Thread by @LawBeatInd

Highlights from Adv. Tanveer Ahmed Mir's rebuttal before a Delhi Court in a Delhi Riots case against sedition accused Sharjeel Imam:

#Sedition #UAPA #SharjeelImam

Mir: A man graduating from IIT Bombay, has a good corporate package, leaves that and decides to pursue modern history, but I'm not going to say he lost his head - it's his decision as to how he wants to pursue intellectual brilliance and justify his existence in the world.

Mir says one needs to apply the Kedarnath judgment's interpretation of the sedition provision of IPC because not doing so would imply we are carrying forward a British legacy - they didn't want Indians to rise.

Mir: As a student of Aligarh Muslim University one understands that being a minority institution, students of a particular community would dominate the institution, so what is wrong with beginning his speech with Assalam Ul Laykum?

SPP Prasad: He says in his speech that India is not a democratic country, and tries to create anarchy stating that there is no scope for Muslims in India.

The modus operandi in various places has been to gather large crowds and create violence.

#DelhiRiots #SharjeelImam

Prasad: The intent of the speech clearly is that India is not a democracy, do not believe in the Constitution, do not believe in the court, there is no secularism, no democracy.

References are made to Mir's use of poetry/shayari in his arguments.

Mir: I feel My Lords it's a good way to depict emotions as well as the state of affairs.

Mir says Sharjeel Imam has not incited violence, dissatisfaction towards the State. Right from day one, he has been soliciting a promise.

Mir: Dispensation, governments have their political narratives. If those communities are on the street, we can't say that these are not Indians that are on the street and they are some aliens.

#DelhiRiots

Read full story here:

lawbeat.in/news-updates/d…