Back
Seeks Response on Sharjeel Imam Research Access Plea
The on Monday directed the authorities to file a in response to a plea by Sharjeel Imam, a former student and an accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots case, seeking permission to access research material stored on a pen drive to complete his PhD while in custody. Justice Sanjeev Narula ordered the jail administration to place its response on record, listing the matter for further hearing on .
Imam, who has been in custody since January 2020, was in the final year of his doctoral programme when he was arrested. His counsel, , informed the court that Imam's research synopsis had already been approved by both the and JNU. The plea requests that Imam be allowed to use a computer inside the jail to access the research material—over 2,132 files comprising academic articles, books, and screenshots of archival records—stored on a pen drive.
The Core Request: Offline Access Under Supervision
During the hearing, Ibrahim proposed a practical solution to address security concerns: the jail authorities could transfer the contents of the pen drive to a computer that has no internet or Wi-Fi connectivity. Imam would then be allowed to use that computer under the direct supervision of jail staff. The advocate emphasised that his client was not seeking any internet access, only the ability to work on his PhD research using existing jail infrastructure.
When Justice Narula inquired why physical copies of the material could not be provided, Ibrahim responded that printing the files would run into lakhs of pages, making it logistically unfeasible. The court seemed to appreciate the practicality of the digital solution, especially given that the material is already in a digital format and can be easily transferred and supervised.
Prosecution’s Stance and Jail Authorities' Objections
The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) appearing for the informed the court that the prosecution had not opposed a similar request before the trial court. According to the SPP, it was the jail administration that had raised objections to the arrangement. The prosecutor submitted that the request could be considered, provided Imam clearly identifies the material he intends to access and the entire process is carried out under the supervision of jail authorities.
Ibrahim responded by noting that the 2,132 files include a wide range of research materials, and that the proposed arrangement—where the jail authorities control the computer and the pen drive—would give them complete oversight. He argued that this would address any security concerns the jail might have.
Recent for Wedding Attendance
The High Court proceedings come shortly after a trial court granted Imam seven days' to attend the weddings of his two first cousins. Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of , granted the relief on , noting that it was Imam's second application and that the request concerned the marriages of his real cousins.
Imam had sought from to October 13, stating that his cousins Danish Imam and Fahad Imam were getting married. The ceremonies were scheduled to take place in Kako, Jehanabad, Bihar, followed by events in Delhi and Sasaram, Bihar. The prosecution opposed the plea, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the earlier rejection of Imam's applications, arguing that his presence was not indispensable for the marriages.
The investigating officer's report confirmed the weddings, and the defence highlighted that Imam had only sought once before in more than six years of custody—for his real brother's wedding—and had complied with all conditions by surrendering on time. The trial court granted from to on a of Rs 50,000 with one of the same amount. During the bail period, Imam was barred from contacting witnesses or persons connected to the case, prohibited from using social media or interacting with media, and directed to remain with family members at the wedding venues. He was ordered to surrender to the prison superintendent on the evening of .
Legal Implications: Education and Custody
This case raises significant questions about the and the ability of prisoners to pursue academic work while in custody. Under , the includes the , which has been interpreted to encompass the and personal development. However, this right must be balanced against security concerns and the need to prevent misuse of prison facilities.
Imam faces charges under the , the , the , and the . The case is investigated by the Special Cell. Despite the serious nature of the allegations, the court's willingness to consider his request for academic access underscores the principle that prisoners retain certain , including the right to pursue higher education, as long as it does not compromise security.
The High Court's order to seek a from indicates that the court is taking the plea seriously and is willing to examine whether a secure arrangement can be made. If permitted, this could set a precedent for other inmates seeking to continue their studies or research while incarcerated, particularly in long-drawn cases where trials may take years.
The Road Ahead
The matter is now scheduled for , when the jail authorities are expected to submit their . The court will then decide whether to allow Imam access to the research material under the proposed conditions. Meanwhile, Imam's plea in the same case is also pending before the , with proceedings recently listed for .
For legal professionals, this case highlights the evolving jurisprudence on prisoners' rights, the intersection of technology and incarceration, and the courts' role in ensuring that detention does not completely extinguish an individual's intellectual pursuits. The outcome will be closely watched by human rights lawyers, criminal law practitioners, and academics alike.
Conclusion
The 's directive to to respond to Sharjeel Imam's plea for PhD research material is a critical step in balancing security concerns with the . The proposed offline computer arrangement offers a pragmatic solution that could serve as a model for similar requests in the future. As the case progresses, it will contribute to the ongoing dialogue about the rights of undertrial prisoners and the extent to which the state must accommodate their educational needs.
