The Supreme Court of India recently heard bail pleas filed by activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Gulfisha Fatima, all of whom are accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

During the hearing, the three petitioners strongly denied any involvement in inciting violence, asserting that their actions and speeches were directed solely toward peaceful protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Umar Khalid’s counsel submitted that he was not present in Delhi at the time the riots broke out, disputing the prosecution’s attempt to link him to the violent incidents. It was further argued that Khalid’s name appeared in only one out of more than 750 FIRs registered in connection with the riots and that there was no evidence of his participation in any violent act, financial transaction, or recovery of weapons to substantiate the allegations. His lawyer maintained that Khalid’s speeches, taken in full context, advocated non-violence and democratic dissent.

Sharjeel Imam’s counsel echoed similar arguments, stating that while Imam played a role in organizing anti-CAA demonstrations, he never called for violence or unrest. The defence pointed out that Imam’s speeches, particularly those referring to road blockades, have been selectively quoted and misinterpreted by the prosecution. They contended that the calls for protest were intended to be peaceful expressions of dissent, not acts of sedition or conspiracy. Imam’s lawyer also noted that he had already been in custody since January 2020 in separate cases, raising questions about how he could have conspired in the riots while incarcerated.

Gulfisha Fatima’s legal team also denied any involvement in violence, asserting that she merely assisted in organizing protest sites and facilitated public gatherings against the CAA. Her counsel argued that there is no evidence to suggest that these protest sites witnessed any violent incidents or that participants were armed or incited to attack anyone. It was further contended that Fatima has spent several years in custody without trial, which violates her right to a speedy judicial process.

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, who listened to detailed submissions from all sides. The defence teams collectively argued that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate any direct link between their clients and the outbreak of riots, and that prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to a miscarriage of justice.

On the other hand, the Delhi Police maintained its stance that the riots were part of a premeditated conspiracy intended to create unrest in the capital. The prosecution reiterated its argument that the accused individuals were part of a coordinated plan to disrupt public order under the guise of peaceful protest. The State opposed the bail pleas, asserting that the gravity of the charges and the nature of the alleged conspiracy warranted continued detention under the UAPA.

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter for further hearing on November 3. The ongoing proceedings are being closely watched as they raise significant constitutional questions on the boundaries of free speech, the right to protest, and the threshold for invoking anti-terror laws like the UAPA in cases involving civil dissent.

The outcome of this case is likely to have a lasting impact on how the judiciary interprets political speech, association, and accountability during mass movements, and whether dissenting voices can be criminalized under expansive national security laws without clear evidence of violence or conspiracy.

📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC

Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting