Supreme Court adjourns hearing in Delhi riots ‘larger conspiracy’ bail pleas to Nov 3
The Supreme Court heard bail pleas of student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Gulfisha Fatima in the alleged Delhi riots conspiracy case. Senior advocates argued that the prosecution delayed the trial, with the next hearing scheduled for November 3
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has heard the bail pleas of student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Gulfisha Fatima, all accused in the alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the 2020 North East Delhi riots and booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria heard arguments from the petitioners and adjourned the matter to Monday (November 3) for continuation of submissions by co-accused as well as the Delhi Police.
Appearing for Umar Khalid, senior advocate Kapil Sibal contended that the prosecution had consistently delayed the trial and was now attempting to shift the blame on the accused.
“They say it is me who is taking time and delaying the case whereas the fact says otherwise,” Sibal argued.
“Out of 751 FIRs related to the riots, Khalid was named in only one. He (Khalid) was not even in Delhi when the riots took place,” Sibal said, adding that there was no recovery of any incriminating material from him.
He argued that none of the acts attributed to Khalid fell within the definition of “terrorist act” under UAPA, relying on the bail orders granted to co-accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal.
“They are granted bail. Umar Khalid was not even present in Delhi. The evidence and witnesses are the same,” Sibal submitted.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, for Sharjeel Imam, argued that the prosecution took over three years to complete the investigation and kept filing supplementary chargesheets till September 2024.
“The trial could not progress because the probe was said to be ongoing. So out of five years, three went in investigation,” Dave told the Justice Kumar-led Bench.
He added that Imam has been in custody since January 25, 2020, nearly a month before the riots erupted in late February. “If I am in custody since January, what role could I play in orchestrating riots that occurred in February? My speeches were in December 2019 – two months before the riots,” Dave said.
In response to the apex court’s question on the nature of the speech, Dave said, “I called for chakka jams (blockades) as part of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA. There was no call for violence at all.”
Appearing for Gulfisha Fatima, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that the only allegation against her was setting up a protest site.
“No act of violence occurred at those sites. There is no oral or documentary evidence showing that any violent material was present where I was,” Singhvi said.
The Justice Kumar-led Bench will continue hearing the bail pleas of other co-accused Meeran Haider, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shifa Ur Rehman on Monday (November 3).
In its detailed counter affidavit filed earlier this week, the Delhi Police had opposed the bail pleas of Khalid and Imam, terming them as “key conspirators” who premeditated and meticulously coordinated the Delhi riots.
The affidavit claimed that the conspiracy was timed with then US President Donald Trump’s visit to India to “draw international attention” and portray the CAA protests as a pogrom against Muslims.
It described Umar Khalid as a “mentor” who mobilised networks through the Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC) and Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG). It also cited protected witness statements and digital evidence linking Khalid and Imam to the planning of protest sites that allegedly turned violent.
According to the police, Sharjeel Imam’s “chakka jam model” first manifested in Shaheen Bagh, and later spread to Khureji, Seelampur, and Jaffrabad, allegedly forming the first phase of the riots, with Khalid overseeing the February 2020 violence.
The affidavit recorded 53 deaths, 530 injuries, including 106 police officials, and property losses exceeding Rs 21 crore, alleging that the accused sought to “destabilise the country” by framing the CAA as a campaign of “ethnic cleansing or pogrom of Muslim community”.
