Today, On 21st November, In the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case,The ASG representing the Delhi Police told the Supreme Court that Umar Khalid’s mindset was that India should be broken into pieces, arguing this reflected a pattern of instigation.He said such conduct formed part of a conspiracy behind the Delhi riots.
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 Delhi Police informed the apex Court that the six individuals implicated in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Delhi riots intended to instigate a regime change in India, similar to the riots seen in Bangladesh and Nepal.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the Delhi Police, stated that the accused displayed a blatant disregard for the Constitution, carrying weapons such as sticks, acid bottles, and firearms during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
The court was reviewing bail applications for Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, and Mohd Saleem Khan.
Raju argued,
“Conspiracy to commit murder, terrorist attack made out. Large scale violence. The larger purpose was regime change. All those who went for the so-called dharna carried sticks, acid bottles, firearms were used. The systematic plan was to have a regime change riot like it happened in Bangladesh or Nepal. This was the extent of the conspiracy. These were people who have scant regard to the constitution. Since 43(d)(5) is covered, this is not a case for bail.”
He further contended that bail should not be granted due to delays in the trial, which he claimed were caused by the accused rather than the prosecution.
Raju stated,
“I have already said why they can’t be granted bail on parity and delay. I can finish the trial in 2 years if they cooperate,”
He also emphasized the significant damage inflicted during the Delhi riots,
“53 people killed, more than 530 injured, there was a lot of violence. Petrol bombs were used, stones were pelted, sticks, acid-like chemicals were used. Stones were pelted on a small contingent of policemen.”
He noted that the trial court had made a prima facie finding that an offense under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act had occurred; this finding has not been contested, reinforcing the argument against granting bail.
Raju added,
“There’s a chargesheet for Section 16 where punishment is for life. The order taking cognizance has not been challenged. An application of judicial mind ensures that an offense has been committed. If there is an application of judicial mind that an offense under UAPA has been committed, there is no question of granting bail. The accusation is prima facie true because cognizance has been taken,”
He reiterated claims about plans to sever Assam from the rest of India, asserting,
“There was a conspiracy, for the purpose of not only inciting but for the purpose of violence. The conspiracy was to choke Assam out of the country.”
When questioned by the court about the source of this allegation, Raju responded,
“I have given it in a pen drive. I’ll come back to it. In any case, knowing fully well what’s there in the chargesheet, they have not made any submissions on merits. They themselves have voluntarily not gone into it.”
Regarding Meeran Haider, Raju stated that he financed the riots with Rs.2.86 lakhs, mentioning that further insights had emerged from an Economic Offences Directorate investigation.
However, he did not rely on those details at this stage.
He also claimed that Umar Khalid has a history of inciting violence.
The ASG asserted,
“Khalid has a history of inciting violence as far as Kashmir goes. His mindset is that India should be broken into pieces. He has a famous speech. He had been arrested for that. He is one of the infamous originators of this ‘Bharat tere tukde tukde honge’ statement. He was the founder of the idea of Chakka jaam,”
Raju argued that Khalid was instrumental in inciting chakka jaam protests.
Raju insisted,
“He explained the difference between chakka jaam and dharna to Imam and Asif. Umar told Sharjeel to start chakka jaam at Jamia. Meanwhile, he said he would start a chakka jaam in other Muslim areas. Chakka jaam is violent, disrupting essential services,”
He also invoked the principle of vicarious liability in cases of conspiracy, emphasizing that if there’s reasonable ground to believe in a conspiracy, all involved bear responsibility.
Raju concluded,
“In a case of conspiracy, the role would sometimes take a background on section 10 of the evidence act. I have demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a conspiracy exists. Anything during the conspiracy period, if there is reasonable ground to believe there is conspiracy, the principle of agency would apply,”
The accused’s counsel will commence their rebuttals starting Monday, November 24.
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