New Delhi, The counsel for Umar Khalid, a political activist facing charges related to the Delhi riots, questioned whether sharing messages on platforms like WhatsApp could be considered a terror act. Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai was hearing Khalid’s second bail plea before a special court.
According to Kashmir Media Service, Khalid’s counsel, senior advocate Trideep Pais, challenged the narrative presented by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), who argued that data from Khalid’s mobile phone indicated that he was in contact with actors, politicians, activists, and celebrities. Khalid allegedly sent them news portal links and other content with a request to share them on social media to create a specific narrative and amplify it.
Pais raised doubts about the prosecution’s case, asking if sharing messages on WhatsApp could be considered criminal or terror-related. “Is sharing messages a criminal or terror act?” he asked, questioning whether forwarding messages about wrongful incarceration or discussing upcoming arrests could be considered illegal. He further argued that forwarding news to others or sharing information about potential arrests should not be deemed criminal activity.
The counsel contended that the prosecution had “repeatedly” mentioned Khalid’s name, attempting to link him to incitement of the riots. He also suggested that the case against Khalid was based on a “vicious media trial,” with news anchors from certain TV channels “reading from the charge sheet” continuously. Pais questioned whether “repeating a lie a hundred times” could turn it into the truth.
Additionally, Pais claimed parity with other co-accused individuals who had already been granted bail. He cited the Supreme Court’s view on “prima facie evidence,” pointing out that activist Vernon Gonsalves and academic-activist Shoma Kanti Sen had both received bail in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case. Pais argued that the public prosecutor’s assertion that these cases had been tested by the court was inaccurate.
The court’s decision on the bail plea for Umar Khalid could set a significant precedent for similar cases involving charges of incitement and terrorism. The proceedings reflect ongoing debates about the boundaries between activism, freedom of expression, and criminal conduct.