SC Hears Heated Debate on UAPA Bail in Delhi Riots Case as Police Argue Against Parity and Allege Pre-Planned Conspiracy

New Delhi – The Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 18, 2025, became the arena for a high-stakes legal battle over the interpretation of bail under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), as it heard arguments on the bail petitions of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case. A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria presided over a contentious hearing where the Delhi Police, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, vehemently opposed the pleas, framing the riots not as a spontaneous event but as a "well-designed, well-crafted, orchestrated" attack on India's sovereignty.

The accused, who have been incarcerated for over five years, are challenging the denial of bail by the Delhi High Court. Their counsel had previously completed arguments, asserting a lack of direct evidence linking them to violence and citing prolonged pre-trial detention as a key ground for release. The day’s proceedings, which remained inconclusive and are set to continue on November 20, focused on the prosecution's rebuttal, which centered on dismantling the accused's claims of parity and attributing trial delays to the petitioners themselves.

The Core Prosecution Argument: A Pre-Planned "Attack on Sovereignty"

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta initiated the arguments for the Delhi Police with a powerful assertion aimed at reframing the narrative of the case. He urged the Bench to "bust the myth" that the riots were a spontaneous outcome of protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

"This was not a spontaneous riot but well-designed, well-crafted, orchestrated, preplanned, choreographed riots, and that will emerge from the evidence collected," Mr. Mehta submitted. "This was not a spontaneous act of violence; this was an attack against the sovereignty of the nation—I say this with a sense of responsibility."

The Solicitor General contended that evidence, including speeches, statements, and WhatsApp chats, revealed a "clear and discernible attempt to divide the society on communal lines." He specifically quoted alleged speeches by co-accused Sharjeel Imam, which he claimed called for a nationwide 'chakka jaam' (road blockade) and the separation of the northeast from the rest of the country. According to Mr. Mehta, these statements demonstrated that the plan was not Delhi-centric and aimed for a "final regime change goal," far exceeding the scope of legitimate protest.

This characterization is legally significant as it directly engages the stringent provisions of the UAPA, which are designed to tackle threats to national integrity and sovereignty. By framing the events as a pre-meditated conspiracy rather than a protest that spiraled out of control, the prosecution seeks to justify the continued application of UAPA and its high bar for granting bail.

The Parity Predicament: Dissecting the 2021 Bail Order

A substantial portion of the hearing was dedicated to the legal principle of parity. The petitioners have sought to draw parallels with co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the Delhi High Court in June 2021. However, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued forcefully that this precedent is inapplicable.

Mr. Raju's argument rested on the Supreme Court's own subsequent observation regarding that 2021 High Court order. While the apex court had declined to cancel their bail, it had explicitly stated that the order should not be treated as a precedent. Mr. Raju elaborated on the legal basis for this distinction, arguing the High Court’s decision was based on an "erroneous" interpretation of the UAPA.

He submitted that the High Court had incorrectly concluded that the UAPA's rigors applied only to offenses concerning the "defence of India," thereby finding the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) inapplicable. Mr. Raju contended that if the High Court had correctly applied this section, bail would have been denied.

“If bail is granted on a wrong interpretation of judgment or law, there is nothing like parity,” he argued, emphasizing that the Supreme Court had corrected the High Court on the point of law, even while allowing the individuals to remain on bail.

This legal maneuvering is critical. The prosecution is attempting to isolate the remaining accused from the benefit of the 2021 order, forcing the Supreme Court to evaluate their bail pleas strictly on the merits and the severe conditions of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which requires a court to deny bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the person is prima facie true.

Trial Delays and 'Changed Circumstances': A Question of Responsibility

The issue of prolonged incarceration, a cornerstone of the petitioners' arguments, was also contested. The prosecution countered that the delay in the trial's commencement could not be laid at its feet. Both Mr. Mehta and Mr. Raju argued that the accused themselves were responsible for protracting the proceedings, particularly at the stage of framing charges.

Mr. Mehta claimed a "pattern" has emerged where accused persons, finding it difficult to defend their cases on facts, strategically delay trials to later seek bail on the ground of lengthy detention. Mr. Raju supported this by stating that the trial court had listed the matter for hearing on charges in September 2023, but arguments only began a year later due to adjournments sought by the defense. "The order-sheets show that the counsels for the accused were not ready to argue the matter on charges," he said.

Furthermore, Mr. Raju invoked the principle governing successive bail applications in the context of Umar Khalid's plea. He noted that Khalid had approached the Supreme Court after his bail was rejected by the High Court in October 2022 but withdrew the petition in February 2024. The ASG argued that a fresh plea can only be entertained if there are "changed circumstances." He contended that the grounds of parity and trial delay were in existence when the previous matter was decided and do not constitute a material change in circumstances warranting a re-look at his plea.

This argument places the onus back on the petitioners to demonstrate a significant, material change in their situation since their last bail rejection, beyond the mere passage of time, which the prosecution claims they have caused.

Legal Implications and the Path Ahead

The hearing underscores the profound challenges in balancing individual liberty with national security concerns under the UAPA. The Supreme Court's eventual decision will have wide-ranging implications for UAPA jurisprudence. Key questions the Court may grapple with include:

Defining 'Prima Facie True': The interpretation of the Section 43D(5) threshold remains a central issue. The Court’s assessment of the prosecution's evidence of a "pre-planned conspiracy" will be pivotal.
The Weight of Trial Delay: The Court will need to weigh the fundamental right to a speedy trial against the prosecution’s allegations of defense-led delays. This could lead to a more nuanced standard for granting bail in UAPA cases based on the length of incarceration.
The Limits of Parity: The decision will further clarify the doctrine of parity in multi-accused UAPA cases, especially when an earlier bail order granted to co-accused has been flagged by the Supreme Court as not being a binding precedent.

As the Delhi Police prepares to continue its arguments on November 20, the legal community is watching closely. The outcome will not only determine the liberty of the individuals involved but will also shape the contours of anti-terror law and the fundamental right to protest in India for years to come.

#UAPA #BailJurisprudence #DelhiRiots