SC Reserves Judgment On Bail Pleas Of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam And Others In Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment on the bail pleas of student activists accused in the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, bringing to a close extensive arguments on prolonged detention, delay, and the scope of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Petitioners’ arguments on delay and lack of evidence

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gulfisha Fatima, said she has now spent nearly six years in custody and remains the only woman accused still incarcerated in this FIR. Similar or more serious allegations against co-accused Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, he noted, had led to bail in 2021. He told the Court that the “great argument” of regime change does not appear in the main chargesheet or the four supplementary chargesheets, the latest of which was filed in 2023. Singhvi added that her bail application had been listed 90 times, 25 hearings lost to bench unavailability and 26 renotified, calling this a “caricature” of the justice system.

For Umar Khalid, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal emphasised that Khalid was not in Delhi when the riots broke out. The Amaravati speech cited by the prosecution, played in court by the defence, was, he argued, an appeal for a “Gandhian” non-violent protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act. “These are students, they agitate wrongly or rightly,” Sibal told the bench. “If we protest, there is no use of putting me in jail or convicting me. You can’t keep me incarcerated for protesting.” He said forms of protest such as chakka jam and rail roko may sometimes fall foul of law, but cannot be labelled terrorist acts under the UAPA. LiveLaw reported that Sibal also cited Vernon and Shoma Sen to underline the Supreme Court’s recent liberal approach in UAPA bail matters.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Sharjeel Imam, submitted that Imam was arrested a month before the riots and is already being prosecuted separately for the speeches played in court by the Additional Solicitor General. At best, he said, those speeches may attract Section 13 of the UAPA, not a terrorist act under Section 15. Dave objected to Imam being branded an “intellectual terrorist” or “anti-national”, stressing that he too enjoys a presumption of innocence.

Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid argued that the allegation against Shifa-ur-Rehman rests on claims that he used his position at AAJMI to receive funds to support protests, but “there has been no recovery of the said alleged amount”. For Meeran Haider, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Agarwal said that any delay in framing charges was attributable to the prosecution, which completed its investigation only in September 2024, a year after informing the court that arguments on charge could begin.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Luthra, for Shadab Ahmed, submitted that call detail records initially showed Ahmed was not present at the protest site, but the Delhi Police altered its stand after a year to allege conspiracy. Advocate Gautam Khazanchi, for Mohd Saleem, cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shaheen Welfare Association, dealing with prolonged detention under TADA.

Delhi Police’s submissions

The Delhi Police argued that the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act were not spontaneous but part of a coordinated “pan-India” plan aimed at “regime change” and “economic strangulation”, relying on chats from WhatsApp groups such as the Delhi Protest Support Group and Jamia Awareness Campaign Team. According to LiveLaw, the police said delays were caused by the petitioners themselves and that the trial could conclude within two years if they cooperated.

During earlier hearings, ASG S V Raju told the bench that the accused were projected as “intellectuals” outside court but were, in his words, “educated terrorists, dangerous to society”. A video compilation of Sharjeel Imam’s speeches was played, showing him calling for chakka jams in multiple cities, urging Muslims to unite, and suggesting disruption of essential supplies to Delhi. Dave responded that the clips were selectively edited to construct a narrative, noting that the full speeches already form part of the chargesheet.

The police further argued that Umar Khalid cannot claim parity with Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita or Asif Iqbal Tanha, as their 2021 bail orders rested on what the State describes as an incorrect interpretation of the UAPA.

Rebuttal and final submissions

In his final rejoinder, ASG Raju said the conspiracy must be assessed through well-settled principles of agency in criminal conspiracy, pointing to judgments including those in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. He contended that once cognisance of Section 120B IPC is taken, material connected to one accused—such as Imam’s speeches—becomes relevant against others, including Khalid.

Raju cited protected witness statements, WhatsApp and Signal communications, alleged deletion of messages, and meetings involving Khalid at the Indian Social Institute, Shaheen Bagh, the PFI office and Seelampur between December 2019 and February 2020. He said call detail records corroborate these links. He rejected defence claims of hearsay and said Khalid’s earlier discharge in a connected case occurred solely due to overlap with this FIR.

The petitions challenge the Delhi High Court’s 2 September order denying bail to Khalid, Imam, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima and Shadab Ahmed. The accused were among the student activists involved in organising the anti-CAA protests of 2019–2020 and are charged with planning the “larger conspiracy” behind the communal violence that struck north-east Delhi in late February 2020.

The Supreme Court has now reserved its verdict.

(With inputs from LiveLaw)