SC to hear bail pleas of 2020 Delhi riots student leaders today

The high court bench of justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur (since retired) had dismissed the pleas of nine accused, holding that their roles in the conspiracy appeared “prima facie grave.”

The Supreme Court will on Friday hear bail pleas filed by student activists Sharjeel Imam, former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar Umar Khalid, and others accused in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots.

The bail plea highlighted the near improbability of the trial concluding soon as an additional ground for seeking bail.

A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria will take up the petitions challenging the Delhi High Court September 2 verdict that rejected their bail pleas.

The high court bench of justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur (since retired) had dismissed the pleas of nine accused, holding that their roles in the conspiracy appeared “prima facie grave.”

The seven others whose pleas were rejected by the high court include student activist Gulfisha Fatima, United Against Hate founder Khalid Saifi, Athar Khan, Mohd Saleem, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider, and Shadab Ahmed, relying on the roles assigned to them by investigators in what was described as a coordinated conspiracy culminating in the riots. Of these, Fatima and Haider have also appealed in the top court, with their petitions listed before the same bench.

Imam, the first to file an appeal, has argued that he has spent over five years and six months in custody since his arrest on January 28, 2020. Khalid, arrested on September 13, 2020, has similarly sought bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration. Both contend that they remain in jail due to systemic delays in trial proceedings, which is beyond their control.

The bail plea highlighted the near improbability of the trial concluding soon as an additional ground for seeking bail. According to them, the pre-trial detention cannot amount to punishing an undertrial when past decisions of the court have upheld that liberty of an undertrial is paramount.

In its 133-page order, the high court had upheld the trial court’s decision, relying on voluminous material filed by the Delhi Police. According to investigators, Imam and Khalid were “intellectual architects” of a coordinated conspiracy to instigate violence in the Capital during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

The accused face charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a stringent anti-terror law. The Delhi Police, represented by solicitor general Tushar Mehta and special public prosecutor Amit Prasad, argued that the conspiracy was carefully designed to appear as civil protests while concealing violent intent.

Delhi Police filed multiple charge sheets in the case and claimed to have “overwhelming cogent” evidence against Khalid whose role was stated to be instrumental in instigating the riots, planning the “chakka jam” to disrupt essential services, thereby causing panic and insecurity among the general public.

The riots broke out in February 2020, coinciding with the visit of then US President Donald Trump. Police alleged that the timing was deliberate, intended to project before the global community that minorities in India were being targeted and discriminated against.

The high court, while commenting on Khalid’s role said, “Umar Khalid also delivered speeches in Amravati on February 17, 2020, urging protests on February 24, 2020, which coincided with the state visit of the US President, which is alleged by the prosecution to have deliberately been timed to cause violent riots on 23-24 February, 2020 to garner international attention. The above role, as assigned by the prosecution to the appellants, cannot be lightly brushed aside.”

Khalid has maintained that his Amravati speech was peaceful and unrelated to the violence that followed a week later. They even argued that the case against them was weak and that they had no role to play in any meetings where violence was allegedly planned. However, the high court held that while the right to protest is protected, conspiratorial violence cloaked as demonstrations cannot be permitted.

Imam’s petition focuses sharply on the delay in trial, citing the fact that the police have filed multiple supplementary charge sheets and have listed dozens of witnesses, with there being no indication of when the proceedings may conclude. The plea also emphasises that long incarceration of undertrials in cases under the UAPA raises serious constitutional questions under constitutional provisions related to equal protection before law, right to free speech, right to speedy trial and liberty.