Activist Gulfisha Fatima has approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court rejected her bail plea in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case, highlighting ongoing legal battles under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
Activist Gulfisha Fatima approached the Supreme Court to contest a Delhi High Court ruling that denied her bail in the “larger conspiracy” case linked to the February 2020 riots in Delhi.
Earlier, On September 2, Fatima and eight others, including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, were denied bail. The high court stated that “conspiratorial violence disguised as demonstrations or protests cannot be tolerated.”
On the same day, Sharjeel Imam also filed a plea in the Supreme Court challenging the high court’s bail denial.
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed the bail applications of Fatima, Imam, Khalid, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, and Abdul Khalid Saifi, asserting that the Constitution grants citizens the right to protest and demonstrate in an orderly, peaceful manner, as long as it complies with legal boundaries.
Fatima was a prominent figure in organizing protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and was arrested in April 2020. She faces multiple charges, including those under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
The Delhi Police’s chargesheet alleges that she, along with others, orchestrated a “larger conspiracy” behind the communal riots that shook the capital in late February 2020.
In its ruling on September 2, the high court recognized that the right to engage in peaceful protests and public speeches is protected under Article 19(1)(a) but emphasized that this right is “not absolute” and “subject to reasonable restrictions.”
The court stated,
“If the exercise of an unfettered right to protest were permitted, it would damage the constitutional framework and impinge upon the law-and-order situation in the country.”
It further clarified that any conspiratorial violence disguised as protests must not be allowed and should be controlled by state authorities, as such actions do not fall within the scope of freedom of speech, expression, and association.
Addressing the reasons for delays in the trial and the time already served by the accused, the high court noted that such grounds are not “universally applicable” in every case. It reiterated that the authority to grant or deny bail lies with the constitutional court, based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
The court also dismissed requests for parity with co-accused individuals Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal, who had been granted bail by another bench of the high court.
Fatima, Khalid, Imam, and the other accused have been charged under UAPA and various sections of the IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” behind the February 2020 riots, which resulted in 53 fatalities and over 700 injuries.
The violence erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens. All accused have remained in custody since 2020.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Delhi riots case