The Supreme Court has postponed the hearing on Umar Khalid’s bail plea after the designated bench was unavailable. The activist remains in custody as the case awaits a new date.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will not hear the batch of bail petitions filed by student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case on Tuesday, as the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria will not be sitting.
The case pertains to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, which broke out during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC), resulting in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries.
The accused are charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Background Of Case
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Siddharth Dave appeared for the petitioners, while Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju represented the Delhi Police.
The Bench had earlier directed that the matter be taken up again at 12:30 PM for further hearing.
During the last hearing, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for activist Gulfisha Fatima, argued that her prolonged incarceration violated the principles of liberty.
He told the court,
“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 added,
“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 the situation
“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 further said,
“The bail application alone is pending from 3 years 4 months. After 2022 it has been listed 90 times. Renotified, Renotified, etc.”
Arguing on parity, Singhvi submitted,
“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 questioned the charge of receiving money from Tahir Hussain, saying,
“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.”
He continued,
“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.”
Referring to past rulings, Singhvi 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 pointed to Kapil Sibal, saying,
“He is.”
Sibal smiled and replied,
“No, he is. It doesn’t matter.”
The bench remarked,
“The tradition is that the senior should be the first one to argue.”
To this, Sibal quipped,
“There are a lot of traditions not followed anymore.”
Arguing for Umar Khalid, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal highlighted the lack of procedural fairness in the trial.
“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,” he said.
Sibal explained the repeated disruptions during trial, saying,
“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 added,
“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.”
Sibal 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.”
He 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’s submissions, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave began arguments for Sharjeel Imam, saying,
“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 added,
“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.”
Earlier, the Delhi Police opposed the bail pleas, calling the 2020 violence a
“coordinated regime change operation disguised as civil dissent.”
The police affidavit stated that encrypted chats and recovered data showed a “deep-rooted conspiracy” and claimed the riots were planned to coincide with U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to “internationalise the unrest.”
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, representing Umar Khalid before the sessions court, argued that the prosecution had added “embellishments” to the chargesheet.
He said,
“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.”
He also requested that Khalid be allowed to keep two books in Tihar Jail, including one on cricket.
The case involves several accused including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider, Safoora Zargar, and others.
They are all seeking bail under the UAPA provisions related to the February 2020 riots. The Supreme Court will next take up the matter when the bench resumes sitting.
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Delhi Riots Case
