The Supreme Court of India indicated possible interim relief for Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case, telling senior advocate Rebecca John, “In all probability, you will get relief.”
The Supreme Court indicated that interim relief may be granted to Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi while it hears their bail pleas in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Signalling that the court’s inclination appeared to favour them at least at the interim stage, the bench told senior advocate Rebecca John, who appeared for the accused,:
“In all probability, you will get relief,”
Earlier, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court had adjourned the bail pleas of two accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi communal riots case. Those bail requests challenged a Delhi High Court order that had refused bail to them. When the matter came up for hearing again, the bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale pointed out that, prima facie, it was inclined to grant the relief.
As the hearing was adjourned, the court observed:
“Prima facie, we are with you,”
ALSO READ: Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case: Karkardooma Court Refuses Interim Bail to Umar Khalid
This remark was recorded while the bench heard the pleas by accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi.
During the proceedings, additional solicitor general S V Raju, appearing for Delhi Police, told the court that he was studying a judgment delivered on Monday by a two-judge Supreme Court bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan.
That Monday judgment had granted bail to Kashmir resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who was booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in a narcotics-related terror case probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Raju’s submission indicated that the court’s approach might be influenced by the legal reasoning in that decision.
He also informed the Supreme Court that the issue could require referral to a larger bench if there were conflicting views between other two-judge benches that had considered similar questions. The Supreme Court deferred the hearing after ASG Raju sought further time to make submissions granting the accused and the prosecution a short adjournment before the next effective hearing.
Case background:
The proceedings relate to bail pleas arising from the alleged “conspiracy” angle in the 2020 Northeast Delhi communal riots case. The Supreme Court is currently dealing with the accused’s challenge to the Delhi High Court’s decision refusing them bail, with the court now showing signs that interim relief may be considered while the matter is heard on merits.
The 2020 Delhi Riots erupted in February 2020 in several parts of Northeast Delhi, resulting in large-scale communal violence between groups from different communities. The violence led to more than 50 deaths, hundreds of injuries, destruction of homes, shops, religious places, and widespread unrest across affected localities such as Jaffrabad, Maujpur, Chand Bagh, Khajuri Khas, and Shiv Vihar.
The riots took place against the backdrop of nationwide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act protests and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). Protest sites had emerged across Delhi, including the women-led sit-in protest at Shaheen Bagh. Tensions escalated after clashes broke out between anti-CAA protesters and groups supporting the legislation.
Following the violence, the Delhi Police registered multiple FIRs related to rioting, murder, conspiracy, unlawful assembly, destruction of property, and offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Among these, FIR 59/2020 became the central “larger conspiracy” case investigated by the Special Cell of Delhi Police.
According to the prosecution, the riots were not spontaneous but part of a pre-planned conspiracy allegedly orchestrated by activists, student leaders, and political figures under the guise of anti-CAA protests. The police alleged that protest sites were strategically organised to block roads and create unrest, eventually leading to violence during the visit of then US President Donald Trump to India.
Several activists and public figures were arrested in connection with the conspiracy case, including Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Tasleem Ahmed, members of student groups, and others linked to protest networks. Charges invoked included sedition, criminal conspiracy, rioting, murder, and provisions of the UAPA.
Many accused persons argued before courts that the case was politically motivated and based on selective investigations. They claimed that participation in anti-CAA protests was being criminalised and that speeches, WhatsApp chats, protest coordination, and dissent were wrongly portrayed as evidence of terrorism or conspiracy.
The case has seen prolonged litigation before trial courts, the Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court of India on issues relating to bail, disclosure of evidence, maintainability of UAPA charges, protected witness statements, and delays in trial proceedings. Several accused have spent years in custody while their bail pleas and appeals continue to be heard.
Courts have delivered differing observations at various stages. In some instances, judges granted bail while criticising vague application of anti-terror laws, whereas in other cases courts accepted the prosecution’s argument that the allegations disclosed a larger conspiracy threatening public order and national security.
The “larger conspiracy” case remains one of the most closely watched criminal prosecutions in recent Indian legal and political history because it intersects issues of free speech, protest rights, communal violence, police investigation standards, and use of anti-terror legislation in politically sensitive cases.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
![[MARITAL RAPE CRIMINALIZATION] 'Not a Case of Men vs Women. But People vs Patriarchy': Next SC Hearing On Tuesday (Oct 22)](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-27-1.png?resize=420%2C270&ssl=1)
