The Supreme Court held that activist Gulfisha Fatima did not exercise independent command, resource control, or strategic oversight over multiple protest sites during the 2020 Delhi riots. Granting her bail, the court said continued custody was unnecessary as she lacked autonomous authority and parity applied with the co-accused already on bail.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday granted bail to activist Gulfisha Fatima in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots case, observing that she did not have independent authority, control over resources, or strategic command over multiple protest sites during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria clearly stated that Gulfisha Fatima’s role was different from that of the alleged main conspirators Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. While allowing her bail plea, the court examined whether she exercised any real leadership or decision-making power in the protests.
The bench noted,
“The allegation that Gulfisha Fatima mobilised local women and coordinated protest-site logistics, though relevant to the prosecution’s case, does not presently disclose that she exercised independent command, resource control, or strategic oversight over multiple protest sites.”
The court further pointed out that the prosecution itself accepted that Fatima was acting under directions from others who were placed higher in the alleged hierarchy of the protest movement.
On this aspect, the bench observed,
“The prosecution itself asserts that directions were conveyed to her by others higher in the asserted hierarchy. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the level of attributed agency and control does not justify continued incarceration once the investigative purpose stands substantially fulfilled,”
making it clear that keeping her in jail any longer was not necessary.
Addressing concerns raised by the prosecution about the possibility of witness tampering or revival of the alleged protest network if Fatima was released, the Supreme Court rejected such fears.
It held,
“The apex court said apprehension that Fatima’s release may lead to interference with witnesses or revival of the alleged operational network is considerably weakened by the absence of material suggesting that she retains any autonomous capacity to mobilise persons or resources in the current circumstances.”
The court further added,
“It is undisputed that the structures relied upon by the prosecution both formal or informal no longer exist in their asserted form, and the appellant’s present ability to exert influence is neither pleaded with specificity nor supported by contemporaneous material.”
Emphasising that strict bail conditions would be enough to manage any remaining risk, the bench said,
“The imposition of stringent conditions can sufficiently safeguard against any residual risk,”
making it clear that continued detention was not justified.
The Supreme Court stressed that even in serious cases, constitutional principles cannot be ignored. It observed,
“The top court said the gravity of the incidents, though serious, cannot eclipse the constitutional demand for individualised assessment of necessity in pre-trial detention.”
The bench further warned against prolonged pre-trial incarceration based only on the seriousness of allegations, stating,
“Prolonged incarceration premised solely on the seriousness of allegations, absent a proximate and continuing nexus between the appellant and present threats to the administration of justice, would amount to a punitive measure inconsistent with settled principles.”
The court concluded on this point by saying,
“In view of her alleged executory role and absence of demonstrable present capacity to influence proceedings, continued custody does not meet the threshold of necessity,”
underlining that legal standards for denying bail were not met.
Taking into account the long period Fatima has already spent in jail, the Supreme Court further observed,
“The apex court said Fatima has remained in custody for a substantial period, and there is no material to indicate that her release would pose an irremediable risk that cannot be addressed by restrictive conditions.”
The bench also highlighted an important principle of criminal law, stating,
“The law does not envisage incarceration as a measure of deterrence at the pre-trial stage, particularly where the individual concerned is a woman with no prior criminal antecedents and whose alleged actions stem from a ground-level facilitating role.”
Comparing her case with those of other accused who were already granted bail, the court said,
“The allegations attributed to the Appellant i.e. assignment of protest sites, coordination of local mobilisation, participation in meetings of DPSG (Delhi Protest Support Group) members, and logistical execution of protest activities are substantially identical to the allegations against co-accused Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, who allegedly conveyed DPSG directions to the Appellant and jointly coordinated the Seelampur/Jafrabad protest sites,”
establishing parity.
On the principle of equal treatment, the bench clearly ruled,
“It said once bail has been granted to co-accused who stand on the same factual and legal footing in terms of alleged roles, meetings, communications, and purported execution on the ground, continued incarceration of Fatima violates the settled principle of parity.”
The court further added,
“The court said in the absence of any distinguishing material against Fatima, denial of bail would constitute hostile discrimination vis-a-vis similarly situated co- accused, offending Article 14 and the doctrine of parity.”
While refusing bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, the Supreme Court granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima along with Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad. The court directed them to execute personal bonds of Rs 2 lakh each with two local sureties of the same amount.
Laying down strict conditions, the court ordered,
“The appellants shall remain within the National Capital Territory of Delhi and shall not leave its territorial limits without prior permission of the trial court.”
It further clarified,
“Any request for travel shall disclose reasons and such prayer/request shall be considered by the trial court strictly on its merits,”
ensuring close judicial monitoring.
The February 2020 violence in northeast Delhi had resulted in the death of 53 people and injuries to more than 700 others. The riots had erupted amid large-scale protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Case Title:
Gulfisha Fatima and ors v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
RISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 13988/2025
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Delhi riots
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
