SC Scrutinizes Prolonged UAPA Detention in Delhi Riots Bail Hearing

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court of India is currently embroiled in a critical examination of the conflict between stringent anti-terror legislation and the fundamental right to a speedy trial, as it hears the bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and others accused in the larger conspiracy case of the February 2020 Delhi riots. The arguments, presented before a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria on October 31, 2025, have centered on the assertion that over five years of pre-trial detention under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) amounts to "punishment without trial."

The accused have challenged the Delhi High Court's September 2 order which denied them bail, finding their roles to be "prima facie grave" and pointing to a coordinated plan behind the violence. However, their counsel have launched a multi-pronged assault on the prosecution's case, questioning the evidence, the cause of trial delays, and the very tenability of continued incarceration without conviction.

---

The Core Contention: Liberty vs. Protracted Proceedings

The crux of the defense's argument is the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, vehemently argued that procedure is the "heart of liberty" and that his client's five-year imprisonment without the commencement of trial is a gross miscarriage of justice.

In a direct rebuttal to the Delhi Police’s affidavit, which blamed the accused for stalling the proceedings, Mr. Sibal provided a detailed breakdown of trial court adjournments. He submitted that on 55 dates the presiding judge was on leave, on 26 dates the matter was not taken up due to a lack of time, and on 59 dates, the Special Public Prosecutor was unavailable. This data, he argued, directly contradicts the narrative that the defense is responsible for the delay.

This line of reasoning heavily relies on the Supreme Court's own precedent in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2020). Mr. Sibal invoked the landmark judgment, which established that even under stringent statutes like the UAPA, constitutional courts can grant bail to uphold the right to a speedy trial, particularly when there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. The defense contends that the gravity of the offence cannot be the sole determinative factor when personal liberty is indefinitely curtailed.

Challenging the 'Larger Conspiracy' Narrative

The defense counsel meticulously deconstructed the prosecution's allegations of a "deep-rooted, premeditated and pre-planned conspiracy." Mr. Sibal highlighted the incongruity of the prosecution's claims against Mr. Khalid, stating, "There are 751 FIRs [related to the riots]. I am charged in one. If it’s a conspiracy and I am responsible for the riots, it’s a bit surprising."

He further emphasized that Mr. Khalid was not physically present in Delhi when the violence erupted and that no weapons, funds, or incriminating materials were recovered from him. The prosecution's primary evidence against Khalid—a speech delivered in Amravati on February 17, 2020—was framed by Sibal not as an inflammatory call to arms, but as an invocation of "Gandhian principles of non-violence" and the Constitution.

Similarly, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Sharjeel Imam, argued that his client’s speeches, which called for a "chakka jam" or blockade, were made nearly two months before the riots and lacked any proximate link to the violence. "See the speeches," Mr. Dave urged the Bench, "There is no call for violence at all. Only for peaceful protest."

A Plea for Parity and Proportionality

Appearing for Gulfisha Fatima, Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi underscored the "inordinate delay" as a "fatal flaw" in the prosecution's case. He argued that judicial precedents guaranteeing speedy trials "must be operationalised," otherwise they "all sound hollow." Citing the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. Uttar Pradesh , he reiterated that bail cannot be denied solely on the seriousness of charges when the trial's conclusion is not in sight.

Mr. Singhvi brought a compelling human element to the legal arguments, pointing out that Ms. Fatima, an MBA graduate, is "not a hardened criminal" and is the only woman accused still in custody in this case. He sought parity with co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the High Court in June 2021.

He also challenged the prosecution's reliance on Ms. Fatima's creation of WhatsApp groups, arguing that mobilizing support for a protest does not equate to inciting violence or causing public disharmony, which he stressed should be the legal test. "Why should justice not be balanced with the demand for liberty for a person who has been behind bars for five and a half years?" Mr. Singhvi questioned.

Delhi Police's Staunch Opposition

The Delhi Police, represented by Additional Solicitor-General S.V. Raju, has maintained a firm stance, opposing the bail pleas in a detailed 177-page affidavit. The police allege that the anti-CAA protests were a "sponsored camouflage" and a "radicalising catalyst" for a nationwide conspiracy aimed at "regime change."

The affidavit claims the timing of the riots was deliberately planned to coincide with the official visit of then-U.S. President Donald Trump to attract international media attention. It further alleges that the accused conspired to "strike at the very heart of the sovereignty and integrity of the country by destroying the communal harmony." According to the police, there is "ocular and irrefutable documentary as well as technical evidence" demonstrating the accused's "deep-rooted and fervent complicity."

Implications for UAPA Jurisprudence

The outcome of this bail hearing holds profound implications for the Indian criminal justice system, particularly in the application of the UAPA. Legal experts are watching closely to see how the Supreme Court will balance the state's national security concerns against an individual's fundamental right to liberty under Article 21.

The case forces a direct confrontation with the practical consequences of a statutory regime that makes bail exceedingly difficult, leading to situations where accused individuals spend years in prison before a trial even begins. The Court's final decision could either reinforce the stringent bail conditions of the UAPA or carve out a more robust pathway for undertrials to seek relief on the grounds of procedural delays and prolonged incarceration, thereby breathing new life into the K.A. Najeeb precedent.

The Bench has taken note of the detailed submissions and has posted the matter for continued hearing on November 3, 2025, directing it to be listed first on the board. The legal community awaits the response from the Additional Solicitor-General and the subsequent deliberations from the Apex Court, which will undoubtedly shape the discourse on liberty and security in the years to come.