Today, On 3rd November, Meeran Haider told the Supreme Court, “I specifically said Sharjeel Imam should not be allowed at the protest site,” while defending himself in the Delhi riots case, saying there is no evidence linking him to any violence under UAPA.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard today the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider, who have been accused in the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots.
The matter came up before a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Khalid, while Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju is representing the Delhi Police.
Mr. Sibal highlighted that out of 116 cases related to the Delhi riots that have gone to trial and concluded, 97 have ended in acquittals, and in nearly 17 of those, the courts have noted the fabrication of evidence.
Justice Kumar asked him how that fact was relevant to his client’s case. Mr. Sibal clarified that he was not directly concerned with those cases but was simply placing factual information before the court.
Also Read: Stay Curious and Never Stop Learning: CJI-Designate Justice Surya Kant to Young Lawyers
Sibal said,
“There were 751 FIRs each with the jurisdictional police. I was in one of them. I was discharged. There was another FIR which deals with conspiracy. I am in that. Not in any of the 751 FIRs. The 750 are separate. I am not involved in any of them. I was discharged in December 2022. I am involved in the conspiracy case. Of the 751, 116 cases have been tried and concluded out of which 97 ended up in acquittal. In 17 out of those cases there was fabrication of documents,”
Justice Kumar intervened and asked,
“How are you concerned with that?”
To this, Sibal responded,
“Just a fact.”
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju commented,
“Just to create prejudice.”
The hearing also saw detailed submissions from Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, who appeared for Shifa-ur-Rehman, head of the Alumni Association of Jamia Millia Islamia.
Drawing a parallel to the Chicago 7 trial during the Vietnam War, Khurshid said,
“I urge to consider, to recall during the Vietnam war there was the Chicago 7 trial. Essentially nobody is in dispute that if there is a law you disagree with you have a right to protest. Where is the line to be drawn if somebody is protesting peacefully to make that into a large horrendous crime. On behalf of the head of the alumni association of Jamia, no one has anywhere said that he was involved in violence. He has been cherry picked and made an accused. Nothing under the UAPA act is made out in any of the allegations. Even if we accept all allegations to be true. I have done nothing to delay the trial. Please look at the background of the person. He has fought for local body locations. He treats Jamia as his home. When the DPSG was formed he was not a member of that group. He was involved in meetings to support the people taking part in the protest but nobody has said he supported them in a manner which was unlawful.”
Khurshid highlighted that the police action at Jamia in December 2019 preceded the February riots, saying,
“There was incident in Jamia before the riots happened. The riots happened in February. In December, the police marched into the university. That matter is still pending in the high court. Even then he (Rehman) was not involved in any act of violence.”
He further stated,
“All this is there in the chargesheet. Petitioner was not allowed to speak in the WhatsApp group. He was included in the Jamia coordination committee. He was not allowed to chair or speak. This comes from the chargesheet itself. When he was arrested there were only two statements against him. The statements were there before he was arrested. They were all present in the protest movement. There was no evidence that I provoked. None of the witnesses have said that he has done anything illegal.”
Arguing on parity, Khurshid said,
“On the issue of parity, if nothing else, on parity I am entitled to get bail. The three were granted bail by the high court. It was not to be treated as precedent but it could be taken for the purpose of parity. Your lordships had sustained their bail.”
He also addressed the allegation of attending a meeting around the time of the riots.
Khurshid said,
“There is an argument which is an allegation of him having attended a meeting on the 22nd Feb just around the time when the riots had happened. AAJMI office bearers were present and therefore it’s taken that I was present. I may have been present but whether I have participated or spoken anything is very critical at this point,”
Citing Karim Saddam vs. NIA, he added,
“Lastly, he’s had the benefit of interim bail on two occasions and he has dutifully surrendered when required to do so. There are no other cases in which he has been accused. If anything had to happen on violence he would have participated when it happened in Jamia. I beseech that in view of the lessons learnt in Chicago 7.”
Justice Kumar responded,
“No, this is in India.”
Khurshid replied,
“We have always been told that the Gandhian method is that if there is an unjust law it is our moral obligation to defy the law.”
After Khurshid concluded, Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal appeared for Meeran Haider, stating,
“The high court categorised all of us as accused persons under trial on the basis of inter se parities between us. I was placed in the third category with Shifa Ur Rehman. Please see the findings against me.”
Agarwal argued,
“According to the prosecution 1.6 crore was the amount spent. The allegation was I received 80,000 in my bank account. In cash I got 4.5 lakh according to them out of which I spent 2 lakhs. When we balance the rights of accused with the prosecution we are looking at an allegation saying that somebody paid 2 lakhs out of a 1.6 crore arrangement. Three accused persons were granted bail by DHC in 2021. Same matter. Same conspirator. One of them was Aasif Iqbal Tanha. They were granted bail on merits. This judgement was challenged before this court. At the initial stage it said that this judgement will not be considered as a precedent. Finally this Court upheld bail. The three persons are still on bail. The SLP was dismissed.”
He added,
“There are three persons. They were granted bail. That bail was upheld. We raised the issue of parity before the high court. My role was much better, much lighter. I was arrested on 1st April 2020. I have spent 5 years and 7 months. Even in the last chargesheet it is said that the investigation is still going on.”
Agarwal continued,
“I was released on interim bail, I surrendered on time, I did not tamper with any evidence. Prosecution has not admitted that investigation qua me is over. They filed a chargesheet without my arrest. My presence was not threatening the witnesses or their investigation.”
He also pointed out that “for many of the cases I have either complied the maximum sentence or 50% of the sentence that could be prescribed. It must be demonstrated that I will be given a fair and early trial.”
Agarwal further told the bench,
“I will point all this out before the Court at the time of charge. Allegation is I was in conspiracy with Sharjeel Imam. I put out a tweet that this person named Sharjeel Imam should not be allowed to any of the protests. He was not present on any of the rioting sites, no CCTV footage. These issues show that accused here are not the one who have no case and should be presumed to be guilty in that context and be kept in custody till the time investigation is over.”
On the alleged Chand Bagh meeting, he clarified,
“The photograph used by the prosecution does not show my presence in the secret meeting at Chand Bagh.“
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta interjected,
“The person clicking the photo is not visible in the photograph.”
Agarwal concluded,
“Only Sharjeel Imam and Ummar Khalid are accused persons as on day. My name is not even there in the chargesheet under the same allegation it is there in the counter affidavit. Those are my submissions.”
Advocate Gautam Khazanchi, representing Mohd. Saleem Khan, submitted,
“I am a permanent resident of Chand Bagh. It was one of the areas affected by the riots. I reside there with my children. I was arrested first in 2020. While I was in custody I was arrested in 2022 in the present FIR. As far as the other FIRs are concerned I am on bail. I am not a member of any organisation. I am not even a member of any WhatsApp group. There is not even a single speech let alone any inflammatory speech qua me.”
He added,
“There is no victim that has come forth and said I have acted in violence. My allegation is that I was one of the main organisers of the Chand Bagh protest. My presence in the meetings is recorded by witness statements two months after my arrest. Prosecution relies on CCTV footage in which I am not there.”
Khazanchi further said,
“He has surrendered on each occasion. The purpose of this indulgence (of interim bail) was granted for the welfare of his children. Enough has been said in delay and parity. The same principles apply to my case. I am also in custody for 5 years. The role prescribed to the persons granted bail are much more graver.”
The hearing concluded , with the Supreme Court listing the matter for further hearing on November 6 at 2 pm.
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.
Appearing for activist Gulfisha Fatima, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the Bench that his client had been in custody for more than five years without trial.
Additionally, during earlier hearing , Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, told the supreme court that 59 hearing days were lost due to the DSP’s absence and lawyers’ strikes, yet Umar Khalid is blamed for delays, even though he said, “The day when the riots took place I was not in Delhi.”
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.
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.
The prosecution, as cited by media, alleged that the plan intended to provoke communal tensions during US President Donald Trump’s visit, aiming to ‘internationalise’ the unrest and portray the Government of India as discriminatory.
Recently, a bench consisting of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria urged the enforcement agency to reconsider whether the accused many of whom have been held in judicial custody as undertrials for nearly five years could be granted bail.
Also Read: India’s 53rd Chief Justice: Centre Approves Appointment of Justice Surya Kant As CJI
Under the UAPA, courts must first establish that the allegations do not, even on a prima facie basis, indicate involvement in terrorist activities before bail can be granted.
The Delhi Police argued that this threshold has not been met in this case.
The affidavit, filed by advocate Rajat Nair, claimed that investigators have gathered ocular, documentary, and technical evidence to demonstrate that the accused were part of a “deep-rooted conspiracy” driven by communal motives.
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.
During that hearing, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, representing Khalid, argued that the Delhi Police has distorted witness statements.
He stated,
“He [Khalid] has been in custody for 5 years for this. No violence had occurred. No weapons were recovered. Chargesheet has embellishment added by prosecution. Without evidence, there is no criminality,”
After concluding his arguments for the day, Pais requested that Khalid be allowed two books in Tihar Jail, including one on cricket.
The court is currently deliberating on the charges in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case.
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.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Delhi riots case