'Has To be Lakshman Rekha for Criticism': Delhi HC Hears Umar Khalid's Bail Plea

File image of former Jawaharlal Nehru University student and activist Umar Khalid.

(Photo: The Quint)

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 26 April, resumed its hearing of activist Umar Khalid's appeal against the rejection of his bail plea by a lower court in the the North East Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, and remarked that there must be a 'line' for criticising the government.

The high court bench consisting of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar and Justice Siddharth Mridul was grilling Khalid's counsel over his 2020 speech at Amravati, which finds a mention in the First Information Report (FIR) filed against the activist.

In a verbal remark made in the court, Justice Bhatnagar asked, "This word jumla is used against the Prime Minister of India. Is it proper?" LiveLaw reported.

In response, Khalid's cousel, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais held that criticising the government or its policies is not in contravention to the law.

"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," Pais reportedly submitted.

However, the court noted that 'there must be a 'lakshman rekha' for criticism too.

"There has to be a line for criticism also. There has to be a lakshman rekha."

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, as per LiveLaw

On 22 April, the high court had orally noted that Khalid's 2020 Amravati speech is prima facie 'not acceptable.' It had added that the speech was offensive, obnoxious, and hateful.

The activist and a former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student, was arrested on 14 September 2020 in connection with the Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case, registered under FIR 59/2020.

He has been charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as well as other Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

On 24 March, a Delhi court had rejected Khalid's bail plea. The court, in its order, included the observation that Khalid's name "finds a recurring mention" from the beginning of the conspiracy till the riots and that "he has connectivity with many accused persons," among reasons for the dismissal.

(With inputs from LiveLaw.)