Sharjeel Imam has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court's recent order framing charges against him in connection with the December 2019 Jamia violence during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

On Thursday, Justice Sanjeev Narula issued a notice to the Delhi Police on Imam's plea and requested its response.

On March 7, the trial court identified Sharjeel Imam as the mastermind behind the conspiracy that allegedly led to large-scale rioting, arson, and violence during the December 15, 2019, protests.

The court said that Imam’s “venomous” and incendiary speeches incited the riots and that he was not just an instigator but a “kingpin” who mobilized people to take to the streets.

The court also framed charges against Ashu Khan, Chandan Kumar, and Aasif Iqbal Tanha for allegedly leading the mob and inciting violence.

According to the prosecution, Imam played a pivotal role in fueling the unrest by delivering inflammatory speeches, mobilizing crowds, conducting public meetings, distributing provocative leaflets, and leveraging social media to influence Muslim students and activists in the days leading up to the riots.

Imam, however, argued that he was not part of the unlawful assembly that engaged in violence on December 15 and that his speech did not amount to incitement. His counsel also invoked the principle of double jeopardy, contending that since he was already facing a separate case (FIR No. 22/2020) under Sections 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting enmity), fresh charges under Section 153A IPC in the present case were unlawful.

The court rejected this argument, ruling that his role in the Jamia violence was distinct and justified the fresh charges.

Based on the evidence, the court ordered the framing of charges against Imam under multiple sections of the IPC, including:

• Sections 109 and 120B (abetment and criminal conspiracy)

• Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 (unlawful assembly, rioting, armed rioting)

• Sections 186, 353, 332, 333 (obstructing public servants, assaulting police officers)

• Sections 308, 427, 435, 323, 341 (attempt to commit culpable homicide, mischief, arson)

• Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act

However, the charge under Section 124A (sedition) was kept in abeyance, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive to halt all pending cases under this provision until its validity is decided.

Sharjeel Imam was represented by advocate Talib Mustafa.