Former Aam Aadmi Party Councillor Tahir Hussain told a Delhi court on Friday that his WhatsApp chats presented by the prosecution in the 2020 riots conspiracy case do not contain any instructions to pick up weapons or participate in violence, The Indian Express reported.

Hussain’s counsel Rajiv Mohan argued that the chats cited by the Delhi Police Special Cell in the case only mention “chakka jam”, or roadblocks, and peaceful protests, not violence or the use of weapons.

“Chakka jaam is not a terrorist act…is meeting people and protesting also a terrorist activity as per the agency?” Mohan told the court. “Nowhere in the WhatsApp messages is it mentioned that we should pick up weapons against the Government of India or its agencies.”

The court of Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai was hearing arguments on framing of charges in the case.

Clashes had broken out in North East Delhi in February 2020 between supporters of the Citizenship Amendment Act and those opposing the controversial legislation. The violence left 53 dead and hundreds injured. Most of those killed were Muslims.

Subsequently, the Delhi Police filed a case under the anti-terror provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act to investigate the alleged conspiracy behind the violence. The police had arrested 18 persons including Hussain. While six of the accused have been granted bail, 12 remain in judicial custody.

The conversations among the accused on WhatsApp is part of the evidence presented by the police, alongside security camera footage and witness statements, to claim that there was a conspiracy.

“What is the common conspiracy in this case?” Mohan was quoted as having asked. “First, the agency has to make that clear. Which offence is being committed by the accused persons?”

Hussain’s counsel argued that the police have already registered a first information report and a chargesheet for individual acts committed during the protest. He stated that unless there was evidence of the accused having promoted armed rebellion or insurgency, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act should not be invoked.

“The protests were confined against the Citizenship Amendment Bill,” Mohan argued. “The way a community reacts to a bill is a different issue…It can’t be held that it’s a protest against the Government of India.”

The Delhi Police Special Cell claimed that the alleged conspiracy involved setting up 23 protest sites in Muslim-majority areas near mosques and main roads, operating around the clock.