In a recent ruling, a Delhi court opted not to grant Sharjeel Imam direct access to PhD research materials stored on a pen drive, nor the use of prison computers to further his academic work. The decision was made by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai at the Karkardooma courts, who emphasized the court’s inability to verify the pen drive’s contents.
Judge Bajpai stated that while the court has no objections to Imam accessing books, it cannot oversee or control digital material contained on a pen drive. As such, the court has delegated the decision to the Superintendent of Prison, allowing him the discretion to determine Imam’s access to the research materials. “The court would not have any problem allowing the applicant access to books, etc., but the court would have no control over the material on a pen drive. Only the Jail Authorities can monitor its use, so the decision is left to the Superintendent of Prison,” the order noted.
This ruling comes shortly after the same court denied bail requests from Imam and co-defendant Umar Khalid, both implicated in the Delhi riots conspiracy case. These riots, which took place in 2020, were a result of communal tensions during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA). Sharjeel Imam, along with others, faces allegations of orchestrating the riots.
Imam has been in custody since January 2020. Despite securing bail in other cases related to anti-CAA protest speeches, he remains detained under charges from the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the Delhi riots conspiracy. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court also denied him bail, citing evidence that suggested a prima facie case under UAPA provisions.
Before his arrest, Imam was a doctoral candidate in Modern History at Jawaharlal Nehru University. His recent application sought court permission to receive research material via pen drive from his legal team and to use the prison’s computer facilities for his PhD work. Imam argued that the materials were not prohibited by the Government of India.
More Read
Imam’s request was initially considered in April when the court directed the Superintendent of Prison to evaluate a similar petition. The then-superintendent allowed Imam to receive the pen drive from his lawyers. However, a transfer in prison administration led to a change in stance, with the new Superintendent denying Imam’s request without explicit court orders.
Prison authorities contended that while books and printed documents could be monitored, it would be challenging to censor the extensive contents of a pen drive. The court acknowledged this concern, hence entrusting the decision to the prison authorities.
