The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Delhi Police on petitions filed by activist Umar Khalid, former JNU student leader Sharjeel Imam, and student activist Gulfisha Fatima challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision refusing them bail in a case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots. The case, registered under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), alleges a larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that left 53 people dead and hundreds injured.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria sought the response of the Delhi Police within four weeks. The court has tagged the petitions together, as they arise from the same FIR, which alleges a pre-planned conspiracy to instigate riots during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
Senior lawyers press urgency
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the petitioners. Urging the court to fast-track the hearing, Sibal said, “Please hear this before Diwali so that we can be out before Diwali.”
Singhvi added, “It is shocking that a student has to be behind bars for five years.”
Taking note of the submissions, the bench agreed to list the matter on October 7, after issuing notice to the Delhi Police.
The case background
The FIR invokes sections of the UAPA, the Indian Penal Code, and other laws against more than a dozen accused, including Khalid, Imam, Fatima, and student leaders like Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita (who were granted bail earlier). Prosecutors allege that the anti-CAA protests in Delhi were deliberately orchestrated to coincide with then-US President Donald Trump’s visit in February 2020, thereby drawing international attention.
Khalid, arrested in September 2020, has consistently denied the allegations, calling them politically motivated. Imam, in custody since January 2020, was accused of making provocative speeches, while Fatima has been described by the police as a key conspirator mobilizing women protestors in East Delhi.
Delhi High Court’s reasoning
In 2022, the Delhi High Court had rejected their bail pleas, holding that the allegations against them were prima facie true and fell within the ambit of UAPA. The court observed that the protests were not merely against a government policy but were allegedly intended to disrupt law and order and challenge the sovereignty of the state.
The high court emphasized that the UAPA, being a special legislation, imposed a high threshold for bail under Section 43D(5). Unless the court found the accusations to be wholly improbable, bail could not be granted.
Arguments before the Supreme Court
Challenging the high court’s order, the petitioners have argued that the case against them rests on conjectures, a selective reading of speeches, and statements of planted witnesses. They contend that mere participation in protests, organising meetings, or delivering speeches cannot amount to a terrorist act or conspiracy under UAPA.
The plea stated that several co-accused in the same FIR have already been granted bail, and the petitioners cannot be singled out.
State’s stand
The Delhi Police, on the other hand, maintains that the petitioners were masterminds of the conspiracy. According to the prosecution, Khalid’s speeches, Imam’s mobilisation efforts, and Fatima’s organising of women-led protests were all coordinated to create blockades and escalate tensions.
Police argue that granting bail at this stage would embolden others and disrupt the ongoing trial, where charges have already been framed against several accused.
The road ahead
The matter will now come up on October 7 after the Delhi Police files its response. If the Supreme Court finds merit in the petitioners’ plea, it could set the stage for a significant ruling on the interpretation of UAPA’s bail provisions. Conversely, if the court upholds the high court’s findings, it will reinforce the state’s expansive powers under anti-terror laws.
