Today, On 9th December, Sharjeel Imam told the Supreme Court that he has spent six years in jail even though he is not named in any of the 750 FIRs linked to the riots and that courts have already held he made no call to pick up weapons.
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).
During today’s hearing, counsel for Sharjeel Imam argued that while certain elements of his controversial speeches central to the case against him were objectionable, they should not automatically invoke the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
This contention is bolstered by the fact that Imam has not been named in any of the 750 FIRs related to actual riot violence and fatalities.
Imam’s lawyer sought bail on the grounds of his six-year detention as an undertrial prisoner. The other defendants also wrapped up their arguments today. Tomorrow, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju will present his arguments on behalf of the Delhi Police.
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, representing Imam, stated that Imam has already been granted bail in the case stemming from his speech.
He noted,
“Where I gave the speech, where the FIR is registered I am already enlarged on bail. In the trial for the speech, I have been enlarged on bail,”
He further emphasized that the current case is a broader conspiracy charge based on that speech, not an individual offense.
Dave argued,
“The charge is not whether my speech individually is falling foul of section 15 of UAPA. In the actual riots cases where 750 FIRs were filed, section 15 is not invoked. This is conspiracy to commit that offense where I am not named in 750 FIRs. We have to see whether the speeches were conspiratorial in nature,”
He referred to a trial court order that had previously rejected Imam’s bail, which stated that Imam did not incite any violence.
He claimed,
“It has been held that I made no call to pick up any weapons. I am being prosecuted not twice not thrice, but maybe 8-10 times for the speeches I have given,”
Justice Kumar requested Dave to read Imam’s speeches from Asansol. Dave acknowledged that some parts of the speeches were indeed “unpalatable,” but stressed Imam’s lengthy imprisonment.
He contended,
“Some of his speeches are unpalatable. It could have been better worded. It could have remained within the four corners of law. Should not have done it. But today he is standing asking for bail after 6 years in custody. He is not physically present or an accused in any of the cases where the riots actually took place,”
Dave then read excerpts from Imam’s speech, including his assertion that “whatever has been happening since the last 6 months is a direct attack on Muslims.”
He emphasized that he has already secured bail for giving these speeches.
Justice Kumar pointed out Imam’s reference to a “Chakka Jaam” speech on January 22. Dave responded by saying that he has already been prosecuted for that incident and maintained that his speeches cannot be labeled as conspiratorial. He elaborated on the investigative process surrounding UAPA cases, explaining that the NIA, the premier investigative agency for UAPA, only takes over the case under specific circumstances.
Dave stated,
“Unlike counsel on my side, I am not throwing anyone under the bus. But I am saying that those who were physically present, part of the WhatsApp group, part of the meeting, they have been granted bail. And I am here only for my speeches,”
He continued to dissect the arguments against Imam, asserting that he has faced extensive prosecution based solely on his speeches rather than direct involvement in any riots.
Dave concluded,
“They say the speech has led to conspiracy. The role to me is only of these speeches. If these speeches lead to the riots, I would have been prosecuted for the riots. 750 FIRs but I was not prosecuted in them… 6 years of custody as an under trial, in a case for conspiracy, given the voluminous nature, given the time for trial, I am only asking for bail,”
Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Shifa-ur-Rehman, countered allegations claiming he received Rs.8 lakh to manage a protest site. Khurshid asserted that supporting a protest, as long as it is peaceful, is not illegal.
He argued,
“There’s some money received by the petitioner here. The worst allegation is 8 lakhs saying that it was used to look after the protest site. But no recovery, no evidence of transfer… a protest site being supported is not an illegal. If the protest is non-violent,”
Khurshid further noted that Rehman has no criminal history and is not responsible for delaying the trial.
He stressed,
“I was not part of the WhatsApp group, I don’t have a single FIR against me,”
He maintained that mere opposition to a law like the CAA does not constitute an offense.
Khurshid continued,
“Mens Rea must be there in conspiracy. And the other one is causation. They should be able to show that causation has to be direct. I am simply saying that I have said nothing, done nothing. The only allegation is that I used Rs.1 lakh to support people during protests,”
He likened the situation to historical acts of civil disobedience, emphasizing that peaceful dissent does not equate to violence.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, representing Meeran Haider, asserted an alibi for the meetings where the alleged conspiracy was formed.
Explaining that he was out of Delhi due to his mother’s death, he pointed out,
“I have been in custody for 6 years for being involved in two meetings where my case is I was not in the city when those meetings happened,”
He also addressed claims of delaying the trial, citing the lengthy time taken for the prosecution to complete its charges.
He stated,
“The entire issue on delay is on the other side. 6.3.2020 is when the FIR was registered. Last chargesheet was on 7.6.2023. That is a period of more than 3 years,”
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing Shadab Ahmed, claimed solid evidence in the form of call data records that indicated Ahmed’s absence from any violent confrontations.
Luthra remarked,
“Call data records (CDR) show I was not there. 1.5 years later they change their stance bringing oral evidence. Neither the High Court nor the trial court has considered this (while rejecting bail plea),”
He added that there’s no CCTV footage substantiating any alleged violent actions.
He asserted,
“I was not in the scene of crime. The CDR supports me,”
Advocate Gautam Khazanchi, representing Mohd. Saleem Khan, concluded by asserting that he is not a danger to society and should be granted bail.
He stated,
“Since I (Khan) am not a menace to society, I may be released on bail. I have delineated my specific role in my note,”
Also Read: India’s 53rd Chief Justice: Centre Approves Appointment of Justice Surya Kant As CJI
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 theCitizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), but rather a part of a coordinated “regime change operation” disguised as civil dissent, according to a report in the media.
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 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
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Delhi riots case