Delhi Riots Case: Police Frame Protests as 'Regime Change' Plot to Oppose Bail in Supreme Court

NEW DELHI – In a significant development in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, the Delhi Police has vehemently opposed the bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others, characterizing the anti-CAA protests as a premeditated "regime change operation" aimed at destabilizing the nation. In a voluminous affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the police argue that under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), "jail, not bail, is the rule," especially for offenses that "strike at the very root of the integrity of India."

The affidavit, filed just ahead of a crucial hearing, presents a stark narrative of a deep-rooted conspiracy designed to incite nationwide communal violence. The police contend that the prolonged incarceration of the accused is a consequence of their own "mala fide machinations" to deliberately delay the trial. This high-stakes legal battle places the Supreme Court at the confluence of fundamental rights, national security, and the increasingly contentious jurisprudence surrounding bail under anti-terror legislation.

The Core of the Prosecution's Argument: A Pre-Planned 'Regime Change' Conspiracy

The Delhi Police's 389-page affidavit reframes the 2020 anti-CAA protests not as spontaneous acts of dissent but as a meticulously orchestrated plot. The police allege the conspiracy was timed to coincide with the official state visit of then-U.S. President Donald Trump, a strategic move intended to attract international media attention and "portray the Indian government globally as anti-Muslim."

"The materials on record, including the chats referencing US President Donald Trump, establish beyond doubt that the instant conspiracy was pre-planned," the affidavit asserts. It further claims the issue of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) was "carefully chosen to serve as a 'radicalising catalyst', camouflaged in the name of a 'peaceful protest'."

The police have labeled this alleged plot a "regime change operation," a term typically associated with foreign-sponsored efforts to overthrow a government. This characterization significantly elevates the gravity of the allegations, moving them from a matter of public order to one of national sovereignty and integrity. The affidavit argues the ultimate goal was "to instigate them to an extent of armed rebellion," leading to the deaths of 53 people and the registration of over 750 FIRs in Delhi.

To substantiate claims of a pan-India conspiracy, the police affidavit details contemporaneous incidents of violence and protest in Uttar Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Bihar, suggesting a coordinated effort to "replicate and execute" the Delhi model nationwide.

The UAPA Hurdle: 'Jail, Not Bail' and the Prima Facie Test

Central to the legal battle is the stringent provision for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. This clause bars a court from granting bail if, after perusing the case diary or police report, it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such a person is prima facie true.

The Delhi Police heavily rely on this high threshold, stating in their affidavit: "The allegations against the petitioner are prima facie true. The onus of refuting the said presumption rests with the petitioners, which they have miserably failed to discharge." By invoking this provision, the prosecution shifts the burden onto the accused to demonstrate their innocence at the bail stage, a significant departure from the standard tenets of criminal law where bail is the norm and jail the exception.

This stance challenges the petitioners' primary ground for seeking relief: prolonged incarceration. Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have been in custody since September and January 2020, respectively, with the trial yet to formally commence. The accused have argued that this extensive pre-trial detention amounts to a form of punishment before conviction.

Countering the Delay Argument: A Case of 'Coordinated Non-Cooperation'

The Delhi Police directly counter the argument of unjust delay by accusing the petitioners of systematically derailing the judicial process. The affidavit alleges a "well-planned conspiracy" by the accused to delay the trial through "frivolous applications" and "coordinated non-cooperation."

The police claim that the framing of charges, which began in August 2023, has seen over 50 hearings without substantive progress because the accused "refused to argue the matter on one pretext or another." To bolster this claim, the prosecution has cited the recent Delhi High Court judgment in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi , which reportedly contains "scathing findings" blaming the accused in the conspiracy case for the trial's slow pace.

Furthermore, the police dismiss the argument that the trial will be lengthy due to a list of over 900 witnesses as a "red herring manufactured to obtain bail." The affidavit clarifies that the prosecution intends to examine only "100-150 witnesses which are material to prove the offence," suggesting the trial could conclude swiftly if the accused cooperate.

Legal Implications and the Road Ahead

The Supreme Court's handling of these bail pleas will be closely watched by the legal community. The bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, is tasked with balancing several competing legal principles:

1. The Right to a Speedy Trial: The petitioners' nearly five-year incarceration without trial raises critical questions about Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court must decide whether indefinite detention, even under a stringent law like UAPA, can be justified, and at what point prolonged incarceration vitiates the grounds for denying bail.
   
   
2. The Interpretation of UAPA Section 43D(5): The Court's examination of the prima facie test will be crucial. It may clarify the depth of inquiry a court must undertake at the bail stage and what constitutes a sufficient rebuttal by the accused.
   
   
3. The Principle of Parity: The petitioners have sought parity with co-accused activists Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal, who were granted bail by the Delhi High Court in June 2021. The High Court, in that instance, had observed that in its anxiety to suppress dissent, the state had blurred the line between the "constitutionally guaranteed right to protest" and "terrorist activity." The Supreme Court's response to this plea for parity will be a key aspect of its decision.

As the matter comes up for hearing, the Supreme Court is not just deciding the liberty of a few individuals; it is set to deliver a verdict that could redefine the contours of bail jurisprudence under India's anti-terror laws and its impact on the fundamental right to dissent. The outcome will have lasting repercussions on how the judiciary navigates the delicate balance between state security and individual freedom.