Supreme Court Begins Final Hearing on Bail Pleas in 2020 Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case

October 31, 2025

The Supreme Court of India has commenced the final hearing in the bail petitions filed by student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Gulfisha Fatima, who are accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria began proceedings on Friday, hearing detailed arguments presented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Siddharth Dave, representing the accused. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on November 3.

Background: The Delhi Riots and the Larger Conspiracy Case

The Delhi riots of February 2020 erupted amid nationwide protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The violence resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries, primarily in the northeast region of Delhi.

The prosecution alleges that the riots were not spontaneous but part of a pre-planned conspiracy to incite communal unrest and destabilize the government. The accused are booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including sections relating to rioting, conspiracy, and sedition.

Defence Submissions: Delay, Detention, and Constitutional Rights

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, strongly denied the prosecution’s allegation that the defence had delayed the trial. He cited that on 59 occasions, adjournments occurred due to the unavailability of the special prosecutor, while judges’ unavailability and infrastructural constraints caused further delays on 55 dates.

He contended that Khalid’s alleged role was limited to a speech that did not incite violence, emphasizing that Khalid was not in Delhi during the riots and had no role in funding or execution of violence. Three co-accused have already been granted bail, and Sibal argued that Khalid deserves parity.

Representing Gulfisha Fatima, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi noted that she has remained incarcerated for five years and five months as an undertrial, without charges being framed. He questioned the constitutional validity of such prolonged detention, describing it as a “destruction of the criminal justice system”.

Similarly, Siddharth Dave, appearing for Sharjeel Imam, argued that the delay was solely on the prosecution’s part, as the investigation continued till June 2023. Imam was first arrested in January 2020 for speech-related cases and later booked in the conspiracy case in August 2020. The final supplementary chargesheet was filed in June 2023, and the trial court only recorded completion of the investigation in September 2024.

Dave emphasized that Imam’s alleged offence was delivering a “chakka jam” speech calling for peaceful protests, and that he has been incarcerated for speeches alone, even though violence occurred when he was already in custody.

Prosecution’s Stand: A Deep-Rooted Conspiracy

The Delhi Police, represented by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and special public prosecutor Amit Prasad, filed an affidavit opposing bail. The police alleged that the CAA protests were part of a coordinated “regime change operation”, using protests as a “radicalising catalyst” to disrupt peace during US President Donald Trump’s visit to India.

The affidavit described the alleged conspiracy as “deep-rooted and orchestrated on communal lines”, asserting that there was sufficient technical, documentary, and witness evidence linking the accused to a pan-India network that incited coordinated unrest in states such as Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Karnataka, and West Bengal.

The prosecution claimed that the accused deliberately delayed the trial by prolonging document supply and other proceedings, while also suppressing the Delhi High Court’s observation that the defence contributed to the delay.

Legal Context: The UAPA Bail Standard

Under ordinary criminal law, bail is the rule and jail is the exception. However, Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) reverses this presumption.

The court must be satisfied that no prima facie case of involvement in terrorist activity exists before granting bail. This stringent provision has been widely debated for enabling prolonged incarceration without trial, effectively making bail under UAPA extremely difficult.

In this case, the prosecution has argued that the evidence meets the UAPA threshold, while the defence contends that continued detention without framing of charges violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India — the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

Judicial Precedents Relevant to the Case

National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) – The Supreme Court ruled that at the bail stage under UAPA, courts must accept the prosecution’s case at face value unless entirely unfounded. This ruling has since made bail under UAPA exceptionally stringent.
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) – The Supreme Court held that prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21, even under UAPA, and bail can be granted in such cases.
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) – The Court upheld stringent provisions in anti-terror laws but reiterated that individual liberty must be balanced against national security.

These judgments collectively illustrate the tension between liberty and security, which forms the crux of the present case.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

Article 19(1)(a) – Guarantees the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, which the accused claim protects their anti-CAA speeches.
Article 19(1)(b) – Ensures the Right to Peaceful Assembly.
Article 21 – Protects personal liberty, prohibiting arbitrary or prolonged detention.
Article 22 – Lays down procedural safeguards for arrested persons.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Governs offences relating to unlawful and terrorist activities.

Together, these provisions frame the constitutional backdrop against which the Supreme Court will determine whether prolonged undertrial detention and denial of bail are justified.

Delhi High Court’s 2021 Ruling on Parity

The accused have sought parity with Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the Delhi High Court in 2021 in related UAPA cases.

That judgment emphasized that the right to protest cannot be criminalized and that speech or dissent, without direct incitement to violence, does not constitute terrorism.

Conclusion: A Test Case for Liberty and Rule of Law

As the Supreme Court resumes its hearing on November 3, the case has emerged as a litmus test for India’s balance between state security and civil liberties.

It challenges the boundaries of free speech, protest rights, and the constitutional promise of personal liberty in the face of stringent anti-terror laws.

If the Court finds that the prolonged incarceration violates fundamental rights, it could redefine how UAPA bail jurisprudence evolves in India — marking a critical moment for judicial accountability and human rights in democratic governance.