Today, On 2nd December, In the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case, Kapil Sibal says the State is hiding crucial evidence, arguing that “anything favouring the defence is put in unrelied documents,” as he slams the non-disclosure of the Jaffrabad video despite it forming part of the Delhi riots chargesheet.
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 Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Fatima, addressed a panel of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, stating that prolonged imprisonment equates to a pre-trial conviction.
Singhvi said,
“This will make a caricature of our criminal justice system. Nobody needs to be punished like this unless they are convicted. This is pre-trial conviction,”
He submitted,
“I’ve been in jail for almost six years. The main chargesheet came on 16.9.2020, but as if it’s a ritual, the State keeps filing supplementary chargesheets four so far, apart from the main one. The arrest was in 2020, and even after 2023, the delay is sad, astonishing, unprecedented. I’m only seeking parity. But the High Court keeps the matter pending. Then a new bench takes over. Then the appeals get listed with eight other co accused. Then they’re taken off that bench for reasons we needn’t get into. And after all that, we get the impugned judgment.”
Arguing that continued incarceration violates fundamental liberty, he added,
“All the judgments we cite, all the lofty declarations about liberty, mean nothing when someone spends 5–6 years in jail without a conclusion. What is she supposed to do if released into society? Will I run away while being under the scrutiny of the SC and the entire world? Would I destroy evidence? 5 chargesheets filed in five years. Other countries protect liberty using anklets and GPS. What public interest is served by keeping her in jail? What will she do run away?”
He emphasised that the trial had no foreseeable end,
“There’s no end to the trial in sight. The High Court keeps repeating that it’s a serious offence. And this idea that a ‘hurried trial’ would harm both sides this is a misplaced concern for the petitioner. I’d rather not have such ‘maternal’ care it reminds me of that line from ADM Jabalpur. This situation makes a caricature of our criminal justice system. No one should be punished like this without a conviction. This is pre trial punishment.”
On the issue of parity, he pointed out that Gulfisha Fatima remains the only woman among the accused still in custody.
He argued,
“And now, on parity she’s the only woman still in custody. The others got bail in 2021. Her case is even less serious. They were arrested in 2020, released in 2021, and the Supreme Court upheld their bail in May 2023. They were part of the WhatsApp conspiratorial group DPSG, the Delhi Protest Support Group. I was never a part of that. They funded women protestors; I did not. They weren’t even local residents while I lived in Seelampur.”
He then addressed submissions earlier made by the State,
“In Mr. Raju’s arguments, Gulfisha is mentioned only twice. His submissions have essentially three points: that parity shouldn’t matter that I can’t get bail on grounds of delay because I supposedly caused the delay and the broader allegation that these protests were aimed at regime change.”
Dr. Singhvi reminded the court that it had itself allowed him the opportunity to establish parity at an earlier stage.
He said,
“Your Lordships had clearly given me the option to establish parity in the earlier order. The allegation is that I attended a so-called ‘secret meeting’ along with the other women accused. That is exactly the same allegation made against Natasha and Devangana. There is no evidence of chilli powder, acid, or anything else no recovery at all. And if they uploaded details of the meeting on social media, how can it even be called a secret meeting? In the second alleged secret meeting too, Natasha and Devangana were present and had even more prominent roles than I did yet they were granted bail.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal also pointed to the non-disclosure of crucial evidence, stating,
“We’ve actually filed an application asking that the Jaffrabad video be released, but they refuse to disclose it, saying they won’t rely on it even though it forms part of the chargesheet. Anything that helps the defence conveniently gets pushed into the unrelied documents.”
Dr. Singhvi continued his rebuttal of specific allegations,
“Let them show something. They allege I supplied stones and chilli powder to women in Jahangirpuri this is extremely unfortunate. Then they claim I received funds from Tahir Hussain, but the protected witness’s statement was recorded six months later and doesn’t specify when or how much money was given.”
He further said,
“And then there are other allegations mentioned in their counter but never argued. I don’t understand why. Natasha has been on bail since 2021. They call me an insider it’s just a vague label. Yes, there was a 24-hour sit in at Madina Masjid, but there’s no allegation of violence there. I’m being grouped entirely with Natasha and Devangana, even though my role is smaller. On that ground alone, I should be granted parity.”
On the State’s argument of “regime change,” he remarked,
“Regime change is just to make it sound more heavy.”
At this point, the Bench clarified that the reference may have come from a different accused, stating,
“I think that is in reference to Mr. Sharjeel Imam.”
Dr. Singhvi responded,
“I am not awar of his facts. In the entire chargesheet there is no mention of regime change anywhere.”
He added,
“The person who mentioned regime change is not even an accused.”
With this, Dr. Singhvi concluded his submissions, after which Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal began his arguments.
The Bench then briefly paused the proceedings, noting,
“We have some preliminary work. Come back at 12:30.”
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