Today, On 31st October, in the Delhi Riots Case, 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.”
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.
As the proceedings began, the Bench inquired about the counter, to which the counsel informed the court that it had been filed the previous day.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and several other lawyers appeared for the petitioners, while Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju represented the Delhi Police.
The Bench has directed that the matter be taken up again at 12:30 PM today for further hearing.
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.
He said,
“I’ve been in custody for five years and five months since April 2020. The chargesheet was filed on September 16, 2020, and since then, they’ve made it a yearly ritual to file a supplementary chargesheet. It will eventually have to be determined whether an investigation can be prolonged indefinitely through such supplementary chargesheets. After the case was remanded to the High Court, just look at the extraordinary delay reflected in the list of dates at item 11.”
He pointed out that,
“All manner of chargesheets have been filed, 5–6 chargesheets. We are entitled to bail on grounds of parity. I am the only woman in custody (Gulfisha Fatima).”
Calling it a “distortion of the criminal justice system,” Singhvi said,
“Merits don’t matter here. The concept of liberty is that you put me on stringent conditions but don’t put me in jail. There are more than 900 witnesses.”
He emphasised the long pendency of the case, saying,
“The bail application alone is pending from 3 years 4 months. After 2022 it has been listed 90 times. Renotified, Renotified, etc.”
Raising the issue of parity, Singhvi argued,
“On the parity issue I am young just out of college, MBA student. Allegations are secret meeting being part of WhatsApp group, warriors. Again the HC deals with it in one line. Role of petitioner distinct from co-accused. The allegation are I set up protest sites. No violence where I was present or the sites I put up. I attended a meeting so what? Did I do an act of violence. No documentary or oral evidence was associated to me related to carrying chilli powder and danda. No words or act associated to me.”
He also questioned the claim of receiving money from Tahir Hussain,
“Another allegation is receiving money from Tahir Hussain. How much money, received how and when there no mention. I have no connection to Tahir Hussain you have to show something to show connection.”
Referring to other FIRs, Singhvi stated,
“In other FIRs I have got bail. I am not a member of Pinjra group and even if I am but even if I am the other two lady members have got bail. They were the leaders. No evidence of acid bottles, chilli powder, etc. Allegation of delaying. Request were made for handing over chargesheet. I am entitled to ask for documents that cannot lead to delay.”
Dr. Singhvi took the court through the Najeeb and Javed judgments while stressing the right to liberty.
He argued,
“Where will I travel without a passport. What will I not cooperate after 5 or 6 chargesheets. Why can’t liberty be balanced.”
He added,
“I am the only woman in this batch. Despite that, I continue to be held under Section 437 CrPC. I am not saying women should get some benefit. I already have bail in two FIRs related to the Jafarabad incidents. Even assuming there was a serious offence, I’ve spent five and a half years in custody. I’m 32 years old, a student not some hardened criminal out committing murders.”
When the bench asked,
“Out of two of you who is senior?”
Singhvi humbly replied, “He is,” Pointing to Kapil Sibal
To this, Sibal smiled and said, “No, he is. It doesn’t matter.”
The Bench remarked,
“The tradition is that the senior should be the first one to argue.”
Sibal quipped,
“There are a lot of traditions not followed anymore.”
Arguing for Umar Khalid, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said he wanted to focus on the lack of procedural fairness during the trial.
He submitted,
“He has addressed the proceedings before the High Court, but I want to highlight what transpired during the trial because procedural fairness lies at the heart of personal liberty,”
Sibal detailed how the trial faced repeated disruptions,
“Out of 55 hearing dates, including both main and miscellaneous matters, the judicial officer was on leave several times. On 11 occasions, the case couldn’t be taken up due to staff shortages, absence of a stenographer, or other logistical issues. On 26 dates, the matter couldn’t proceed owing to an excessive workload. The day when the riots took place I was not in Delhi (emphasis applied). No evidence which connects me to the violence or no recovery of funds.”
He continued,
“There were also 59 hearing days lost because the DSP was unavailable citing reasons such as personal urgency or internet problems and 4 days were lost due to lawyers’ strikes. The trial began on September 10, yet it has been adjourned six times. Despite this, the counter-affidavit alleges that I am delaying the proceedings. I just wanted to set the record straight—the charge against me is solely that of conspiracy.”
He said,
“There is nothing specific. I am not involved in the offence at all. The people present in Delhi having same witnesses cited against them have got bail,”
Sibal added,
“The court has said that the seriousness of the offence is not relevant when the accused has been incarcerated for x numbers of years. I am not going into merits purposely.”
After Sibal concluded, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave began submissions on behalf of Sharjeel Imam.
He said,
“Out of the five years, three years goes in investigation alone. I was arrested 25.8.20 and the first supplementary chargesheet where I am named 22.11.22. In Sept 2024 the clarity comes that the investigation is complete. There are almost as many as 900 witnesses. There is no delay till 2024 on our part. I was already in custody in another FIR.”
He further pointed out,
“That he was a student, etc. is all in the introductory part. Petitioner is in custody since almost 5y and 9 months. I was already in custody in earlier FIR. The present FIR was in March so since two months I was already in custody and when the riots are taking place I am already in custody. I am not an accused in even a single one of those riots cases.”
Dave said,
“I was only accused of giving inflammatory speeches which they say that lead to the riots. Reasons given are that giving speeches and distributing pamphlets. At the time of the riots I don’t have access to my phone or WhatsApp or even physically present. The sole basis is the chats recovered in FIR for which I am on bail.”
When asked by the court, “What is the nature of speech,”
Dave replied,
“I was called upon people for protest for the bill called CAA and called for a ‘chakka jaam’. Chakka is a wheel and jaam is blockage.”
The Bench inquired,
“Where is he from?”
Dave responded,
“He’s from Jehanabad, Bihar, where he was arrested. Please look at the speeches—there’s absolutely no call for violence, only appeals for peaceful protest. I completely abhor violence.”
With Dave concluding his submissions, the court directed that the matter be taken up again on Monday, with the case placed on top of the list.
Previously, Yesterday, 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.
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