Today, On 2nd December, In the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case, Snr Adv Kapil Sibal, representing Umar Khalid, said Khalid’s Amravati speech carried no communal message or incitement, arguing before the Supreme Court that vague conspiracy allegations and prolonged custody cannot replace evidence, while asserting his continued innocence under UAPA scrutiny.
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).
The matter was taken up by the Bench, which heard extensive submissions from Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi representing Gulfisha Fatima and later prepared to hear Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Umar Khalid
At the beginning of his arguments, Dr. Singhvi pointed out the prolonged incarceration faced by the accused.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal began his rejoinder submissions by reminding the Bench that his client has been behind bars for five years and three months, since September 13, 2020.
He added that if the bail plea is rejected now, Umar Khalid would remain in custody for at least three more years, stressing that
“That will be eight years without trial.”
Mr. Sibal said that Khalid is an academic and that the prosecution has not attributed any specific unlawful act to him.
He pointed out that the allegations are based only on an omnibus FIR that talks about an overarching conspiracy, arguing that no individual act has been assigned to his client. He repeated Khalid’s own plea before the Court,
“I am an individual. I have not been attributed any overt act. I am involved only on the basis of this overall conspiracy theory.”
Mr. Sibal addressed the issue of delay in the trial. Referring to the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order denying bail, he said the order never accepted the prosecution’s argument that the delay was caused by the accused.
He argued that the delay was entirely because the Delhi Police refused to state that the investigation was complete. He told the Bench that the trial remained stayed for 334 days because the Delhi Police did not supply the required documents. Even after the filing of the latest chargesheet on June 9, 2023, he said, the prosecution kept insisting that the investigation was still not over.
Mr. Sibal questioned how a public speech by Mr. Khalid in Amravati on February 17, 2020 could attract UAPA charges. He played the speech in open court and noted that Khalid had spoken about responding to violence with peace and countering hatred with love.
He asked the Bench,
“How is this a violation of the UAPA?”
Justice Kumar responded by noting the Delhi Police allegation that the speech contributed to the February 2020 riots, which caused 53 deaths and injuries to hundreds of people.
Mr. Sibal replied that Umar Khalid was not even present when the riots took place.
He argued,
“You cannot attribute someone else’s speech to me and say I am responsible for the riots,”
He added,
“I ask myself, I am an academic in an institution. What can I do to overthrow the State?”
He emphasised once again that the Amravati speech was neither communal nor inflammatory in any manner. He pointed out that similar allegations had been made against co-accused who are already out on bail, and said,
“Nobody can call his speech inflammatory in any sense of the word.”
Mr. Sibal told the Court that the continued custody of Umar Khalid serves no public interest and has become punitive instead of preventive.
He argued that if the Court grants bail, it has enough legal tools to ensure that Khalid does not engage in any activity that threatens the State.
He stressed that the prolonged incarceration of his client is not justified, saying,
“I am innocent till I am guilty. This is a punitive act of the state to ensure that I am in jail so that other students of the university do not do this.”
Senior advocate Siddhartha Dave began his rejoinder submissions on behalf of Sharjeel Imam. He said that the State has repeatedly projected his client as a terrorist despite the fact that he has never been convicted of any crime.
He told the Court that Imam continues to be labelled as an extremist without legal basis.
He asserted,
“I am not a terrorist. I am not an anti-national. I am a citizen of this country,”
He added that the State has described his client as a “dangerous intellectual terrorist” despite having no conviction to rely on.
The matter will continue tomorrow.
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