“I Banned Sharjeel Imam from Protest Sites Myself”: Meeran Haider Shatters Conspiracy Claim in SC

Explosive Claim by Meeran Haider at Supreme Court.

Meeran Haider, a student activist serving more than four years in prison has dramatic claim in the Supreme Court of India. At his bail hearing, which was a high-stakes matter, the legal team of Haider said that he was essentially and ideologically opposed to another activist Sharjeel Imam. His lawyer made a bombshell by claiming that Haider had in fact, personally banned Sharjeel Imam to the protest sites because of his divisive rhetoric.

This statement directly disputes the main story of the Delhi Police that has charged both of these men as co-conspirators in one plot. Since April 2020, Haider is kept imprisoned with serious charges according to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA. He is addressing the Supreme Court to grant him his freedom after the Delhi High Court had turned down his bail request earlier.

He tried to defend himself by making the statement before a bench. His team claims that the case of the police is full of contradictions. The point of this new assertion is to demonstrate that the movement of protest was not a conspiracy but a conglomeration of groups with major, even primary, points of disagreement. This is a key difference in his struggle against bail.

The statement by Haider creates an entirely opposite image of the anti-CAA demonstrations. His defense talks of a decentralized movement rather than a larger conspiracy. He is citing that he was not an ally of Imam, but an adversary. This testimony can have the colossal consequences to the whole conspiracy of the Delhi Riots.

Shattering the Larger Conspiracy Narrative.

The FIR 59/2020 case of Haider and the other activists of the Delhi Police is entirely founded on the concept of a larger conspiracy. The prosecution claims that the extensive and peaceful demonstrations against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) had been a mere show. They allege that the true, secret agenda was to organize and instigate the communal violence that resulted in Northeast Delhi in February 2020.

The masterminds in this story have been described by the police as some of the student leaders who include Haider, Sharjeel Imam, and Umar Khalid. They are accused to be collaborating secretly. WhatsApp messages and meetings have helped the police to assert that they were all organizing their actions. They are all shown as collaborators as a single and one terrorists plot.

This is broken with a new statement by Meeran Haider in the Supreme Court. He says that he himself banned Imam and therefore they cannot be co-conspirators. This indicates that the police misconstrued the entire dissenters and the activists as a single group without paying attention to the diverse ideological divisions and personal differences among them.

The UAPA case submitted by the prosecution is based on associating all the accused in one chain of command. This chain is fictitious as argued by Haider. His defense asserts that the police in their non-application of mind have not been able to perceive or have chosen to overlook the fact that he and Imam were at different sides of a significant ideological divide.

This is no mere refusal to admit the accusations. It is a certain, objective counter-assertion. Haider is not merely exclaiming that he is innocent. He is saying, the narrative provided by the prosecution does not make sense logically as I was actively engaged in the fight against a person they declare my partner. This makes the police chargesheet questionable.

A Movement Divided: The Ideological Split with Imam.

The defense team of Haider, headed by senior advocate Salman Khurshid, gave the precise explanation as to why this alleged ban was there. The criticism that was directed to Sharjeel Imam was not personal, but ideological. It was based on controversial speeches made by Imam, which Haider and other organizers of the protests regarded as dangerous, divisive and an insult to their peaceful demonstration.

Sharjeel Imam had become well known through a speech on the road where he had demanded a chakka jam or the road blockade. During this speech he proposed to blockade roads in order to isolate Assam and the Northeast of India with the rest of India. Many people including other protesters condemned this statement as being secessionist and inflammatory.

The attorneys of Haider claimed that Haider being one of the main organizers of the protest sites such as Shaheen Bagh, was convinced of a peaceful, non-violent and constitutional protest. The speech given by Imam was a threat to the cause of the protest because it was perceived by him and the other leaders of the protest organization as a dangerous deviation to their cause.

It is through this that Haider says he had to take action. As an organizer, he himself took care of the de-platforming of Sharjeel Imam. He was even purported to be denied the right to speak in the principal protest areas. This was done to ensure that his divisive rhetoric does not take over the bigger, inclusive, and peaceful movement.

This is what the defense claims; it is the action of an opponent, but not a co-conspirator. It depicts that Haider was making attempts to avert precisely the sort of chaos and division that the police accuse him of plotting. According to him, it is ludicrous that the police should now purport that he was collaborating with a man whom he had been working against and silencing.

The UAPA Legal Battle of the High Stakes.

This assertion is legally important due to the heinous law Haider is accused of. The major anti-terror law in India is the UAPA. It has notoriously strict bail conditions. The section 43D ( 5 ) of the Act virtually renders bail unattainable to an accused individual, which explains why Haider is spending more than four years in prison without a trial process ever having begun.

The UAPA imposes an extremely rigorous bail condition under which a court may not give bail when it holds that the allegations are prima facie true. This implies that it is up to the accused to show that the case provided by the police is on its face untrue. This is a very high standard that any accused individual can jump over, more so when he/she is within a jail.

The statement made by Meeran Haider of banning Sharjeel Imam is a direct effort to live up to this high standard. He is showing the Supreme Court a demonstrable fact, which is a particular, verifiable fact, to prove that the main case against him, that he was conspiracy with Imam is prima facie false. It is far more of a defense than denial.