Today, On 18th November, In the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case, Delhi Police told the Supreme Court that earlier bail orders granted to co-accused cannot be treated as precedent in the ongoing bail plea of Umar Khalid.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court continued hearing the bail pleas filed by several accused in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
The matter came up before a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria.
The bail applications of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider are being heard together.
The case is linked to allegations that the accused were part of a conspiracy to incite violence during the 2020 riots in Delhi, which occurred following protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi Police, told the court that the 2020 Delhi violence was not an instant reaction but a calculated plan.
He said the riots were “orchestrated, pre-planned, well-designed riots.”
He stated,
“It was told that there was a protest which resulted in communal riots. First of all, that myth to be busted. This was not a spontaneous riot. It was a well designed, well-crafted, well-orchestrated, pre-planned riot. That will emerge from the evidence collected. This was not spontaneous. It was an attack on the sovereignty of the nation,”
He added that the entire incident was an attempt against the sovereignty of India.
He submitted that ,
“Speech after speech, statement after statement, there was attempt to divide the society on communal lines. It was not merely an agitation against some act,”
He referred to Sharjeel Imam and said he had expressed a heartfelt wish for “chakka jaam for every city where Muslims reside. Not just in Delhi.”
Mehta referred to another speech in which the speaker allegedly said that Muslims form 30% of the population and asked why the cities were still running. The individual also reportedly said Muslims must unite. Mehta argued this was extremely serious as there was an attempt to divide the country on communal lines.
He said,
“The real goal was that Delhi should not get milk or water and it was not a protest”.
He added that the person also said “court ko unki naani yaad dila denge”.
He further argued that,
“The delay in the trial was caused by the accused and not by the prosecution. Each accused had argued for 4–5 days opposing the framing of charges. He said that when facts are difficult to defend, the common tactic becomes to delay the trial instead of facing the merits and then securing bail.”
He said the police had recovered a systematic WhatsApp group.
The Solicitor General continued,
“The WhatsApp chats show how the property is to be damaged, how money is to be collected. It was a systematic and synchronised attempt to divide the society and divide the nation. It was not the case of a communal riots per se.”
He added,
“Something very serious is going on with young people outside the court. The narrative….”
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, also representing the Delhi Police, rebutted the defense’s argument for parity with other accused individuals who had received bail from the Delhi High Court.
He emphasized that the Supreme Court had specifically ruled that the bail orders for Natasha Narwal, Devangna Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha should not be considered as precedents.
Raju argued,
“Essentially, there are three parts. One is parity, second is delay, third is merits. Let me first demolish the case on parity. They are relying on a judgement of co-accused. Out of which 2 were ladies – Natasha Narwal and Devangna Kalita – and third was Asif Iqbal Tanha. The order granting bail was challenged before this court. Initially, this Court granted interim order of 18.6.21 for Gulfisha. It was said that it was not to be treated as a precedent and may not be relied upon by any other party. So categorical restraint. The final order was passed on May 2, 2023. The bail orders were not supposed to be used as precedent. That is clear. The law which was enunciated was not approved by this court,”
In response to Justice Kumar’s inquiry about the necessity of showing parity between cases, Raju asserted that the accused were granted bail not based on legal principles but due to specific factual circumstances.
He noted that the stringent criteria set forth in Section 43 of the UAPA had not been considered, stating that if the accusations have a prima facie basis, bail cannot be granted. The Supreme Court had indicated restrictions when sitting in bail cancellation matters.
According to the ASG,
“The Supreme Court would not have granted bail had the interpretation of 43 been made correctly by the High Court.”
When the Bench queried whether the offences arose from the same FIR, Raju affirmed this.
The Bench then asked how they would differentiate among the cases, to which Raju clarified that their argument was rooted in legal principles rather than the nuances of the facts. He reiterated that the High Court’s ruling that the UAPA could not be applied unless it involved the defense of India was a matter of legal interpretation.
He noted,
“They are not on facts. If a person is accused under UAPA chapters 4 and 6, the Court cannot grant bail unless Section 43 is complied with. When the High Court said 43 does not apply, they did not state it on factual grounds. They interpreted the application of UAPA as limited to defense of India. The High Court provided a statutory interpretation and declared that Section 43D (5) is not applicable,”
Raju criticized the High Court’s decision to grant bail to co-accused, arguing that it was flawed, even though the Supreme Court did not set-aside that order. He underscored that the High Court should have examined the issue from the factual perspective.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju added,
“The bail orders were not supposed to be used as precedent. That is clear. The law which was enunciated by the High Court was not approved by this court Supreme Court,” .
He pointed out that if the High Court determined that Section 43 was not applicable, it would fall under the standard criminal law provisions; thus, they could not grant bail, given that Section 437 pertains to imprisonment for life.
Moreover, Raju referenced earlier bail requests submitted by Umar Khalid, stating that he could not apply for bail again unless there were new circumstances.
Raju asserted,
“There’s one more aspect on parity which is peculiar to Khalid’s case. You can file successive bail applications, but you can’t do so on the same facts. There have to be changed material circumstances. Let us see whether the question of parity was in existence when Khalid’s bail was being argued. When the High Court rejected bail, he must have argued on parity already when he knew the co-accused had been granted bail. There is no change in material circumstance. Parity was already in question when his earlier bail application was rejected. There is therefore, no change in circumstance as far as parity is concerned in Umar Khalid’s case,”
He further noted the trial court’s disapproval of the accused for attempting to delay the proceedings, stating,
“The trial court has expressed its distress because the accused are delaying the proceedings.”
The hearing on this matter will continue on November 20, Thursday.
Earlier, On 3rd November, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, told the Supreme Court that out of 751 Delhi riots FIRs, 116 cases have been tried and 97 ended in acquittals, with 17 involving fabricated documents, exposing poor investigation quality.
Previously, On 31st October Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, and Siddharth Dave made strong submissions before the Supreme Court in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, arguing that the prolonged incarceration of their clients violated the principles of liberty and fairness.
Previously, The Delhi Police firmly opposed the release of student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and three others charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case.
In a statement to the Supreme Court, the police contended that the alleged offenses represented a deliberate attempt to undermine the state, thus justifying “jail and not bail,” as reported by media outlets on Thursday.
The police argued that the petitioners were attempting to portray themselves as victims due to prolonged imprisonment, even though the delay in the trial was a result of their own actions.
In a detailed 177-page affidavit submitted on October 30, the Delhi Police argued that the violence that erupted in February 2020 was not merely a spontaneous reaction to protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), but rather a part of a coordinated “regime change operation” disguised as civil dissent, according to a report in the media.
This development comes just a day before the case is set for a hearing.
Also Read: India’s 53rd Chief Justice: Centre Approves Appointment of Justice Surya Kant As CJI
The police indicated that encrypted chats and messages show the protests were strategically timed to coincide with Trump’s visit in February 2020, ensuring global attention.
The prosecution also pointed to unrest that erupted around the same time in various states, including Uttar Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, and Bihar, suggesting a “pan-India plan” rather than isolated incidents.
Recently, Umar Khalid informed the sessions court at Karkardooma that the prosecution has added embellishments to the chargesheet regarding the larger conspiracy case tied to the 2020 Delhi Riots.
The accused in this case include Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, and Faizan Khan.
The violence occurred during protests against the proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC), resulting in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries.
According to the allegations, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa Ur Rehman and Meeran Haider were involved in orchestrating protests, delivering inflammatory speeches and mobilising crowds, which, as per the prosecution, triggered the large-scale violence in Delhi in 2020.
They are now seeking bail from the Supreme Court under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) concerning the February 2020 Delhi riots. In 2020, Imam was arrested under the UAPA and identified as the main conspirator in the Delhi riots case.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is set to hear the bail applications filed by Khalid and others on Friday, October 31.
Earlier, On September 2, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Imam, Khalid, and seven others: Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, Abdul Khalid Saifi, and Gulfisha Fatima. On the same day, another accused, Tasleem Ahmed, had his bail plea rejected by a different bench of the High Court.
Case Title: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and registered as SLP (Crl.) No. 13988/2025
Read Live Coverage
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Delhi riots case