The Supreme Court on Friday resumed hearing the bail petitions filed by student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shifa-ur-Rehman, all charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
ALSO READ
- Why the SC’s redefinition of the Aravalli Range is a threat to life in north India
- Will your car be impounded? How SC move to allow action against Delhi-NCR's end-of-life vehicles will affect you
- Justice Yashwant Varma moves Supreme Court against Speaker’s impeachment panel, court flags procedural lapse
- Access to justice for common person is hampered by cost, delays: CJI Surya Kant
- When Supreme Court justice took strike: Judges vs lawyers on the cricket pitch
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria heard detailed submissions from senior advocates Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi, and Siddharth Dave, appearing for the petitioners, and Additional Solicitor-General S.V. Raju for the Delhi Police.
Sibal: 751 FIRs, I am named in one
Opening his submissions for Umar Khalid, Kapil Sibal said the Delhi Police’s narrative of a larger conspiracy collapses when tested against the facts. “There are 751 FIRs lodged in connection with the February 2020 riots and I am charged in only one. If it’s a conspiracy, it’s a bit surprising that I alone am responsible for the riots.”
He argued that Khalid was not present in Delhi when the violence erupted and that no recovery of weapons, funds, acid, or any incriminating material was ever made from him or at his instance. “If I am not there, how can I be connected?” he asked the bench.
Sibal stressed that no witness has linked Khalid to any act of violence, noting, “Not a single witness has given any statement that connects the petitioner to any actual incident of violence that ensued in northeast Delhi.”
He also pointed out that while Khalid faced one additional FIR registered by the Khajuri Khas Police Station, he had been granted bail and later discharged in that case in 2022.
Referring to his client’s Amravati speech of February 2020 that described by the Delhi High Court as inflammatory, Sibal countered, “A bare perusal of the speech invokes Gandhian principles of non-violence and references to the Constitution of India. It is available on YouTube. There is nothing about instigating violence.”
Sibal reminded the bench that prolonged incarceration now over five years itself constitutes a ground for bail under settled law. “The seriousness of the offence cannot be a factor when bail is sought on the ground of prolonged incarceration,” he said, citing several Supreme Court precedents.
He further submitted that Khalid was entitled to bail on grounds of parity, given that his co-accused—Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha were granted bail by the Delhi High Court in 2021. “Those who were in Delhi during the riots are out on bail. My client, who wasn’t even present, remains in custody,” Sibal said.
Singhvi: Justice must balance liberty
Appearing for Gulfisha Fatima, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi highlighted that she was the only woman still in custody in the case and had spent over five-and-a-half years in jail since April 2020. “I am not a hardened offender,” Singhvi said, urging the court to balance the fundamental right to personal liberty with the interests of justice.
He pointed out that Fatima’s bail plea had been listed over 90 times since 2020 without resolution and argued that she too was entitled to bail on parity with other co-accused. Singhvi contended that while the prosecution had filed its main chargesheet in September 2020, it had made it an annual ritual to file a supplementary chargesheet every year, prolonging the process indefinitely.
Singhvi told the court that merely creating a WhatsApp group or coordinating protests cannot constitute an offence unless intent to incite violence is proven. “The only claim is that she helped set up a protest site. There is no evidence, documentary or oral of any violent preparation,” he said.
Dave: Three years lost to investigation
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Sharjeel Imam, underlined the delay in completing the investigation, saying, “Out of the five years I have spent in custody, three went by because the probe was still ongoing.” He pointed out that the speeches relied on by the prosecution were delivered nearly two months before the riots, arguing that there is no proximate link suggesting that he could have incited the violence.
Dave’s argument aligns with a broader concern about prolonged pre-trial detention under UAPA, where stringent bail conditions often result in incarceration stretching over years, even when trials are yet to commence.
Prosecution Cites ‘Larger Conspiracy’
The Delhi police, represented by ASG Raju, opposed the bail pleas, maintaining that the accused were part of a “larger conspiracy” aimed at orchestrating the riots through anti-CAA protests. “The seriousness of the offences and the coordinated nature of activities justify continued detention,” Raju submitted.
The police argue that the riots were not spontaneous but a meticulously planned conspiracy executed through protest networks and communication channels.
After hearing submissions from both sides, the bench slated the hearing on Monday, November 3.
The next hearing will continue to focus on whether prolonged incarceration spanning over five years without trial violates the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.
