Delhi riots case: SC begins final hearing on bail pleas
Arguing for bail on merits, Sibal submitted that Khalid’s alleged role was limited to a speech that did not exhort violence.
The Supreme Court on Friday began final hearing in the bail petitions filed by student activists Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and Gulfisha Fatima in the larger conspiracy case of the 2020 northeast Delhi riots , with the accused strongly disputing the Delhi Police’s claim that they had contributed to the delay in the trial. They pointed out that the police took over three years to complete the investigation, filing four supplementary charge sheets until June 2023, and that the special prosecutor alone had sought adjournments on 59 dates.
A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria posted the matter for further hearing on November 3 after senior advocates Kapil Sibal (for Khalid), Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for Gulfisha), and Siddharth Dave (for Imam) concluded their submissions.
Singhvi, appearing for Gulfisha, told the court that she has been incarcerated as an undertrial for “five years and five months”, with charges yet to be framed. “What purpose is served by a trial if an accused remains behind bars for six-seven years as an undertrial? This is the destruction of the criminal justice system,” said Singhvi, adding that the presence of protected witnesses could not be a reason to continue indefinite detention. “My bail plea itself was pending for three years. There is no evidence against me,” he added.
Sibal, appearing for Khalid, said the prosecution’s allegation that the defence had stalled the trial was “factually incorrect”. “On 59 dates, the matter was adjourned due to non-availability of the special prosecutor. There were also adjournments due to non-availability of judges -- 55 times, infrastructural constraints and strikes. Yet the police say we delayed the trial,” he said.
Arguing for bail on merits, Sibal submitted that Khalid’s alleged role was limited to a speech that did not exhort violence. “I was not even in Delhi when the incidents took place. There is no allegation of funding or direct involvement. Three co-accused have already been granted bail. I am entitled to parity,” said Sibal. Khalid was arrested in September 2020.
Dave, representing Imam, argued that the delay lay entirely with the prosecution since the probe itself continued till June 2023 and upon an application made by the accused, the police recorded in September 2024 that their probe was over.
“There was no occasion for the trial to proceed when the police had not completed the investigation. I was arrested in August 2020 in the present case but I was taken in custody in January 2020 in connection with other speech-related cases. The last supplementary charge sheet in the present case was filed only in June 2023. Until September 2024, when the trial court finally recorded that investigation was complete, there could be no question of delay by the accused,” he said. Dave added that the only allegation against Imam related to a speech calling for a “chakka jam” in protest against the CAA. “I always abhorred violence. The riots took place when I was already in custody. How long can I be jailed for speeches?” Dave asked.
The hearing comes a day after the Delhi Police, in an affidavit opposing bail, alleged that the violence in February 2020 was part of a coordinated “regime change operation”, arguing that the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) were used as a “radicalising catalyst” to trigger unrest during the visit of then US President Donald Trump and to “internationalise” India’s domestic politics. The police said they had gathered technical, documentary and witness evidence to show that the accused were part of a “deep-rooted conspiracy” aimed at destabilising the State, and therefore warranted “jail and not bail”.
Under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the standard bail principle is reversed. While ordinary criminal law treats bail as the rule and jail as the exception, under UAPA courts must first be satisfied that the allegations, even prima facie, do not indicate involvement in terrorist activity before granting bail. The police have maintained that this threshold is not met here.
The accused, Khalid, Imam, Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Shifa-ur-Rehman, however, contend that they were exercising their constitutional right to peaceful protest and that the “larger conspiracy” case is being used to criminalise dissent. They argue that prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to punishment before conviction.
The police submission came two days after the bench asked the enforcement agency to consider whether the accused, several of whom have spent nearly five years in judicial custody as undertrials, could be released on bail.
“See if you can think of something… five years are over already,” the bench told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju on Monday, signalling that prolonged incarceration without substantive progress in trial may weigh in favour of temporary release.
But the police affidavit, filed through advocate Rajat Nair, asserted that investigators have assembled ocular, documentary and technical evidence to show that the accused were part of a “deep-rooted conspiracy” engineered on communal lines.
To strengthen its case that the violence followed an orchestrated pattern, the prosecution pointed to incidents of unrest that broke out around the same time in parts of Uttar Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra and Bihar, describing it as evidence of a “pan-India plan” rather than isolated flare-ups.
The affidavit also accused the accused of deliberately delaying the trial, asserting that proceedings for the supply of documents alone took 39 hearings across two years, while framing of charges has been held up for nearly 50 hearings. The Delhi high court, in a judgment last month, similarly remarked that the defence contributed to the delay. The prosecution has alleged that the petitioners suppressed this finding while approaching the Supreme Court.
The accused have assailed the Delhi high court’s September 2 order, denying them bail. The high court had described their roles in the alleged conspiracy as “prima facie grave”, holding that the evidence pointed to a coordinated plan behind the riots that left 53 people dead and hundreds injured in February 2020.
The high court had observed that both Khalid and Imam were among the first to mobilise protests against the CAA in December 2019 through speeches, pamphlets and WhatsApp groups, which, according to investigators, later morphed into a conspiracy to trigger violence. It ruled that their absence from the actual riot sites did not exonerate them, as the alleged planning preceded the violence. The Delhi Police, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and special public prosecutor Amit Prasad, had termed them “intellectual architects” of the conspiracy.
The accused, however, have consistently maintained that they were exercising their constitutional right to protest and had no role in fomenting violence. They have argued that their prolonged incarceration amounts to punishment without trial, with multiple supplementary charge sheets filed and dozens of witnesses still to be examined. They have also sought parity with student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the Delhi high court in 2021.
Ends
