Protest, Law, and Allegations: The Shadab Ahmed Case

Shadab Ahmed, accused under UAPA for the 2020 Delhi riots, argued before the Supreme Court that protests are not criminal. While a bench addressed the alleged delays, Ahmed's defense disputed conspiracy claims, emphasizing lawful rights to protest. Several co-accused remain in custody, highlighting constitutional debates on protest rights.

Shadab Ahmed, charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots, asserted before the Supreme Court on Thursday that organizing protests should not be deemed a criminal act.

His counsel, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, countered the prosecution's claim of Ahmed's delay regarding the charges, stating before Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria that there was no delay on Ahmed's part.

The Delhi High Court expressed that while citizens' rights to peaceful protest and public speech are safeguarded by the Constitution, these rights are not without limitations. The bench underscored that unchecked protesting could disrupt constitutional balance and public order.

(With inputs from agencies.)