Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today (October 31) heard the arguments in the petitions filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Gulfisha Fatima in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, in which they are booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria adjourned the matter till Monday to hear the arguments of co-accused Meeran Haider, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shifa Ur Rehman, as well as the Delhi Police.

The petitions have been filed against the Delhi High Court's judgment delivered on September 2, dismissing their bail applications. A division bench comprising Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur had pronounced the judgment in FIR 59 of 2020, registered by Delhi Police's Special Cell.

Arguments of petitioners

Only organised protests, no evidence of violence : Gulfisha Fatima

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for Gulfisha Fatima) highlighted that she has been under custody for over five years and five months, from April 11, 2020. Chargesheet was also filed five years ago but the trial has not commenced yet. Fatima is the only woman in custody in the case now, as the other women have already got bail. "If you get bail after 6-7 years, what is the point?" Singhvi asked, pointing out that charges are yet to be framed. Even by a conservative estimate, 800 witnesses are there. "Merits don't matter in this; this is a distortion of the criminal justice system. The concept of liberty is that you don't keep me in jail without trial," Singhvi stated. He cited the judgment in the Najeeb case, which held that bail can be granted despite the stringent conditions of UAPA when there is prolonged custody. Reference was also made to the judgment in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India which held that "bail is the rule" even in UAPA case. The judgment in Sheikh Javed Iqbal which also expressed a similar view was cited.

Singhvi said that another special feature of this case was that the bail application itself was kept pending for more than three years by the High Court. Fatima is just a young student, Singhvi said, saying that the other two women accused in the case, Devangra Kalita and Natasha Narwal, were granted bail in the case on merits. The only allegation is that Fatima, as part of Pinjra Tod and other WhatsApp groups, mobilised women for protests against the CAA. "I set up protest site. No photograph or video or evidence of violence in any site where I organised protest. I attended a meeting a Seelampur. The others who attended the meeting there have got bail. Did I throw a bomb?," he submitted. There is no overt or covert act of violence associated with her, Singhvi argued. Merely creating a WhatsApp group is no evidence of any criminal activity. "At the highest, I participated in anti-CAA protests. There has to be some evidence, some recovery. Nothing in this case," he submitted.

Singhvi also questioned the Delhi Police's allegation that the petitioner was delaying the trial, pointing out that she has already completed her arguments on charge.

Only evidence cited is a speech, which actually invoked Gandhian principles; Was not in Delhi during the riots : Umar Khalid

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Umar Khalid, submitted that on 55 dates, the presiding judge of the trial court was on leave. On 26 dates, the matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time. On 59 dates, the matter could not be reached due to the unavailability of the Special Public Prosecutor. On 4 dates, no hearing took place due to lawyers' strike. Regarding the charge of conspiracy, Sibal said that out of 751 riot-related FIRs, Khalid was only named in one. He was not even present in Delhi when the riots took place. No recovery of weapons or incriminating material has been made. There is no physical evidence of any violence against Umar Khalid. There is no allegation of Khalid raising any funds for violence or making appeals for violence. The only overt act alleged against Khalid is a speech which he gave in Amaravati in Maharashtra on February 17. The speech actually invoked Gandhian principles of non-violence and cannot be regarded as provocative by any stretch.

Sibal then turned to the definition of "terrorist act" under the UAPA, and argued that none of the specific acts described in the definition applied to Umar Khalid. Sibal also relied on the order granting bail on merits to co-accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal. "Those three were present in Delhi on the day of riots. They are granted bail. I was not even present in Delhi on those dates. And I am denied bail!.The evidence and the witnesses are the same," Sibal said.

Apart from the judgments cited by Singhvi, Sibal cited a recent order passed by the Supreme Court granting bail to a UAPA accused in the Bengaluru riots case on the ground of delay in trial.

Was already under custody when riots took place; two-month old speeches are cited as incitement : Sharjeel Imam

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, for Sharjeel Imam, submitted that till last year, the police kept on filing supplementary chargesheets till September 2024, which meant that the investigation went on for at least four years. It means that there was no delay on the part of the accused, at least till 2024. Dave highlighted that Sharjeel Imam has been in custody since January 25, 2020, in connection with other cases. When he was already in custody a month ago, the Delhi riots, how could he be held liable for conspiracy, he asked. Imam is also not an accused in any of the other riot cases. In the other cases for alleged inflammatory speeches, he has been given bail, and is in jail only because of this case.

"What is nature of speech?" Justice Kumar asked. "I called for chakka-jams, for protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act," Dave said. "To link my speeches to the riots is a bit of a stretch. My speeches were in December 2019, two months before the riots. And I was arrested and kept under custody in January 2020, a month before the riots in Delhi," he added. Dave informed the bench that Imam is a permanent resident of Bihar, and has secured B.Tech and M.Tech degrees from IIT and was a research student in the JNU at the time of his arrest.

Previous developments

On Monday(October 27), Delhi Police requested two weeks to file counter-affidavits. The Court refused to grant the time and asked them to file the affidavit by Friday. The bench also requested Delhi Police's counsel, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, to see if they can come up with something, as the petitioners have spent 5 years in incarceration.

In the counter-affidavit filed yesterday, the Delhi Police submitted that no grounds for bail can be made out on the basis of delay, asserting that the petitioners themselves were responsible for postponing the commencement of the trial for “mala fide and mischievous” reasons.

On September 19, the matter was placed before a bench comprising Justice Kumar and Justice Manmohan, but the latter recused as he was earlier an associate with the chamber of Kapil Sibal. Before that, the Court could not hear the matter on September 12, when the matter was first listed, as the bench had received the files late. On September 22, the bench issued notice on the petitions and posted the matters for hearing on October 27.

The petitioners, who were student activists in the forefront of organising anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests in 2019-2020, are facing charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the Indian Penal Code for allegedly formulating the "larger conspiracy" behind the communal riots which took place in the national capital in the last week of February 2020.

The accused in the case are Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha(granted bail in 2021), Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar(granted bail on humanitarian grounds as she was pregnant when arrested), Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan, Devangana Kalita (granted bail) and Natasha Narwal(granted bail).

September 2 judgment denied bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa ur Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima and Shadab Ahmed. The petitioners have been in custody for over five years.

Case Details:

1. UMAR KHALID v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI|SLP(Crl) No. 14165/2025

2. GULFISHA FATIMA v STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI )|SLP(Crl) No. 13988/2025

3. SHARJEEL IMAM v THE STATE NCT OF DELHI|SLP(Crl) No. 14030/2025

4. MEERAN HAIDER v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI | SLP(Crl) No./14132/2025

5. SHIFA UR REHMAN v STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY|SLP(Crl) No. 14859/2025