In a striking escalation of its stand on the 2020 Delhi riots, the Delhi Police have termed the violence not as a spontaneous outburst of public anger but as part of an orchestrated regime change operation. The claim, made in a 177-page affidavit by the Delhi Police before the Supreme Court, represents one of the strongest official assertions yet about the alleged political and ideological motivations behind the riots.
The affidavit is in response to the bail pleas of student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who have been in prison for over five years under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Along with them, activists Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider are also among those accused of conspiring to instigate the violence.
Deep-rooted conspiracy and coordinated unrest
According to the affidavit, the police claim that their investigation has unearthed ocular, documentary, and technical evidence suggesting that the riots were not a localised flare-up but part of a deep-rooted conspiracy to destabilise the Indian state.
“The plan was designed to weaponise public dissent against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and strike at the sovereignty and integrity of India,” the affidavit states. It adds that the violence was organised and calibrated, mirroring patterns of unrest observed in Assam, Karnataka, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, suggesting a synchronised attempt to destabilise the government through orchestrated violence.
The affidavit accused the defendants of deliberately stalling the trial, claiming that the process of supplying documents alone consumed 39 hearings over two years, while the framing of charges has remained pending for nearly 50 hearings.
Bail pleas and Supreme Court rebuke
Earlier this week, the top court had refused to grant a two-week extension sought by Delhi Police to file its reply to the bail pleas of Khalid, Imam, Fatima, and Haider. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria made it clear that no further delay would be tolerated.
The top court is slated to hear the case on October 31.
Criminal law operates on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. However, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), this standard is reversed; courts can grant bail only if they are satisfied that the allegations, even on a prima facie basis, do not indicate involvement in terrorist activity. In this case, the Delhi Police contend that this threshold is not met, arguing that the evidence points to active participation in a larger conspiracy.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the activists have been incarcerated for more than five years without trial, urging the court to ensure the bail pleas are not lost in procedural delays.
The prolonged incarceration of Khalid and others has repeatedly drawn criticism from rights groups and civil society organisations, who argue that the continued use of the UAPA in such cases has created a chilling effect on dissent.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had rejected the bail pleas of nine accused, including Khalid and Imam, holding that conspiratorial violence masquerading as public protest cannot be tolerated. The court, however, reiterated that the constitutional right to peaceful protest under Article 19(1)(a) remains intact, drawing a clear distinction between dissent and violence.
The High Court had observed that the prosecution had presented prima facie evidence indicating the existence of a larger conspiracy behind the riots. That order has since been challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Delhi riots of February 2020 erupted amid nationwide protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the proposed National Register of Citizens. The violence left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured, according to official figures.
Legal and political implications
The Delhi Police’s latest affidavit is likely to reignite debate over the use of anti-terror laws in protest-related cases and the boundaries between dissent and sedition. Legal experts say the framing of the riots as a regime change operation marks a shift in tone, raising the stakes of what is otherwise a bail proceeding.
As the matter heads for another crucial hearing, the case continues to serve as a litmus test for India’s anti-terror framework and its intersection with civil liberties. For the accused, the immediate question remains whether the country’s highest court will see their prolonged detention as justified or as an example of how the pursuit of security can sometimes come at the cost of freedom.
