Today, On 20th November, In the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case, Delhi Police told the Supreme Court that Umar Khalid and Imam instigated students of JNU and Jamia. They said the duo used coordinated mobilisation and campus influence to escalate major tensions during the period of alleged conspiracy.
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 the “six people accused in the larger conspiracy linked to the 2020 Delhi riots are anti-nationals who tried to overthrow the regime through violence.”
At the start of the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Raju informed the Bench that he had already finished arguing on the issue of parity and had moved to the point of delay. He said that there was delay even after the High Court judgment.
He also told the Bench that on several dates the counsel for the accused did not argue, and because of that the delay must be attributed to them.
ASG Raju then read from a judgment to support his point.
He told the Bench that,
“Even if the co accused is responsible for the delay the accused cant take advantage of that.”
To show further evidence, the ASG played a video of accused Sharjeel Imam in the courtroom.
In the first clip, Sharjeel Imam was heard saying,
“Sarkar choro court ko unki nani yaad aa jaye. Court kisi ki nahi hai. Triple Talaq me kya kiya inhone. Muslim mardo ko jail bhejne ki taiyari.”
(Translation: Let the government quit, the court will be made to remember their ancestors. The court belongs to no one. Look at what they did in the Triple Talaq case ,preparing to send Muslim men to jail.)
In another part of the video, Sharjeel Imam said,
“The objective of the Chakka Jaam is to stop water and milk supply in Delhi. There should be chakka jaam in all the cities where Muslims reside.”
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for one of the accused, responded that the clip was only a micro part and added that this is all for prejudice.
SV Raju said that Sharjeel Imam talked about taking “laathis” and spoke of issues related to four countries including Bangladesh and Nepal. He added that Imam mentioned the chicken-neck region near Arunachal Pradesh and explained the 16-km land stretch that links Assam to the rest of India.
According to Raju, Imam said that only a small force was needed to control that part so that Assam would be separated from India. He said Imam also spoke about Article 370 in Kashmir, tried to provoke Muslims, and criticised the court while talking about Babri Masjid and triple talaq.
ASG contended that there is a new trend where highly educated individuals are purportedly leveraging their professional credibility to promote extremist agendas.
Referring to Sharjeel Imam’s background, Raju stated,
“He is an engineer. Now the trend has become that doctors, engineers, intellectuals are not doing their professions but engaging in anti-national activities.”
Raju said the final aim behind all this was regime change.
When Justice Kumar observed,
“I don’t think he has used the word violent,”
SV Raju replied that he had not shown the whole tape because it was very long and said,
“Sharjeel Imam says it’s not an innocuous dharna or protest. He says it is a violent protest and you should separate Assam from India.”
Raju submitted that the protest groups did not show enough strength when Article 370 was removed or during the Babri Masjid and triple talaq issues, but during the CAA they saw a chance to collect support from Muslims and mislead them.
He said Imam talked about 500 cities and said they wanted to choke Delhi and Assam by cutting essential supplies. According to him, economic security is also part of UAPA and the plan was to economically “strangle” these regions.
The ASG argued that the protest plan was made in a way that it would match with the visit of former US President Donald Trump so that it would attract international media.
He said intellectual minds could be more dangerous than people acting on the ground and referred to them as the real brains, adding that this was seen in what happened in Lal Qila, referring to the recent blast near Red Fort.
Raju stated that a false narrative was created that some people were intellectuals who were being targeted.
He said this was not true and claimed,
“Intellectuals are many times more dangerous.”
He said the real purpose of the protest was regime change and strangling economic welfare in different parts of India, and he repeated that the CAA protest was only a “red herring.”
He said the alleged plan resulted in the death of 53 persons, including a policeman who was lynched. An Intelligence Bureau officer was also killed and more than 530 persons were injured. Raju argued that something similar to what had happened in Bangladesh and Nepal was being attempted, but it did not succeed.
He said this was a large conspiracy covering many aspects and added that the accused persons’ involvement in earlier cases was not relevant to their claim that they had received bail in those matters.
Raju said the accused created many WhatsApp groups to plan the conspiracy. He named MSJ (Muslim Students of JNU) and JCC (Jamia Coordination Committee). He said these groups started influencing Jamia students at Shaheen Bagh.
Raju said the focus of the groups was to organise such protests that would finally result in regime change.
He asked the Court to look at WhatsApp chats that were part of the charge sheet. While reading from the DPSG (Delhi Protest Support Group) chats from January 2020, Raju read out, “The call for regime change will come in the end.”
Raju said that Umar Khalid was not allowed to give a speech in Amravati and that permission for the event was obtained by saying he would not speak. He argued Khalid still addressed the gathering, violating conditions, and a separate FIR was registered for this.
He said the speech was similar to themes like Babri, triple talaq, Article 370 and NRC.
Raju told the Court that The New York Times published reports whenever the bail matter came up because Donald Trump was coming to India. He said social media also acted in the same way and claimed that people did so “without understanding that they are anti nationals.”
He said such people were acting under the mask of being intellectuals.
Justice Kumar asked,
“How many protected witnesses do you have?”
Raju replied that the total number of public witnesses was 151 and said, “47. Out of the 38 have given 164 statements before the magistrate.”
Raju read from Imam’s speech and said,
“Chakka jaam hi aakhri raasta hai, Dilli toh bas trailer hai..”
He argued that Imam said chakka jaam was the final step and added that this was stated a few days before Trump’s India visit.
He then read the statement of a protected witness who said,
“Umar Khalid and others came to Jamia campus. He said he will explain the difference bwteeen chakka jaam and dharna. He said to start Chakka jaam in Jamia. The government is a Hindu government against Muslims. We should overthrow the government….”
Raju said,
“There is evidence. Whether it is true, reliable is not a matter of consideration now. The fact is there is evidence.”
Soon after, the Bench rose for the day.
Justice Kumar said the matter may be taken up after preliminary work the next day,
“Anytime after 12:30 pm.”
Earlier, On 3rd November, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, told the Supreme Court that out of 751 Delhi riots FIRs, 116 cases have been tried and 97 ended in acquittals, with 17 involving fabricated documents, exposing poor investigation quality.
Previously, On 31st October 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.
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