The Delhi High Court postponed its decision on bail requests from Alumni Association of Jamia Millia Islamia president Shifa-ur-Rehman and student activist Gulfisha Fatima in relation to the case involving the purported broader conspiracy behind the 2020 riots.
The Delhi High Court has recently concluded hearings on the bail applications of Shifa-ur-Rehman, the president of the Alumni Association of Jamia Millia Islamia, and Gulfisha Fatima, a noted student activist. These hearings are part of the broader legal scrutiny into the alleged conspiracy behind the violent outbreaks in northeast Delhi in February 2020, which resulted in the tragic loss of 53 lives and left over 700 individuals injured.
The bench, comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain, has taken these pleas under advisement after listening to arguments from both the defense and the prosecution. The accused, alongside other prominent figures such as Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal, face charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and various sections of the Indian Penal Code. They are accused of orchestrating the riots, which were sparked by protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
The legal proceedings have been under the spotlight, especially since the bail pleas were initially pending before a division bench led by Justice Siddharth Mridul, who has since been appointed as the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court. The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), Amit Prasad, representing the Delhi Police, has strongly opposed the bail applications. He highlighted the statements of 58 protected witnesses, which he argues demonstrate the accused’s prima facie involvement in the conspiracy to incite violence. Prasad has called for a day-to-day trial, emphasizing the gravity and complexity of the case.
However, the court queried the SPP on the rationale behind prioritizing this case over others, reflecting the judiciary’s balancing act between individual rights and societal safety. The SPP also mentioned that a supplementary charge sheet is anticipated, pending Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports, which will further elucidate the investigation’s status.
The defense has argued for parity, noting that other accused individuals like Kalita, Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha have been granted bail. Sushil Bajaj, representing Fatima, pointed out that her alleged involvement is purportedly less significant than that of the others. However, the prosecution countered this by referencing the High Court’s previous decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid, underlining the perceived depth of the conspiracy.
Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, defending Rehman, argued against the characterization of protests and sit-ins as terrorist activities under the UAPA, asserting that such a stance would undermine the country’s jurisprudence of liberty. Despite these arguments, both Rehman and Fatima’s bail pleas have been previously rejected by the trial court, with the court affirming the prima facie validity of the accusations against them.
As the Delhi High Court reserves its judgment, the legal and public communities eagerly await the outcome, which will undoubtedly have significant implications for the interpretation of anti-terror laws, the right to protest, and the broader discourse on civil liberties in India. The resolution of these bail pleas will not only affect the individuals involved but also set precedents for future cases related to political dissent and national security.
