SC Questions Prolonged Custody as Student Activists Seek Bail in Delhi Riots Case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard the bail applications of student activists accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case on Tuesday. During the hearing the court recorded concerns raised by the petitioners over prolonged incarceration and the nature of charges levelled against them.

Sharjeel Imam was represented by senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, who told the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria that he had been branded an “intellectual terrorist” even before the completion of trial. He said he had already been in custody since 28 January 2020, before the riots took place. Dave also mentioned that his speeches had been selectively presented to suggest conspiracy. Imam said he had never been convicted of any offence and maintained that the remarks attributed to him were not evidence of terrorism or conspiracy.

Responding to the prosecution’s claim that his speeches provided the “platform” for the riots, the bench asked whether his submissions implied that the material cited by the police would not constitute a terrorist act. Imam insisted that the allegations were distressing and that the charges rested solely on excerpts of his public speeches, not on evidence linking him to the violence.

Appearing for Umar Khalid, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that his client was being kept in custody “as punishment for protests,” and said the prosecution had failed to show how Khalid’s participation in public demonstrations amounted to an attempt to overthrow the government. Sibal told the court that Khalid was not in Delhi when the riots occurred. He played his 17 February 2020 Amravati speech, in which Khalid had called for peace. He questioned how such a speech could be viewed as unlawful or inflammatory under the UAPA.

Sibal also argued that student protests have been a part of democratic expression and that incarceration could not be justified on the basis of dissent.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Gulfisha Fatima, submitted that she remained the only woman among the accused still in custody and that charges against her were yet to be framed nearly six years after her arrest. He said the prosecution had listed 939 witnesses, resulting in an unusually delayed trial, and contended that she deserved parity with others who had been granted bail earlier. He said references to a “regime change operation” did not appear in the chargesheet and questioned the nature of the allegations related to supposed secret meetings, many details of which, he said, were publicly available online.

The Delhi Police opposed the bail pleas, maintaining that the riots were an orchestrated and deliberate attempt to destabilise national order, and that the accused had played a central role in what the prosecution described as a coordinated conspiracy during the anti-CAA and anti-NRC protests. The activists, including Khalid, Imam and Fatima, continue to face charges under the UAPA and provisions of the erstwhile IPC relating to conspiracy and unlawful assembly.