the hearing was being adjourned every time. “We then felt after a consultation that there is a change in the atmosphere of the lower courts and therefore, instead of the Supreme Court, we should try getting bail from the lower court”, SQR says. After discussing the “changed circumstances” again, SQR says that the entire case against Umar Khalid is fabricated.
Before we discuss how SQR lies about Umar’s role in the Delhi anti-Hindu riots, it is necessary to unpack how his statements about the hearing in the Supreme Court are carefully crafted to pressure lower courts.
First and foremost, SQR mentions the 14 adjournments in the Supreme Court and insinuates that it was the Court itself that adjourned the matter for “some reason or the other”, thereby denying Umar Khalid the chance to be heard. However, the truth is far from it. 7 out of 14 times, it was Umar Khalid and his lawyer – Kapil Sibal – who had asked for the adjournment. This is a fact that is conveniently left out by Ilyas. His statement about the Supreme Court bench and the “changed environment in the lower court” is telling. OpIndia had explained earlier how the withdrawal of the SLP from the Supreme Court was a result of failed attempts at forum shopping by Kapil Sibal and other lawyers representing Umar Khalid. Umar Khalid did not want his bail petition heard by Justice Bela Trivedi. After failed attempts to forum shop, the SLP was withdrawn by Umar Khalid.
Further, one has to ask what “change in the atmosphere” was Ilyas talking about. Is he inferring that they believed that the Judge in the District Court would be “more likely” to provide bail to Umar Khalid? Or was this simply exerting pressure on the District Court, through this interview, that they were somehow morally mandated to provide bail to right a perceived legal wrong (which never really happened to begin with, except in the fantastical lies by Ilyas).
After these arguments, Ilyas goes on to cite another lie, misleading listeners, on the merits of the case. Ilyas says that the basis of the case against Umar Khalid is his Amravati speech at a program held by the Welfare Party (headed by Ilyas himself). He says that the FIR mentioned only a part of the speech, which the police said was taken from Republic TV. When asked, it was said that the portion cited (about Trump’s visit) was taken from a tweet by Amit Malviya. He essentially says that it is Umar Khalid’s lawyers who read out the full 20-minute speech in court and that no part of the speech was objectionable or related to the Delhi Riots.
There are multiple issues with this statement, which is crafted to mislead the court. Interestingly, the same argument was made in the district court by Umar Khalid’s lawyer Trideep Pais on 3rd April 2024.
First and foremost, Ilyasi claims that because the FIR (first information report) was based on a part of the speech, the FIR itself does not stand scrutiny. This point is simply bad in law. The FIR, as mentioned, is a FIRST information report – it is not a final statement of investigation. The investigation is carried out by the police after the FIR has been filed. The entire evidence against the accused is not meant to form a part of the FIR. Therefore, that the FIR did not contain the full speech of Umar Khalid does not invalidate the investigation which took place after the FIR was filed.
Further, Ilyas insinuates that the prosecution based their case only on the portion of the speech which was mentioned in the FIR and not the entire speech – which was eventually read out by the Defence in court.
This is again patently false.
In the first Supplementary Chargesheet filed by the police, the transcript of the entire 17-minute speech by Umar Khalid has been added – which is usual since the evidence is detailed in the chargesheet, not in the FIR itself. That speech almost in its entirety was about Shaheen Bagh, Muslims being under threat and how they need to teach the police and the government a lesson when Donald Trump visits India on the 24th. It is not lost on anyone that as mentioned by Umar Khalid, it was on the 24th that the riots peaked in Northeast Delhi.
Further, it is also pertinent to note that the Amravati speech is not the only charge against Umar Khalid – as claimed by SQY Ilyas.
In the chargesheet filed in FIR 114, the role of Umar Khalid in the conspiracy hatched is mentioned clearly. It says that Tahir Hussain was connected to Khalid Saifi of United Against Hate Group and through Saifi, he was also in touch with Umar Khalid. Khalid Saifi, it says, had arranged a meeting between Umar Khalid and Tahir Hussain on the 8th of January at Shaheen Bagh. In that meeting, it was decided to take ‘big action’ so the government gets shaken up on the issue of CAA and NRC and also, ensure that the international community takes notice of that action.
In the chargesheet, it is also mentioned that Umar Khalid had told Tahir Hussain not to be concerned about the funding for the riots as Popular Front of India (PFI) would provide the funding as well as logistic support. It was categorically mentioned that the riots were to take place when President Donald Trump would visit India.
In the chargesheet, as reported, here is a flowchart of the coordination between Umar Khalid, Pinjra Tod ‘activists’, Khalid Saifi and Tahir Hussain.
In the chargesheet filed in FIR 114, the role of Umar Khalid in the conspiracy hatched is mentioned clearly. It says that Tahir Hussain was connected to Khalid Saifi of United Against Hate Group and through Saifi, he was also in touch with Umar Khalid. Khalid Saifi, it says, had arranged a meeting between Umar Khalid and Tahir Hussain on the 8th of January at Shaheen Bagh. In that meeting, it was decided to take ‘big action’ so the government gets shaken up on the issue of CAA and NRC and also, ensure that the international community takes notice of that action.
In the chargesheet, it is also mentioned that Umar Khalid had told Tahir Hussain not to be concerned about the funding for the riots as the Popular Front of India (PFI) would provide the funding as well logistic support. It was categorically mentioned that the riots were to take place when President Donald Trump would visit India.
In the chargesheet, as reported, here is a flowchart of the coordination between Umar Khalid, Pinjra Tod ‘activists’, Khalid Saifi and Tahir Hussain.
From everything that is alleged in the chargesheet, it is clear that Umar Khalid was perhaps one of the masterminds who was also constantly in touch with Pinjra Tod activists who are also accused of grave sections. Khalid Saifi of UAH, who is also a close associate of Umar Khalid was coordinating with Tahir Hussain after their initial meeting in Shaheen Bagh on the 8th of January. Further, Tahir Hussain was coordinating with other rioters and instigators.
The merits of the charges against Umar Khalid will be discussed at the trial stage and the stage of cross-examination. However, for Ilyasi to claim that the Amravati speech is the only evidence cited against Umar Khalid is a lie and a clear attempt to mislead the judicial process.
Further in the interview, Ilyasi says that the same bench which gave bail to Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha denied bail to Umar Khalid. This was again the “argument of parity” made by Trideep Pais in the current district court proceedings. It is pertinent to mention that in the High Court order, it is specifically mentioned that the bail order to Devangana and others is not to be used as a precedent for other co-accused (which would include Umar Khalid). In the court, the SPP made the argument that when a bench says that the order is not to be used as a precedent, it essentially means that the order is contrary to the law and is being made as an exception therefore, no other court can be asked to adhere to an order that was ab initio against the law.
Throughout these fallacious arguments, it is pertinent to note that no counter question was posed by TheWire anchor Arfa Khanum Sherwani.
This is the portion of the interview that was played in court by SPP Amit Prasad to demonstrate how SQR Ilyas, who is the father and lawyer of Umar Khalid, is using the media to make arguments in the case, in an attempt to influence not just the narrative but also the judicial process.
Further in the interview, Arfa and Ilyas keep pushing the usual tropes about Umar being targeted for being the voice of Muslims, dissenting and because of how ‘strong’ his voice was.
For this article, the tearjerking and sociological lies presented by Arfa Khanum Sherwani and SQR Ilyas have been left out. However, analysing the portion of the interview which was played in court gives a brief window into how the judicial narrative is being formed outside of the court by Umar Khalid’s battery of lawyers.
Essentially, the very arguments which were thrown out by the High Court and the predecessor district court are being repeated not just by the lawyer in the district court but also by SQR Ilyasi in his interview with TheWire. These statements are being made out of context to mislead the public opinion on the case repeatedly and lies are being perpetrated by media persons like Arfa Khanum Sherwani, wilfully, to affect the judicial process by the sheer force of public opinion.
