The submission was made by senior advocate Trideep Pais in the context of Khalids PHD Thesis, which was said to about Jharkhands Adivasis.
On March 2nd, 2022, Umar Khalid's lawyer argued that speaking up for a minority community when they are mistreated does not make him communal, as he sought bail in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case related to the Delhi Riots[1].
Senior Advocate Trideep Pais argued before Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat that while the prosecution had linked his client's inactivity on specific WhatsApp groups to criminality, it had not proved his "active" position on other groups to show the distinction.
According to Pais, the prosecution used his client's silence on the Delhi Protest Support Group WhatsApp group to demonstrate criminality, as well as his participation in the 2016 JNU sedition case.
The senior counsel stated, "Referring to the JNU sedition case from 2016,"
If I'm a criminal from 2016 and I have developed this novel idea of silence, then I am a silent criminal.. Then have you compared from other WhatsApp groups? It's like saying if I'm silent, I'm a criminal...in other groups, I'm active.
Pais further pointed out that in 2016, Khalid's catchphrase "tuke tukde gang" was not credited to him.
Pais continued, "Referring to Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens as discriminatory that does not make me communal also
Then He referred to Khalids PhD thesis, which was stated to be on the adivasis of Jharkhand.
Person picks up an issue Cant call him communal because he writes about a section of people. To speak up for a minority when they are mistreated doesnt make him communal, he stated.
The senior counsel further informed the Court that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) had resulted in a large number of individuals protesting against it.
There's no denying it. Many people, including Ramachandra Guha, TM Krishna, and others, have spoken out against the law," Pais said.
"My client is a member of that group who opposes discriminatory legislation. Everyone picks and selects their battles and causes for protest. He claimed that if the prosecution had been fairer, they would have identified other suspects.
In response to this claim, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad said,
Investigation is going on. The choice of accused is prerogative of the investigation agency. It is a settled law whether from the persons we'll make accused or witnesses.
Pais argued that Khalid's remark in Amravati, Maharashtra, was not diabolical and that the charge sheet used the adjectives "diabolical, insidious, rabid" to describe the violence in February 2020.
The remarks have been used by the prosecution to support Khalid's conspiracy charge.
"I'm referring to Gandhi and the Constitution....A charge sheet isn't about facts...This is a story that the prosecution wants to spread."
[1] Umar Khaild v. state
