On Saturday, 11th May, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) of Salim Malik alias Munna in the 2020 anti-Hindu riots case. A SLP is a remedy available under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which grants special powers to the Supreme Court of India to grant leave (permission) to appeal against any judgment or order in any matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. The Delhi High Court on 22nd April refused him bail in the “larger conspiracy case” related to the 2020 anti-Hindu riots in northeast Delhi and noted that “witness statements” clearly show the accused had an “active part” in hatching conspiracy to carry out the violence.
According to the High Court, Salim Malik and other individuals had set up a tent and a banner and had been delivering hateful statements to the throng that had been attending the demonstration. He and his associates encouraged people to participate in protests in the name of religion and against the Central Government. They used to run the stage, present the speaker, hand out langar and instigate the Muslim population to rebel against the government. Saleem Khan, Salman Siddiqui, D.S. Bindra, and Saleem Malik were the protest organisers who used to receive funding from Tahir Hussain to manage the rallies.
The court highlighted, “The appellant was one of the protesters who had provoked the people present there to indulge in violence and consequently, there was pelting of stones and attack on the police personnel with sticks, rods etc. and the government and non-government property was extensively damaged.” During a covert meeting that took place at midnight, Salim Malik reportedly discussed creating a traffic bottleneck for United States President Donald Trump’s arrival to intensify the demonstration against CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act).
“Even though the appellant (Salim Malik @ Munna) may not be a part of the WhatsApp group but is quite obvious from the statement of various witnesses that he had attended the meetings and took an active part in relation to hatching conspiracy of committing riots. At this initial stage of the case when the court has yet to ascertain charges and then to embark on trial, the statements of witnesses examined by the prosecution during the investigation, have to be taken at their face value,” observed a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain.
The judgement pointed out that Salim Malik was a co-conspirator in a deep-seated plot that resulted in the anti-Hindu riots that took place in 2020 in Delhi, the nation’s capital. The rioters who planned and orchestrated these events had taken a cue from the riots that had previously taken place in December 2019. The Court observed, “The objective of the conspirators was to escalate protests to chakka jam and once crowd in large number was mobilised, lead and incite them against the police and others. In order to give a secular look, secular names/Hindu names were given to protest sites to give secular colour.”
The plan was to move the protest site to predetermined locations, block the main road and highways, incite conflict between groups, attack law enforcement and paramilitary forces, and cause damage to both public and private property through the use of deadly weapons, firearms, petrol bombs, acid bombs, stones, chilli powder, and other items. Furthermore, financial arrangements were made and employed to organise the unrest.
The bench also noted the testimony of a “protected witness” known as “Radium,” who claimed to have attended a meeting at Chand Bagh on the evening of 23rd February 2020, where it was decided that “since the area CCTV cameras were installed, the riots could not be carried out at the intended scale” and Salim Malik had been assigned to be one of the people “in charge to either destroy the CCTV or to cover those” which he duly accomplished.
The information in the Supplementary Charge Sheet illustrated how the rioters carried out atrocities that resulted in the death of Head Constable Rattan Lal and serious injuries to multiple police officers, including DCP Shahdara of Delhi, within ten minutes of moving or disconnecting the last CCTV camera placed in the Chand Bagh and New Mustafabad areas. The prosecution’s video evidence further demonstrated the planned plot to execute riots to attack law enforcement officials in addition to starting the chaos.
The High Court mentioned, “Articles 19(1)(a) and (b) give the constitutional right to all citizens freedom of speech and expression which includes carrying out public demonstration also but public demonstration when becomes violent and damages the public and private properties and harm lives of people it goes beyond fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) and becomes an offence punishable under law. Thus, though the citizen of this country has a right to protest but it has to be in a peaceful manner and without resorting to violence.”
However, the court added that Salim Malik and other perpetrators attended meetings on 20th, 21st and 22nd February at Chand Bagh when topics pertaining to riot-like violence and the burning of Delhi were discussed in public. Moreover, there were conversations about money, procuring weapons, obtaining petrol bombs to kill people, setting fire to nearby property and destroying CCTV that had been placed. Such discussions are unacceptable in any democratic country, the Court noted.
The court also invoked the Gurwinder Singh (Supra) case and asserted that “Jail is the norm and bail is the exception” regarding (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) UAPA cases. “The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase, ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ – unless circumstances justify otherwise – does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAPA. The exercise of the general power to grant bail under the UAPA is severely restrictive in scope.”
The court pointed out that charges against the accused in Gurwinder Singh (Supra) revealed different members were recruited for multiple roles, and the mere fact that the offender did not receive any funds or that nothing incriminating was recovered from him did not absolve him of his role in the crime, per the Supreme Court. On the other hand, in this case, there is sufficient evidence in the file to establish that Salim Malik was a co-conspirator and that the offence for which he was charged was committed.
The court concluded, “Therefore, in view of the bar provided under Section 45 D (5) of UAPA, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, while making it clear that any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the learned Trial Court, while deciding the charges, shall not be influenced, either way, by any observation made herein above.”
Salim Malik, Umar Khalid and several others were named the “masterminds” of the riots in February 2020 that resulted in over 700 injuries and 53 fatalities, and charged under the UAPA Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
