New Delhi: The Supreme Court is currently hearing the high-stakes bail petitions filed by student activists, including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to deny them bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The petitioners are charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria listened to arguments that pit the fundamental right to liberty against allegations of a massive conspiracy. The court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on Monday, November 3, 2025.
Arguments from the Accused: Five Years Without Trial
The legal teams for the accused are seeking bail primarily on the basis of protracted detention, pointing out that their clients have spent over five years in jail as undertrials and the trial has not yet begun.
- Umar Khalid’s Defense: It was argued that Khalid was not present in Delhi when the riots occurred, and the prosecution’s entire case rests on a non-violent speech he delivered in Amravati, which invoked Gandhian principles. His counsel questioned the logic of a conspiracy charge given that Khalid is named in only one of the 751 First Information Reports (FIRs) related to the violence.
- Sharjeel Imam’s Defense: His legal team highlighted that he has been in custody for nearly six years, and that the prosecution’s continued filing of supplementary chargesheets, which took three years to complete, was the primary cause of the trial’s delay.
- Gulfisha Fatima’s Plea: Her lawyers emphasized that she is the only woman remaining in custody in this case and sought bail on the principle of parity, noting that other co-accused women were granted bail. They argued there is no evidence linking her to any act of violence.
Delhi Police Counters: ‘Premeditated Conspiracy for Regime Change’
The Delhi Police robustly opposed the bail applications, submitting an affidavit that characterizes the riots not as spontaneous violence, but as a “deep-rooted, premeditated and pre-planned conspiracy.”
- A Planned Act: The Police maintained that the conspiracy was aimed at achieving “regime change” and was orchestrated to coincide with the visit of then-U.S. President Donald Trump to maximize international media attention and falsely portray the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) as an act against the Muslim community.
- Delay Blamed on Petitioners: Countering the argument of delayed justice, the Police claimed the accused themselves are responsible for obstructing and delaying the commencement of the trial by filing frivolous applications at various stages.
- Severity of Charges: The Police asserted that the allegations are prima facie true and the severity of the offence, which they claim attacks the integrity and sovereignty of the country, means that “jail and not bail” should be the rule in this case.
The Supreme Court will continue hearing arguments on Monday.
