Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas criticised the Supreme Court order denying bail to his son Umar Khalid

New Delhi

Expressing disappointment over the Supreme Court’s decision, Ilyas said the order was weird and without any precedent in the criminal justice system. He said the court had for the first time separated accused persons into two groups despite all of them being booked in the same case.

Ilyas questioned the logic behind calling Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam ideological architects, while describing the other accused as followers. He said this claim was not mentioned anywhere in the Delhi Police chargesheet.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 North East Delhi riots case. However, it granted conditional bail to five others, including Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohammad Salim Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.

The court said Umar and Sharjeel stood on a higher footing in the alleged conspiracy, placing them above others in the hierarchy of participation.

Defending his son, Ilyas said Umar has spent nearly five years in jail without any proof against him. He said Umar was not in Delhi when the riots broke out, and did not make any provocative speech that could incite violence.

Ilyas said his son protested against the Citizenship Amendment Act and NRC, and asked whether peaceful dissent is no longer allowed in a democracy.

Referring to slogans raised at Jawaharlal Nehru University, he said students were protesting the denial of bail to the two accused. He criticised a growing trend of booking slogan shouters and said expressing anger should not be treated as a crime in a democratic society. He said such actions weaken democratic values and discourage citizens from questioning authority through lawful and peaceful means guaranteed by the Constitution.