New Delhi, Oct 18 (PTI) Revolution by itself is not always bloodless, the Delhi High Court said on Tuesday while referring to former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru who believed democracy has made revolution superfluous after Independence.

A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar made the reference while dealing with the content, context and use of certain phraseology in the speeches of former JNU student Umar Khalid, whose bail prayer it rejected in the 2020 north east Delhi riots case.

Also Read | Mumbai Airport Operational After 6-Hours Post-Monsoon Runway Maintenance Works.

The court found the speeches prima facie incriminating and inflammatory.

In one of his speeches delivered in February 2020, Khalid used words like “Inquilabli Salam” and “Krantikari Istiqbal”.

Also Read | Adani Defence Systems and Technologies To Acquire Air Works for Rs 400 Crore.

During the arguments on the bail plea, the counsel for Khalid had tried to explain the meaning and import of “Inquilabli Salam” (Revolutionary Salute) and “Krantikari Istiqbal” (Revolutionary Welcome) by submitting that these words were used for greeting everyone and inviting the spirit of revolution.

He had said these words were used in his speech in the context of people standing against a discriminatory law and protesting against it. By no stretch of imagination, the use of the words ‘inquilab' and 'krantikari' can be termed a crime, Khalid's counsel said.

It was also submitted that the protests were a call for an opposition to an unjust law, and in any case Khalid did not call for violence.

“In the submission of the appellant (Khalid), these words were used as a call to boycott an unjust law and the speech neither spread terror of any kind nor did it excite anyone present there and merely, a shamiana was set up, where people came and left peacefully and there was nothing provocative about the speech delivered by the appellant and it was only aimed at exposing the non-functioning government and the law targeting one community,” the court noted as submissions made by Khalid's counsel.

However, the bench was “not impressed” with Khalid's argument, saying the call to revolution does not have to affect only the immediate gathering.

“The call to revolution may affect many beyond those who were visibly present, which is why this court finds it apt to mention Robespierre, who was at the vanguard of the French revolution. This court is of the view that possibly, if the appellant had referred to Maximilien Robespierre for what he meant by revolution, he must have also known what revolution meant for our freedom fighter and first prime minister.

“The very fact that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru believed that democracy has made revolution superfluous after independence and how it meant the complete opposite of a bloodless change,” it said.

The bench said, “revolution by itself isn't always bloodless, which is why it is contradistinctly used with the prefix - a 'bloodless' revolution. So, when we use the expression ‘revolution', it is not necessarily bloodless”.

The bench said the court is reminded of that although the activity of revolution in its essential quality may not be different but from the point of view of Robespierre and Nehru, in its potentiality and in its effect upon public tranquillity, there can be a vast difference.

Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and several others have been booked under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

The violence had erupted during the protests against CAA and NRC.

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)